Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, Chomsky-A comparison of the treatment of dissidents (Damien Penny)

Daimnation! ^ | May 2002 | Damien Penny

[zapiks44]

Solzhenitsyn: spent years being tortured in slave labour camps. Sakharov: spent years under house arrest in obscure provincial cities. Chomsky: spent years as a highly-paid, tenured professor of linguistics at MIT and drives a snazzy red Audi A4.

Solzhenitsyn: had his writings banned by the state. Sakharov: had his writings banned by the state. Chomsky: has his writings available on Amazon.com. (Buy before May 27 and save!)

Solzhenitsyn: was barred from leaving the country. Sakharov: was barred from leaving the country. Chomsky: jets around the world to tell the masses about the Great Satan.

Solzhenitsyn: ignored and/or demonized by the Western "peace movement". Sakharov: ignored and/or demonized by the Western "peace movement". Chomsky: worshipped by the Western "peace movement".

[zapiks44]

This was posted by blogger Damien Penny. I thought it was hilarious and made a good point.

[Chad Fairbanks]

And oddly enough, Chomsky probably agrees with and supports what happened to the other two... he'd do that with most freepers if he could, I bet...

[Argus]

I would add:

Solzhenitsyn: NOBEL PRIZE

Sakharov: NOBEL PRIZE

Chomsky: BOOBY PRIZE

[Wonder Warthog]

"I thought it was hilarious and made a good point."

Right you are! A sort of not-so-sad comparison of the way the "Great Satan" treats individuals vs. pretty much ANY OTHER COUNTRY. And don't even THINK about a similar comparison with "Islam-the religion of peace(TM)". Rather than simply put into slave labor camps or internal exile, it would be "condemned to death" and/or "assassinated".

[Drango]

Solzhenitsyn: spent years being tortured in slave labour camps

Chomsky is torturing me with his blather...

[holyscroller]

And Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov are probably disbelieved by Hitlery, and Chomsky is worshiped by her. She is a disciple of him and his evil beliefs.

[Isle of sanity in CA]

Ping

[George W. Bush]

Chomsky: spent years as a highly-paid, tenured professor of linguistics at MIT and drives a snazzy red Audi A4.

I rather like this part.

Solzhenitsyn: ignored and/or demonized by the Western "peace movement". Sakharov: ignored and/or demonized by the Western "peace movement". Chomsky: worshipped by the Western "peace movement".

Three blatant lies in a row. Unless he's referring to the "peace movement" on Western Pluto.

I still rather like reading Chomsky. Unlike most of the Left, he can write a structured and consistent argument and is quite good at digging out little-known tidbits of history.

Unfortunately for his arguments, the evildoers of the capitalist state do fail in their roles as minions of Satan from time to time. I suppose they have to sleep and eat and attend the kids' recitals like anyone else.

[Kermit]

"Unfortunately for his arguments, the evildoers of the capitalist state do fail in their roles as minions of Satan from time to time."

The reason for this is that they are public employers, basically no different from any other socialist/commie outfit on the planet. If the capitalist state would smarten up, they'd privatize evildoing and be more successful at suppressing dissidents like Chomsky.

[George W. Bush]

Heh-heh.

Never of thought of that.

[zapiks44]

I'll add a few of my own:

Solzhenitsyn:Foremost scholar on the tyranny of Stalinism

Sakharov:One of first Russians to question the arms race and human rights in the USSR

Chomsky:Never met a foreign policy he didn't call '"genocide"

Solzhenitsyn: Returned to loving crowds in Russia

Sakharov:Mourned by millions in Russia and the West after his death

Chomsky:Defended Khmer Rouge

[KC_Conspirator]

If Chomsky had his way you and all your Freeper friends would be loaded onto boxcars and moved to "re-education" centers. Chomsky has defended communists all his life, even lying about them when he knew the murderous truth (like the Killing Fields of the Kymer Rouge).

[Black Agnes]

Chomsky bumparooni!

[Cacique]

Ahh, Chomsky, another revolting piece of leftist Cr*p.

[Benrand]

Yes, he digs out "little tid-bits of history"...too bad they are always surrounded by lies and shrill invective.

I have tried to read CHimpsky, but he's such a liar and is ignorant of economics and politics. ANd he's a liar.

[George W. Bush]

KC: If Chomsky had his way you and all your Freeper friends would be loaded onto boxcars and moved to "re-education" centers. Chomsky has defended communists all his life, even lying about them when he knew the murderous truth (like the Killing Fields of the Kymer Rouge).

This is an outrageous lie.

I can only conclude you are entirely unfamiliar with his early and vehement condemnations of the Khmer Rouge.

Chomsky was never a friend of communism. He never really comes right out and identifies with any specific political party or movement but my extensive readings of his work makes me think he is largely a democratic socialist with strongly libertarian and human rights concerns. Sort of like the Danes or Swedes but with more rights and liberties.

I do think that Chomsky only does well in defining what he doesn't like and doesn't want. His failure to have a positive agenda toward anything is why he can never be more than a critic. He is, on the whole, unrelentingly negative. This is why he can never be a major political thinker but only a gadfly of the Left. A persistent and somewhat influential gadfly but no more. His influence will scarcely outlive him. Of course, when he's finally gone, the Left will become even more incoherent and mindlessly hateful. Maybe that will be an improvement, from a conservative perspective. I'm not too sure.

Benrand: Yes, he digs out "little tid-bits of history"...too bad they are always surrounded by lies and shrill invective. I have tried to read CHimpsky, but he's such a liar and is ignorant of economics and politics. ANd he's a liar.

You underestimate him. He didn't make Johnson's enemies list by being an incompetent. He has been a thorn in the side of the Left and Right for decades. As I mentioned before, he is unrelentingly critical. I wonder if you've ever read his material on JFK or Carter or Clinton. It's pretty choice material.

[JulieRNR21]

You underestimate him. He didn't make Johnson's enemies list by being an incompetent. He has been a thorn in the side of the Left and Right for decades. As I mentioned before, he is unrelentingly critical. I wonder if you've ever read his material on JFK or Carter or Clinton. It's pretty choice material.

Can you provide a link or book title? Thanks, Julie

[George W. Bush]

One of the more devastating ones was the one he did on the JFK White House, Rethinking Camelot. His writings on the Human Rights Administration of Jimmy Carter, particularly with regard to East Timor, were spread out in various books. Same thing with his writings on Johnson.

ZMag has some of his books online in The Noam Chomsky Archive. Unfortunately, one of his best books, Manufacturing Consent, is only available in print. Some of his newer material like The New Military Humanism: Lessons From Kosovo contain material on Clinton. Check in the Articles section for selections from many of these books. You might want to read Memories, a critique of MacNamera's memoirs. And Clinton Vision: Update on NAFTA, corporate welfare, and other pro-business policies.

One of the things to watch for in his books is the footnotes. His access to materials through the MIT library and other major institutions is a treasure trove of historical information that you won't find in standard history texts. When I was younger, every so often I would stumble over some strange little fact that wasn't in the standard history texts and would wonder why. Like, for instance, the early American (and Allied) military actions against the Soviet Union which I discovered by finding casualty figures in an almanac. It is this sort of information that I meant when I said that Chomsky is good at digging out tidbits of history. Also, Chomsky has done rather well at dissecting the terms and compliance of our treaty with Vietnam. His analysis of the roots of the Vietnam war and how we first supported the French in Indochina, our role in the Geneva talks and treaty, our immediate takeover of the failed French effort, the various phases of the Vietnam war are all classics. It's not necessarily Chomsky's conclusions you will find so valuable. It's the source materials and references and quotes and treaty references, the portions of declassified documents, etc which are pretty difficult to find in the standard literature.

As far as the oft-repeated (and false) accusation that Chomsky was a sympathizer of the Khmer Rouge, I suggest that you read Christopher Hitchen's The Chorus and Cassandra. I thought this article pretty effectively refutes this WSJ attempt to assassinate Chomsky's reputation. Hitchen's is one of the few writers of the Left whose writings have been generally received positively here at FR, particularly his writings on Clinton.

[JulieRNR21]

Many thanks for all the links which I have bookmarked and will read when time permits.

[moodyskeptic]

Chomsky is Chomsky's worst enemy. If you find his writing "deep" or illuminating, you may have screws loose. Like many, I was forced to read Chomsky in college where he is god, but he rambles and speeds through unfounded claims so fast that his title as Linguist seems funniest of all.

This kook would be funny if he weren't so dangerous.