ぼやかせていただいております。

ポルポト擁護?

2017年05月12日 17時21分34秒 | Weblog



へええ、ポルポト擁護したの?

調べると





As long ago as 1985, Christopher Hitchens went through the dull task of exposing the tedious and scurrilous lies that one finds circulating about Chomsky. The favourites of Chomsky's critics - who rarely show any sign of having read any of Chomsky's work - are that he ignored, downplayed or celebrated the atrocities of Pol Pot.


よくあるデマらしい。


Chomsky and Herman

Chomsky and Herman dismissed reports by the "mass media" of extensive Khmer Rouge atrocities and instead cited "analyses by highly qualified specialists ... who have concluded that executions [by the Khmer Rouge] have numbered at most in the thousands."



Journalist Christopher Hitchens defended Chomsky and Herman. They "were engaged in the admittedly touchy business of distinguishing evidence from interpretations."[22] Chomsky and Herman have continued to argue that their analysis of the situation in Cambodia was reasonable based on the information available to them at the time, and a legitimate critique of the disparities in reporting atrocities committed by communist regimes relative to the atrocities committed by the U.S. and its allies. Nonetheless, in 1993, Chomsky acknowledged the massive scale of the Cambodian genocide in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent. He said, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury."[8]


ポルポトによる大量虐殺ほど、憤懣やるかたない例は見当たらない、と。

ーーーインタビューでもそうですけど、例えば、共和党のほうがISISよりひどいと言っているが、ISISを擁護しているわけではない。
そこらへんと似たような関係にある。


また、彼の言うアナーキストというのは、

Noam Chomsky: The Kind of Anarchism I Believe in, and What's Wrong with Libertarians
Anarchism "assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them," explains Chomsky.
By Michael S. Wilson, Noam Chomsky / Modern Success May 28, 2013


Noam Chomsky: Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times.

Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that’s internal to private power concentrations. So why should we prefer it? Well I think because freedom is better than subordination. It’s better to be free than to be a slave. It's better to be able to make your own decisions than to have someone else make decisions and force you to observe them. I mean, I don’t think you really need an argument for that. It seems like … transparent.


支配関係や、権威について懐疑的で、権限のある地位にある者が、その権限を正当化する義務を負っており、われわれにちゃんと正当化できないなら、そうした権限は解体して、より、自由で、より公平なものに替えるべきだ、と。支配関係からの解放を重視し、民間によるもの含めてあらゆる圧政の解体を要求するものを指すらしい。

サンダースやコービンを支持していることからうかがえるように、

As for state socialism, depends what one means by the term. If it’s tyranny of the Bolshevik variety (and its descendants), we need not tarry on it. If it’s a more expanded social democratic state, then the comments above apply. If something else, then what? Will it place decision-making in the hands of working people and communities, or in hands of some authority? If the latter, then — once again — freedom is better than subjugation, and the latter carries a very heavy burden of justification.


社会民主主義的な制度を支持しているわけですね。

アナーキスト=いわゆる無政府主義というイメージをもってしまうとちょっと違う。

BBCインタビューはチョムスキー節で、アメリカ、特に共和党をひどく批判し、金正恩よりひどい、と言っているような点はいかがなものか、とは思いますけど、論争の余地が十分ある他の論点を持ち出しても、残念ながら、インタビューの発言の批判にはならない。





ジャンル:
ウェブログ
コメント   この記事についてブログを書く
この記事をはてなブックマークに追加
« 首相/籠池 「お互い、奥さん... | トップ | School regulations vary fro... »
最近の画像もっと見る

コメントを投稿


コメント利用規約に同意の上コメント投稿を行ってください。

数字4桁を入力し、投稿ボタンを押してください。

あわせて読む