Chomsky is a critic of US imperialism and blames the US for many of the ills of the world. Chomsky like Marx misses the essence. In setting up the class struggle Marx departed from critiquing the system. Capitalism is an economic system. In that as in any other economic system people will play various roles. That does not mean capitalists are the enemy. In past ages people thought of wolves as being evil. Now we recognise wolves as merely being the top predator in an ecosystem. Likewise capitalists per se are not evil but are merely the top predator in a competitive system playing a particular role.

If we adopt a different system they can no longer play that role since it doesn't exist. However, Marx set up an analogy to the religious battle between good and evil. This is theology not rational analysis. The Marxist states then had to seek out those to whom it could apply the label class enemy, and millions of corpses resulted.

Nations have evolved the nation-state system in which nations within their borders are pretty much supreme regarding national sovereignty unless a much more powerful entity such as the United States chooses to challenge a weaker nation state as the US did in Iraq. Chomsky the US for behaving pretty much the way in which one could expect the superpower to behave in a nation state system. He is blaming a wolf for being a wolf. That is akin to religious moralism. It would be a deeper and more challenging criticism to question the nation state system. The European community has already done so recognising that unbridled national sovereignty has resulted in two terrible wars in the last century.

It is unreasonable to expect those in charge of national governments to challenge the system under which they have power. The UN made of nation states cannot effect this. Can we limit national sovereignty? Can supernational institutions with power to enforce their decisions or other mechanisms do this?

"It is unreasonable to expect those in charge of national governments to challenge the system under which they have power."

Thinking of the recent election here, that is one of the biggest challenges for change particularly for parliamentary or electoral reform, where the prevailing system supports those at the top of the power pyramid.

We only have to see that tonight on Lateline with Julie Bishop spouting the same old stuff and no light bulb moment in recognising the significance of the election outcome. I believe Labor gets it more but still has a ways to go.

"Can we limit national sovereignty? Can supernational institutions with power to enforce their decisions or other mechanisms do this?"

They can and already do but it is not always so clear cut about who is actually pulling the strings. War is one way to enforce decisions on others. We are already limiting national severeignty on free trade issues expecting many to tow the FT line while competing on a tilted playing field (subsidies, cheap labour often at the poverty level - or working poor).

Trade sanctions are another mechanism used to reflect disappointment with another nation's policies or human rights practices but never seems to be an equal and fair assessment, with some of the worst players getting away scot free. (Usually on the basis of economic interests or fear of reprisal in more volatile areas)

I guess what I am arguing is that national sovereignty has always been a fragile state with much in the way of balancing and compromising for mutually agreed (or not so agreed) outcomes.

Dear David F.,

You ask can we limit national sovereignty?
Can supernational institutions with power to
enforce their decisions or other mechanisms
do this?

They can at least try. I'd like to give the
example of international peace-making.
The human population is spread among a series
of sovereign independent states - most of them
with their own armed forces - and so there is
a built-in potential for warfare whenever two
nations have conflicting interests. Before the
twentieth century, there were few institutionalized
ways for hostile nations to achieve peaceful
settlements. When negotiations took place, they often
occurred only after a war - for the purpose of agreeing
to a peace treaty that would specify the spoils of the
victor. Although the structure of international
peace-making is not perfect, it now offers infinitely
better prospects for helping nations to avoid war.

Two vital elements for international
peace-making are in place. The first is the
United Nations, which provides a forum for
world opinion and a mechanism for conflict
resolution. The second is a growing body of
international law that specifies the rights
and obligations that nations have toward one
another - particularly with respect to aggression.

Over the years, the United Nations have intervened
successfully in a number of wars (Korea, the Middle
East) and in several situations that might have led
to wars (Cuba, Berlin).

A major difficulty with international peace-making
of course is that compliance with the resolutions of the
UN and the rulings of the World Court are voluntary,
for no country is willing to surrender its sovereignty
to an international body. The UN is most effective
when the super powers are able to agree on a course of
action and mobilize their blocs to support it.

Even so, as I've stated on other threads the UN provides
an influential forum for world opinion, and, while it
does not always prevent war, it surely helps make it
less likely.

Come off it pelican,

The bureaucracy are the real powerful ones. The public service. As Sir Humphrey always used to say, governments come and go, but the public service will always be here.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10557

Underestimate them at your peril.

Dear Davidf,
for such a leaned man you seem bent on parading your wilful ignorance. Do you really think you do justice to the profound thought of both Marx and Chomsky in dismissing them both in one glib half-paragraph?
<In setting up the class struggle Marx departed from critiquing the system.>
Can you please substantiate this, flesh it out a little, or are we to take your word for it?
<Likewise capitalists per se are not evil but are merely the top predator in a competitive system playing a particular role.>
Marx's whole polemic was an immanent critique of the system. Capitalism is indeed an economic system, however according to Marx it is one vast abstraction, which stands in for the materialism it displaces and alienates us. The capitalists are not "evil" (can we leave Americanisations like this out of sensible debate?) or the "wolves", they are the dupes, more deprived of their humanity than anyone.
<If we adopt a different system they can no longer play that role since it doesn't exist. However, Marx set up an analogy to the religious battle between good and evil. This is theology not rational analysis.>
Balderdash! Once again, can you make sense of this fragment for me please? If you can mount any kind of rational defence (based on evidence and not prejudice) I'll be happy to debate it. That is, I will be happy to debate any criticism you have of Marx's actual thought, which is not to say I don't have reservations myself. So far, I haven't seen any evidence, on any thread, that you have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
Sorry to be offensive, but your diatribe is offensive and deserves harsh treatment.
Indeed, why the preamble?
I'll have something more considered to say later.

Dear Squeers,

Balderdash is really a Colonel Blimpish word. 350 words is neither a critique of the thought of Marx and Chomsky nor a diatribe.

I wrote this to start a discussion and am grateful to you for your part in it. I intend to write several articles based on the feedback I get from this thread and other material. One criticism I have of Marx is that he thought that the concept of individual rights were bourgeois and would be unnecessary in the state he envisioned. The corpses produced by the Marxist state were a product of Marx's blindness to the need for protection of people against state tyranny. I am going to write a critique of the Manifesto which will show it as the basis for Marxist tyranny.

"Crimes against Humanity" by Geoffrey Robertson deals with developments in human rights in the modern era. It is available in a cheap edition by Penguin. Please read the paragraph on p. 17 starting with "The next formidable critic of 'the rights of man' was Karl Marx."

If you were truly sorry to be offensive you would not be offensive. I feel no need to castigate you. At least you recognise that you are offensive, and for that I thank you.

It is not nice to call the opinions of others 'prejudice'. The implication is that your opinions are objective and well-founded. In that you are not unique.