ŷ������

My focus for re-reading this Bush-era (junior, the painter) critique of American’s foreign policy is to assess its accessibility. However, a side-tracked foray into reading some negative reviews turned into a useful exercise:

The Criticisms:
--Let’s review the common negative reactions (this will seem elementary to most activists, but it's useful to consider accessibility to wider audiences):

1) “Cynical��, “alienating��, “radical��:
--The curious activist’s dilemma between being accessible (to build mass movements), and being principled�� Chomsky dives in without complex verbiage, but also does not do much hand-holding.
--The irony is the corporate interests that often drive US military actions are absurdly cynical towards world public opinion, the surplus populations. Chomsky defends public opinion against the 0.1%, how "cynical"!
--During times when unabashed colonialism, or slavery, or women-as-property, or godly-kings were naturalized by a lifetime of social conditioning, simply questioning the status quo condition as if there were alternatives would elicit accusations of being “cynical��.
--There is a status quo bias where every trait of the status quo is associated with the current fruits of society, thus how can we have _____ without ______?. Rinse-and-repeat. Status quo society is assumed as homogeneous, where every component contributes positively (except poor vulnerable people apparently), so who are you to step out-of-line as a “radical�� and challenge our heroes, our way-of-life, our founding fathers��? How “alienating��.

2) “Unnuanced�� bias against “valid self interest��, “one-dimensional��, inconsiderate of “context��/“scale��, “unfamiliar�� sources:
--The next step is to rationalize the initial emotional response in an empirical manner. Thus, we find a curious phenomenon:
--Chomsky: 1) compares US military actions with the rest of the world’s actions/international law (yes, it exists!)/public opinion (including US public) to demonstrate US military as the outlier and leader in terrorism/aggression, and furthermore 2) Western media’s bias by simply defining different rules for “our side��. Terrorism is what others do; what “we�� do has a moral end regardless of the means (how convenient).
--Reaction: Chomsky is being “one-sided��. Okay…in what way?

i) Why is Chomsky not detailing the acts of terror by the other side? Actually, Chomsky does provide illustrative comparisons (a key idea in this book is universality, starting with the same standard for both sides). But the point of this book is to expose the (majority) side of terrorism that is completely ignored/mis-framed ("defending freedom"); curious how “look at the other side�� (look the other way) often results in missing the big picture. This book covers a lot of 20th century history, so those without a grasp of the subject will get a sense of jumping around; for detailed, direct comparisons, see Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

ii) Bias against “valid self-interest��? Here, I would say this book is more bare-bones as it starts with basic concepts like universality. There will be those who need to first walk through concepts like class analysis, media propaganda, nationalism, etc. before they can acknowledge that US veterans (working class) starving in the streets while its US military industrial complex tops the list in arms-sales to despots (profits/capital gains go to chicken-hawk major shareholders, i.e. the 1%) might indicate conflicting and less-than-noble “self-interest��. And for those who still yell "traitor", maybe you need to hear this from a US Major General: War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier

Suggestions:
--Easier places to start:
1) Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky: one more point on Chomsky being "cynical" and "alienating": once you decouple the elite's self-interest for war profits from the self-interest of their disposable public, you realize that Chomsky is astoundingly positive towards American public opinion and its impact (mass protests) in the 20th century.
2) Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies: the Q&A section with Canadian reporters is especially useful. Regarding "universality" described above, I mentioned that Chomsky starts with this just to demonstrate the overwhelming violence of US foreign policy. However, Chomsky's overall principle is to focus on critiquing his side because this is the side that he as the greatest responsibility for and ability to influence. (See the end for related thoughts)

--Foreign policy of the 1%: looking for something with more fiery?
-Michael Parenti (Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism):
-Vijay Prashad (The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World):

--Details on the existential threat of nuclear proliferation:
-The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner
-Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe

--Details on the science and economics of climate change:
-Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System

--Accessible global economics?:
-The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions
-Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present
-Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails
-Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism

The Questionable:
--Having promoted Chomsky for much of this review, here are a few concerns (less related to this book) worth considering:

1) How to support the global Left from within the empire?
--Similar to George Orwell, who in his efforts to combat communism/Stalinism became suspiciously close to the British Foreign Office (specifically, the Information Research Department, a propaganda unit of what is still an Imperialist State; see Orwell's List), Chomsky's descriptions of real-world communism have been of concern to global Leftists. Despite his stated methodology of focusing on critiquing his own side first, his casual quips of "the USSR was a dungeon" and other assertions of global south communist violence are questionable when his audience is already raised on Red Scare/American Exceptionalism and desperately need global perspectives/historical context (the Western Left remains plagued by interventionism).
--For global Leftist positions, I'm accumulating a playlist featuring Vijay Prashad, Michael Parenti, Utsa/Prabhat Patnaik, etc.:
--Highlights include:
i) Michael Parenti:
-on Cuban Revolution:
-full:
ii) Vijay Prashad:
-"The Many Lives of Communism in the Third World":
-on ideological censorship:

2) Vote-for-the-lesser-evil electoral recommendation (which Chomsky seems to have adopted since Reagan): Some may find this framing defeatist. But if we take a step back, Chomsky's point is that elections alone are not revolutionary, so we should not waste all our energy in this realm either supporting Democrats or pushing for a third party. We need to build external power (unions/social movements) to pressure political parties (while having insiders, i.e. insider-outsider strategy)...