A Warning From Noam Chomsky on the Threat of Elites

[marmar]

from Truthdig:



A Warning From Noam Chomsky on the Threat of Elites
Posted on Jun 7, 2010

By Fred Branfman


It was not by making yourself heard but by staying sane that you carried on the human heritage. ... to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it. ... war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly trained specialists. … The fighting … takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at. …

—George Orwell, “1984”

The treatment of the hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, is among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring (it) to judgment.

—John Quincy Adams, cited in Noam Chomsky’s new book, “Hopes and Prospects”


Noam Chomsky’s description of the dangers posed by U.S. elites’ “Imperial Mentality” was recently given a boost in credibility by a surprising source—Bill Clinton. As America’s economy, foreign policy and politics continue to unravel, it is clear that this mentality and the system it has created will produce an increasing number of victims in the years to come. Clinton startlingly testified to that effect on March 10 to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

Since 1981 the United States has followed a policy until the last year or so, when we started rethinking it, that we rich countries that produce a lot of food should sell it to poor countries and relieve them of the burden of producing their own food so thank goodness they can lead directly into the industrial era. It has not worked. It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake. It was a mistake that I was a party to. I am not pointing the finger at anybody. I did that. I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did, nobody else.

Clinton is to be praised for being the first U.S. president to take personal responsibility for impoverishing an entire nation rather than ignoring his misdeeds or falsely blaming local U.S.-imposed regimes. But his confession also means that his embrace of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and NAFTA “neo-liberalization” destroyed the lives of many more millions well beyond Haiti, as U.S. support for heavily subsidized U.S. agribusiness damaged local agricultural economies throughout Latin America and beyond. This led to mass migration into urban slums and destitution, as well as increased emigration to the U.S.—which then led Clinton to militarize the border in 1994—and thus accelerated the “illegal immigration” issue that so poisons U.S. politics today.

Clinton might also have added that he and other U.S. leaders imposed such policies by force, installing military dictators and vicious police and paramilitary forces. Chomsky reports in “Hopes and Prospects” that in Haiti, semiofficial thugs empowered by a U.S.-supported coup murdered 8,000 people and raped 35,000 women in 2004 and 2005 alone, while a tiny local elite reaps most of the benefits from U.S. policies.

Clinton’s testimony reminded me of one of my visits with Chomsky, back in 1988, when, after talking for an hour or so, he smiled and said he had to stop to get back to writing about the children of Haiti.

I was struck both by his concern for forgotten Haitians and because his comment so recalled my experience with him in 1970 as he spent a week researching U.S. war-making in Laos. I had taken dozens of journalists, peace activists, diplomats, experts and others out to camps of refugees who had fled U.S. saturation bombing. Chomsky was one of only two who wept openly upon learning how these innocent villagers had seen their beloved grandmothers burned alive, their children slowly suffocated, their spouses cut to ribbons, during five years of merciless, pitiless and illegal U.S. bombing for which U.S. leaders would have been executed had international law protecting civilians in wartime been applied to their actions. It was obvious that he was above all driven by a deep feeling for the world’s victims, those he calls the “unpeople” in his new book. No U.S. policymakers I knew in Laos, nor the many I have met since, have shared such concerns. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_warning_from_noam_chomsky_on_the_threat_of_elites_20100607/

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Uncle Joe]

2. "State capitalism for the many."

"State capitalism for the many: The American Enterprise Institute’s chief declared in a May 23 Washington Post Op-Ed that “America faces a new culture war,” between “free enterprise” offering “rewards determined by market forces” and “European-style statism.” “Hopes and Prospects” explains at some length, however, why this formulation is absurd. America’s “free enterprise” system has always been based on massive government aid, from the Army building 19th century railroads, to the Pentagon’s post-World War II role in building the Internet and Silicon Valley, to today’s “rewards” to Wall Street and oil companies determined not by market forces, but those companies’ political clout. America has been practicing “state capitalism” since the founding of the Republic, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future no matter which party is in office.

The real choice, Chomsky makes clear, is not free enterprise versus statism, but state capitalism for (A) the few or (B) the many. The latter would include breaking up the banks, a focus on job creation and safety net expansion where needed, single-payer health insurance, higher taxes on the wealthy, far lower military spending, public members on corporate boards, greater employee workplace control and, above all, a new public-private partnership to see America become a leader in a clean energy economic revolution.

A Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone and Two-State Solution in the Middle East: Chomsky proposes that rather than continuing to engage in senseless fighting and confronting Iran over nuclear weapons, U.S., Israeli, Arab and Iranian interests would be far better served by the U.S. using its enormous military and economic clout to create a Mideast nuclear weapons-free zone that Iran says it is willing to accept, and a comprehensive and fair Israeli-Palestinian settlement including Hamas’ promised recognition of Israel and cessation of rocket attacks. A major benefit to the U.S. would be to reduce the threat of domestic terrorism. For only a comprehensive new policy that addresses the source of anti-U.S. hatred—U.S. war-making on civilians and support of corrupt and vicious local regimes—can reduce it.

Fifty years ago, Americans were told that the North Vietnamese communists were so evil that 55,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese had to die, and much of Vietnam had to be destroyed, in order to keep it “free.” But for 20 years now, despite the triumph of the communists, Vietnam has been a normal trading partner of the United States and poses no threat to its neighbors. Could the Middle East also be normalized were U.S. leaders to use their enormous power to promote peace rather than war? Maybe, maybe not. But it is obvious that the risks of trying to do so are far less than the present dangers of nuclear proliferation, chaos in nuclear-armed Pakistan, Israel-Iran military confrontation and increasing support for anti-American terrorism within the 1.2 billion-strong Muslim world."

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[Lorien]

4. That one paragraph sums up most of what it would take to save this Nation

add in election reform and a return of the Fairness Doctrine and we could have a true democracy again. Not that I think any of these things will ever happen.

[liberation]

5. When have we ever been a true democracy?

There is this weird opinion of what our country used to be, which never was.

Things are more obvious now that information is more pervasive, nothing more.

[Hydra]

14. "State capitalism for (A) the few"

As long as there are a lot of people who believe they can be part of that (very) few, we'll never get anywhere.

[Uncle Joe]

18. That's the silver lining behind every thing going to hell in a hand-basket,

fewer and fewer people will come to believe that they can become part of that elite few.

The critical point being that a constructive inclusive ideology and message must be translated to the people, if it's not the opposite can occur, allowing the nation to descend in to anarchy or absolute totalitarianism.

The corrupted powers that be; will fight against natural societal evolution, so the best chance for the many is for enough enlightened wealthy powers that be; to come to the aid of the many, even if it means supporting policies and messages that will foster self-sacrifice to themselves.

[LongTomH]

41. Uncle Joe, I truly hope you're right!

It's hard to find any reason for optimism these days.

[midnight]

49. The great wealth transfer to the banks from the taxpayers bears this out:

The real choice, Chomsky makes clear, is not free enterprise versus statism, but state capitalism for (A) the few or (B) the many. The choice has been already made. "Money trumps Peace"

[Political_Junkie]

3. Went to see him speak the night this book was released.

A truly beautiful man.

[AlbertCat]

6. Is it just me? Or does Chomsky warning us about elites seem like a joke from the Onion?

Don't misunderstand me. Chomsky is usually fascinating. But he does seem to hate America... emotionally.... so one must remember that when he criticizes it.

But Chomsky warning us about the dangers from elites is kinda like Sarah Palin warning us about the dangers of anti-intellectualism.

[marmar]

7. "But he does seem to hate America"

Huge yawn..... :eyes: :boring:

[yava]

10. I love Chomsky

He is so smart and I missed his courses at MIT.
Shame on me but there were all the BU girls!

[AlbertCat]

15. Huge yawn.....

Yawn all you want.

He SEEMS to hate it....

I'm not some anti-Chomsky teabagger, y'know. I don't care whether he does or not. I agree with him that it is a failed state. (And I find him fascinating) But it's almost emotional with him. Ignoring that will not help one understand what he's saying.

I hope you're not this yawning shallow when you read his stuff!

[marmar]

16. Being a critic of American foreign policy is not being an "America Hater"

That's Bush-esque "You're either with us or against us" pretzel logic

[liberation]

20. ... well you seem to be confusing honesty with treason, so....

Which would make your accusations of shallowness all that more hilarious.



Seriously, where do some of you come up with this stuff? It is like comedy gold, but without the funny.

[AlbertCat]

22. well you seem to be confusing honesty with treason, so....

I mentioned nothing about honesty or treason. In fact I did not address the content of what Chomsky said, says thought or thinks.... except that he seems to hate..not like...America. And he does. So what? I don't care. (Is hating America treason?) Are you saying he loves America?

I merely see an elite warning us about elites ironic and comic. The overblown theatrics over things I didn't write and the knee jerk Teabagger-like ad hominem attacks are comedy gold.

Y'all knock yourselves out! Go for it! Spend all that outrage on something that is not there! I'm sure it will make you feel all gooey and superior.

[liberation]

26. Good grief, you were the one talking about Chomsky hating America

Which another way of accusing someone of treason. For the only crime of speaking his mind. Since you don't have a leg to stand in your "logic" you simply recourse to a weird victim status from a non existent prosecution.

Your accusation of overblown theatrics are nothing but runaway projection. Grow up.

[TransitJohn]

39. Chomsky loves America

Why do you think he criticizes the way it's run so much?

[Vinnie From Indy]

36. I would offer the exact opposite

I think Chomsky loves the idea of America, but hates the way it has been corrupted and twisted for the benefit of a tiny elite. Emotion is almost always reserved for those things which one loves or fears.

[dorkulon]

37. Here's Chomsky's response to the "hate America" charge.

"A crucial totalitarian principle is that the state is identified with the people, the culture, the society. For those who adopt that principle, criticism of the state is hatred of the country. In the old Soviet Union, for example, dissidents were condemned as “anti-Soviet” or “haters of Russia,” because they condemned policies of the Holy State. We, however, rightly regarded them as the people most dedicated to the welfare of the Russian people. The concept has biblical origins. King Ahab, the epitome of evil in the Bible, condemned the Prophet Elijah as a hater of Israel because he denounced the crimes of the evil king, who, like all totalitarians, identified state power—himself—with the society and people. Where there is a democratic culture, such a notion would be ridiculed. In Italy, for example, if someone were to publish a book called “the Anti-Italians,” denouncing people who dare to criticize government policy, people would collapse with ridicule. It is rather striking that in the US, such a book (of course full of outlandish lies) is reviewed seriously and treated with respect. The US is alone, to my knowledge, outside of totalitarian states, in that concepts like “hate America” or “anti-American” are adopted in the style of King Ahab and his totalitarian successors. That should trouble us."

Chomsky emotional? BS.

[liberation]

8. Yes, it is just you...

[girl gone mad]

9. It's just you...

and some other right wing idiots.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. I thought it was the other side of the aisle...

that associated criticizing the US to hating the US?

[provis99]

13. I wonder if Chomsky still has shares in defence corporations.

Thats how he made his millions of dollars; criticizing warmongering on one hand, while simultaneously buying stock in the worst weapons corporations in the world. What a hypocrite.

[liberation]

19. I wonder which ass you pulled that from

LOL.

I wonder if you just make this shit up as you go, or get this sort of info directly from the mother ship to see what sticks.

[provis99]

29. he has invested all his money the TIAA-CREF stock fund.

not the socially conscious pension funds, the stock fund, which derives most of its investment income from oil companies, tobacco companies, pharmaceuticals, and defence corporations. Chomsky has freely admitted his hypocricy, stating to an interviewer, "What do you want me to do? Live in a cabin in Montana?"

[liberation]

33. Can you please link to your sources

Thanks

[Jefferson23]

23. Sources please. n/t

[marmar]

25. Don't hold your breath.......

nt

[liberation]

27. Indeed...

... facts and reality are no friends of the average reactionary, that is why they make up their own reality as they go along.

In their minds Chomsky is some kind of millionaire making globs off money from selling bombs, while their idol Rush is some average common folk defending them from the hordes of liberal educated elites. It is projection gone tragically wrong.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberation]

34. LOL whatever

A hatchet piece on an ultra conservative Canadian rag, Seriously? That's it? so I guess I was at least in the ballpark with Rush, thus the nerve touched. LOL

[provis99]

31. .

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1385b76d-6c34-4c22-942a-18b71f2c4a44

[Jefferson23]

42. The author of the Op doesn't list his name, or perhaps I missed that

information. He/she claims that Chomsky emailed a response, full disclosure would have been helpful to the OP, don't you agree?

Chomsky is a proponent of anti-profit rhetoric? I'm not aware of that, and the author offers what for proof, that Chomsky makes a living?

Chomsky is suppose to fall under the category of a corporate capitalist by using this measure:

"like any other corporate capitalist Chomsky has turned himself into a brand name. As John Lloyd recently put it in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those "open to being "commodified" -- that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be."

Chomsky's business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at US$12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year.

Can't go and hear him in person? No problem: You can go online and download clips from earlier speeches -- for a fee. You can hear Chomsky talk for one minute about "Property Rights"; it will cost you US79 cents. You can also buy a CD with clips from previous speeches for US$12.99." (end)


And here the OP gives his opinion of Chomsky's popularity as shady, as opposed to stating the man gives analysis, and people do want to
purchase it. So Chomsky is a plagiarist, is that the incendiary tone here?



"Putting his name on a book should not be confused with writing a book because his most recent volumes are mainly transcriptions of speeches, or interviews that he has conducted over the years, put between covers and sold to the general public. You might call it multi-level marketing for radicals. Chomsky has admitted as much: "If you look at the things I write -- articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever -- they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I'm kind of a parasite. I mean, I'm living off the activism of others. I'm happy to do it."


This OP is a poorly written hit piece, when I google for some context on the subject, all I could find was the Hoover Institute, which Stanford
University has been criticized, as the Institute has a deep rooted RW agenda..they don't approve of Chomsky and smear him with his huge
fortune of 2 million, lol. Please know that by a corporate whores standards, Chomsky would be considered a slacker.

The only other source I came across was condemnation by David Horowitz, again, another RW perspective smear based on garbage for support.


Unfortunately, the author of this OP presuming to take Chomsky to task does not allow us to read his email exchange, I wonder why.

[liberation]

43. Furthermore, there is no mention of Chomsky's context

He is one of the premier linguist in the past half century. His work on grammars is fundamental for compiler technology, which enables most modern computer languages... the basis of a multibillion dollar industry.

He has written a boatload of books, both in his academic and activism fields. He has speaking engagements all over the place, and is a professor emeritus at one of the top academic institutions in the world.

And after all that, the author is faulting him for having the "exorbitant" net worth of 2 million dollars? Of hiring a tax consultant and of not controlling his retirement portfolio directly. As if he was an idle old fool with tons of time on his hands.


Palin, Limbaugh, and the rest of idle idiots from the right have orders of magnitude more money to their name, with ZERO in terms of net contributions to the betterment of this society, ZERO contributions to the furthering of science and knowledge, and ZERO contributions to the betterment of the human condition. In fact, their contributions are worse than that because they are of the negative persuasion. And all that wealth was earned with orders of magnitude less effort than Chomsky et al had to do to earn theirs.

What is this world coming to when people who make their money the old fashion way: by earning it, are now the target of the virtuous right, you know the ones who keep trying to equate wealth with validation?

[Jefferson23]

44. Poor hit piece, no doubt about it. 12 thousand a speech, several

times a year...Oh WOW! LOL

You corporate pig Chomsky.

[liberation]

45. The only time I have seen Chomsky was at a small seminar with free atendance

He was also a guest lecturer when I was in undergrad, so I dunno how much charged for that one. But I am more that certain the only time I have seen speaking as an activist there is no way the organizers were in any way shape or form capable of footing the 12 grand bill.

I rather see actual sources for these claims, I learned to not trust right wingers at their word, esp. when they are writing hit pieces. But if it eases running Chomsky under the bus, by all means...

[Jefferson23]

46. You're absolutely correct, and the same has gone for Norman Finkelstein,

they may have a suggested fee, but each of them generally will and have spoken for free or a bare bones fee.

[liberation]

47. What I found sad was the realization that...

... one of the fathers of modern linguistics only has $2 million to his name after a 5 decade career. While a drug riddled degenerate makes 10 times than amount PER YEAR for just belching nonsensical crap at a golden microphone for two hours a day.

Yet Chomsky is the rich elitist bastard. Ain't that a bitch.

[Donnachaidh]

35. comprehension problems?

"hate America" -- WTF? :eyes:

Have a grownup explain the article to you. :sarcasm:

[loudsue]

38. Huh?

Chomsky has been fighting for the PEOPLE of the U.S., and the welfare of the people of the whole world, for decades. He is a great man. You? Where is your greatness?

[Lost4words]

48. Nope, Its just you!

[ShamelessHussy]

21. he just hates DEMs

and OBAMA!

[flyarm]

24. ahh...

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:


yeah right........

[liberation]

28. He also drinks a pint of blood from a White Christians baby every morning and sleeps in a coffin

little known facts.

[Goldstein1984]

32. Truthdig is always a refreshing read

And so is Chomsky.

But reading either feels to me like looking up at a life preserver as I sink into the abyss.

Too many people on the planet, with a handful making decisions that benefit only the handful.

[Blue_Tires]

40. ttt