A Chomsky Thread

[ContrarianLemming]

seems pretty needed, hes a major leftist and he seems pretty unpopular among anarchists, though he has said he is an anarcho syndicalist.
so what do you think of him?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

seems pretty needed, hes a major leftist and he seems pretty unpopular among anarchists, though he has said he is an anarcho syndicalist.
so what do you think of him?

I think he has a funny name.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I believe Chomsky is one of those rare anarchists that understand the difference between anarchists who push for their goal through Marxist theory, & those anarchists that are too impatient & feel the state must go down immediately, despite the fact on how detrimental this would be towards all anti-capitalist movements. Chomsky has a real understanding of how an anarchist society must be implemented, which is what causes such fuel of hate from the 'straight-foward' anarchist community.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I believe Chomsky is one of those rare anarchists that understand the difference between anarchists who push for their goal through Marxist theory, & those anarchists that are too impatient & feel the state must go down immediately, despite the fact on how detrimental this would be towards all anti-capitalist movements. Chomsky has a real understanding of how an anarchist society must be implemented, which is what causes such fuel of hate from the 'straight-foward' anarchist community.

You really don't understand the anarchist movement.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I like CHomsky...notice the avatar.

But I'm still on the side of Marx and the transition phase and such.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You really don't understand the anarchist movement.

straight-forward anarchists want to end the state immediately, for what they feel will achieve true freedom. I use to be a straight-forward anarchist, for it's what initially got me out of being pro-capitalist. But the idea of the state ending immediately will allow other bureaucratic bourgeois power structures to be able to destroy their 'true freedom' & will initially just go back to becoming another exploitative capitalist system.

[RedSonRising]

He's probably the most empirical, honest, knowledgeable, and thus valuable intellectual that the left has. His works are incredibly useful in their dry but revealing research that remind us of history's telling tale of class hierarchy. I don't agree with everything he says, but his logic in moral argument and almost completely factually validated claims make him an incredible force in political debate/discussion. I only wish that he were more vocal/attention-garnering in his activism, and somehow more in the spotlight (-the media one is what I suppose I mean). When he dies, he will be more famous than he is now, being acclaimed by political theorists, linguists, and academics worldwide, but for now the man in his old age is speaking through his great professional literature and other collaborative documentaries and such while unfortunately silent in the realm of broader communication and recognition with the masses.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

straight-forward anarchists want to end the state immediately, for what they feel will achieve true freedom. I use to be a straight-forward anarchist, for it's what initially got me out of being pro-capitalist. But the idea of the state ending immediately will allow other bureaucratic bourgeois power structures to be able to destroy their 'true freedom' & will initially just go back to becoming another exploitative capitalist system.
FUUU, I just noticed your "Support the Sendero Luminoso - Support the Nepalese Maoists" signature. No offence, but you really don't understand anarchism.

Anyway, I don't think Chomsky's perfect, and he gets some stuff badly wrong; but I don't think anyone's perfect, and I think a lot of his analysis is really useful.

[Zanthorus]

straight-forward anarchists want to end the state immediately, for what they feel will achieve true freedom. I use to be a straight-forward anarchist, for it's what initially got me out of being pro-capitalist. But the idea of the state ending immediately will allow other bureaucratic bourgeois power structures to be able to destroy their 'true freedom' & will initially just go back to becoming another exploitative capitalist system.

"Straight-forward" anarchism is just anarchism genius. "Anarchists who push for their goal through Marxist theory" are Marxists.

On Chomsky: He's the first socialist thinker I ever payed attention to and he's what made me a socialist/anarchist. He often makes valid points and in a clear manner but I always get the feeling there's something lacking in his thought. He's not exactly the most ardent of revolutionaries anyway. One of his main problems is he espouses anarcho-syndicalism whilst seemingly unaware of the critiques (which I personally agree with) by Malatesta and others.

[革命者]

I believe Chomsky is one of those rare anarchists that understand the difference between anarchists who push for their goal through Marxist theory, & those anarchists that are too impatient & feel the state must go down immediately, despite the fact on how detrimental this would be towards all anti-capitalist movements. Chomsky has a real understanding of how an anarchist society must be implemented, which is what causes such fuel of hate from the 'straight-foward' anarchist community.Ban him! If you don't confront everyone with your moral superiority now in verbal or physical clashes you are a traitor and an accomplice to capitalism!!!! You are just as bad as the fascists!!!

[Glenn Beck]

He is progressive and "radical" in a broad sense, but I don't really consider him revolutionary. He does more good than bad. His confusing and bizarre rehabilitation of anarcho-syndicalism as a strategy that is relevant to the present epoch, along with his historically and politically illiterate juxtaposition of 2nd international social-democrats and ultra-leftists as "orthodox marxists" versus the Bolsheviks as an "ideological deviation" are really the only two bad things that spring to mind.

Of course the anarchists will have a more negative view, as they do not consider him a "true anarchist". His eclectic and inconsistent application of anarchist dogma doesn't particularly bother me, as a non-anarchist.

[RadioRaheem84]

On Chomsky: He's the first socialist thinker I ever payed attention to and he's what made me a socialist/anarchist. He often makes valid points and in a clear manner but I always get the feeling there's something lacking in his thought. He's not exactly the most ardent of revolutionaries anyway. I don't know if he lacks thorough economic knowledge or that he just believes that the economy discussed in text books doesn't exist, but he seems to only discuss economics in terms of how it's a tool of the state or vice-versa. I expected his book Profit over People to be a damning expose of neo-liberal ideology itself, but instead it went through a plethora of government documents that chronicled how the state has always put the profit of corporations over the needs of the general public. While it was an excellent book, he has never fully attacked the ideology itself. He simply fluffs it off as completley irrelavent when discussing the economy. Maybe so, but he never goes into much more detail than that. This is a completely different aproach to that of the countless anarchists to dive head first into attacking the assumptions of neo-classical/liberal thinkers. I find it essential to attack the philosophical assumptions of the neo-classical school in order to understand the dynamics of today's economy but Chomsky is too concerned with the hypocritical stance of various State powers.

[Glenn Beck]

I don't know if he lacks thorough economic knowledge or that he just believes that the economy discussed in text books doesn't exist, but he seems to only discuss economics in terms of how it's a tool of the state or vice-versa. I expected his book Profit over People to be a damning expose of neo-liberal ideology itself, but instead it went through a plethora of government documents that chronicled how the state has always put the profit of corporations over the needs of the general public. While it was an excellent book, he has never fully attacked the ideology itself. He simply fluffs it off as completley irrelavent when discussing the economy. Maybe so, but he never goes into much more detail than that. This is a completely different aproach to that of the countless anarchists to dive head first into attacking the assumptions of neo-classical/liberal thinkers. I find it essential to attack the philosophical assumptions of the neo-classical school in order to understand the dynamics of today's economy but Chomsky is too concerned with the hypocritical stance of various State powers.

That is a good criticism of Chomsky, he seems to lack a traditional materialist approach. But this is also probably a strength when it comes to his survival and proliferation throughout mainstream scholarship and academia. His methodology doesn't really deviate from the liberal norm, but he is excellent at it. This is why I say he is not revolutionary: he does not offer any genuine outlook for systemic change, nor does he provide the analytic tools to examine capitalism systemically*. What he does do is devastatingly undermine the liberal ideological edifice from within its own horizons. Most of his political works consist of simply compiling mountains of evidence of the crimes and deceptions of capitalist/imperialist actors. The radical content of such a critique lies in the overwhelming sense of the hypocrisy and perversity of these actors it conveys to the reader.

Also, this state-centric approach that ignores the economic base is very consistent with Chomsky's professed anarchism. It seems Chomsky's views are closer to a classical anarchism which does not transcend the horizons of liberal ideology, but merely turns the progressive aspects of liberalism up to eleven. This stands in contrast with the 'workerist' forms of anarchism that predominate on this site and in the actually existing anarchist movements of the 20th century that largely developed as a reaction to Marxist political economy's devastating critique of utopian socialism and the classical anarchists around the time of the First International.

*His work on ideology in Manufacturing Consent and similar works is a partial exception to this

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think he has many good insights on foreign policy, the motives of the ruling class, and it's great that there is a leftist with a profile high enough that conservatives and TV pundits use it as an epitaph - no one says "shut up and read some Mike Davis, you hippie!" for example.

I think his main political flaw is that he is not really connected to any movements and doesn't seem to advocate change or seem to really think change will happen. If somehow we could put Chomsky and Zinn into one of the machines Jeff Golblum had in "The Fly" and combine the two!

But I don't know why he is so well known as a speaker - I must have had half a dozen professors who were more interesting to listen to even if I didn't agree with them; I probably know 20 leftists who are more fiery and better speakers.

Maybe his boring presentation is the reason that he's the one leftist who has a fan-base among NPR liberals. Actually it's probably his non-advocacy that brings in the liberal fans: "ohh he makes a lot of great points but doesn't make me feel like I need to actually become a political organizer and do anything about it! Who wants some Tofuti cuties!"

[The Vegan Marxist]

Ban him! If you don't confront everyone with your moral superiority now in verbal or physical clashes you are a traitor and an accomplice to capitalism!!!! You are just as bad as the fascists!!!

hahaha, & how exactly do you get that I'm an accomplice to capitalism just because I represent anarchism in a marxist manner?

[革命者]

hahaha, & how exactly do you get that I'm an accomplice to capitalism just because I represent anarchism in a marxist manner?It was an illustration of the intolerant anti-tendency dominant on this board and on the Left. A joke in support of your post to beat said anti-crowd to it.

I see Chomsky as one of a few university professors who dare speak up. Haven't read much written by him other than on linguistics, though, but I applaude him for taking a stance in the public debate. More scholars should follow his example.

MIT > Harvard

[The Vegan Marxist]

It was an illustration of the intolerant anti-tendency dominant on this board and on the Left. A joke in support of your post to beat said anti-crowd to it.

I see Chomsky as one of a few university professors who dare speak up. Haven't read much written by him other than on linguistics, though, but I applaude him for taking a stance in the public debate. More scholars should follow his example.

MIT > Harvard

ahh, alright. Thanks, comrade. Wasn't quite sure if this was a joke or not.

[The Vegan Marxist]

"Straight-forward" anarchism is just anarchism genius. "Anarchists who push for their goal through Marxist theory" are Marxists.

On Chomsky: He's the first socialist thinker I ever payed attention to and he's what made me a socialist/anarchist. He often makes valid points and in a clear manner but I always get the feeling there's something lacking in his thought. He's not exactly the most ardent of revolutionaries anyway. One of his main problems is he espouses anarcho-syndicalism whilst seemingly unaware of the critiques (which I personally agree with) by Malatesta and others.

I could be wrong here, but I remember a certain quote by Karl Marx that went something like this: "I am not a Marxist". And so, I feel the same way, that the 'marxists' of today, at least a good amount of them, have distorted the way of Marx & his theory of how the workers gain control (I'm not referring to the vast majority that are in this forum btw, for I've seen you people as truly following Marx's path). The idea of one being a marxist is the same as being an anarchist, but rather with a more patient outlook of how to achieve the end goal.

[blake 3:17]

I've been reading Michael Albert's memoirs, which are excellent BTW, and he is very personally and politically close to Chomsky, but takes him to task for lack of strategic vision.


But I don't know why he is so well known as a speaker - I must have had half a dozen professors who were more interesting to listen to even if I didn't agree with them; I probably know 20 leftists who are more fiery and better speakers.

Maybe his boring presentation is the reason that he's the one leftist who has a fan-base among NPR liberals. Actually it's probably his non-advocacy that brings in the liberal fans: "ohh he makes a lot of great points but doesn't make me feel like I need to actually become a political organizer and do anything about it! Who wants some Tofuti cuties!"

I think the non-advocacy is part of it. To his credit, he has been willing to speak publicly and speak often to media, both mainstream and alternative. In late 80s and early 90s he was willing to give phone interviews at the drop of a hat for teensy community radio stations. JH, did you see the discussion of him in the last ISR? Some dude's Deutscher lecture on a Marxist economist with an interesting digression into the role of intellectuals.

[RedSonRising]

I could be wrong here, but I remember a certain quote by Karl Marx that went something like this: "I am not a Marxist". And so, I feel the same way, that the 'marxists' of today, at least a good amount of them, have distorted the way of Marx & his theory of how the workers gain control (I'm not referring to the vast majority that are in this forum btw, for I've seen you people as truly following Marx's path). The idea of one being a marxist is the same as being an anarchist, but rather with a more patient outlook of how to achieve the end goal.

While I can understand and agree with why you take such a position, I just wanna take a minute and clarify that the entire quote is "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist" in reference to what he perceived as atrocities by the Jacobins. All too many right-wing economists and historians love to shove that down people's throats out of context, so I thought I'd provide the whole truth for the sake of historical truth.

[Drace]

I think he has a funny name.

Gnome Chumsky :laugh:

[ContrarianLemming]

bump

[Kayser_Soso]

I think he is rather opportunistic- most of the time claiming there is no difference between say, Republicans and Democrats, but every four years- presto chango, now there IS enough difference to justify voting the democrat over the republican. And we know that when democrats win, they think 'Holy shit, we jumped to the right and they STILL bought our nonsense. What can we get away with next.' But I digress.

Chomsky is rather pompous, condemning every movement and figure throughout history whose contributions to socialism don't result in the utopian world he envisions, the details relating to the establishment of which he seems considerably silent on. One is reminded of Theodore Roosevelt's famous quote on 'the critic'. Wherever people rise up in this world to cast off their oppressors heel with violence(which is in fact the only practical way to do so), the resistance of the threatened class creates more conflict and in the course of this, unpleasant things occur and oftentimes parties must enact laws or carry out plans which don't seem very popular(at least from the detached eyes of observers living comfortably on America's East coast). And when that happens, liberals like Chomsky(yes, as far as I'm concerned he's a liberal) are quick to condemn the movement, offering little in the way of alternatives.

Props for is work on linguistics but this idealism accomplish absolutely nothing. When I see the ideas of people like Chomsky create a viable, lasting society somewhere in the world, I will be the first to pay a visit and learn everything I can from them.

[kalu]

Chomsky has done a lot of advocacy work (Palestine, East Timor and so on), but I think he will have little positive impact in the long run, if not a negative long term influence on the Left movement (particularly when it comes to his effective dismissal of other voices--he actually appears to be quite dogmatic in his views, and I'm reminded of his so-called "remarks on postmodernism and contemporary philosophy"). He is very "anti-theory" which translates into an unjustifiable claim to offer an "empirical look at the facts and 'human nature'" that every other orthodox partisan--Left or Right--also claims. As Hargreaves once put it, how does he justify his conceptions of "human nature," "justice," "freedom," etc.? In addition, he essentially relies on a melange of liberal notions, such as "freedom of the individual," stitched together with a collectivist work ethic and antiquated, unrevamped "revolutionary" theses from the 19th century (a very ahistorical style of advocacy, in my opinion). Anyone who doesn't agree with his opinions off the bat is left askance. Chomsky has incredible reserves of energy, but the question is how this translates into long term political efficacy.

Certainly in terms of his few basic points that he proffers ad nauseam, ie "the US is imperialist", he's repeated them enough that he's achieved a modicum of respectability for those views in the public sphere (which is good), but beyond such repetition, he has little to offer in terms of strategic analyses, critical theory, or anything else that might contribute to the long term dialogues and viability of the Left in the United States. It's striking that Chomsky has basically kept the same analysis of the world for the past half-century, despite the changing forms of imperialism and reorganizations of capitalist exploitation (David Harvey is a useful counter-example, to the extent that he has engaged a wide variety of thinkers over the years, and shown true intellectual innovation, despite maintaining a certain kind of continuity between his works).

I was once a follower of Chomsky, but honestly, after reading a few of his books and the works of fellow travelers (ie. Michael Albert), it strikes me as "grey material," lacking the sort of theoretical vigor and excitement that is sorely needed to re-energize the Left.

[Left-Reasoning]

Though well-intentioned, Chomsky is too fond of the state I fear.

[The Idler]

His writings have introduced more people to anarchism than any other writer.

[Kayser_Soso]

His writings have introduced more people to anarchism than any other writer.

Best argument against him, really.

[Antiks72]

Chomsky's critiques of U.S. foreign policy are a must for any leftist.

[McCroskey]

I believe Chomsky is important because of his focus on grassroots organizations and popular movements, outside the corporate state media. He is a great analyst because he doesn´t offer theories, but facts, pointing out exactly where one can find the evidence for his arguments. He has a highly structured compilation of data in his brain, capable of telling you almost exactly in which article of which newspaper from an exact date 20 years ago you can find the information he is talking about.
He goes straight to the core problems of the poor and general population, and evaluates the different options without paying too much attention to the tendencies and strategies of different popular organisations (labour movements, civil rights movements, churches, ...). He tells you that no matter which way you use to fight the power structures, you have to start from the bottom and outside the corporate structures. That I think is his main message. His tendencies towards anarchism or libertarian socialism come from a dislike of the marxist tendencies of considering the industrial proletariat as the vanguard of the revolution, as in his eyes, the whole oppressed population has a role to play.

[x359594]

I think he is rather opportunistic- most of the time claiming there is no difference between say, Republicans and Democrats, but every four years- presto chango, now there IS enough difference to justify voting the democrat over the republican. And we know that when democrats win, they think 'Holy shit, we jumped to the right and they STILL bought our nonsense. What can we get away with next.'...

He sometimes endorses voting against Republican presidential candidates. In this respect, he's not very different from any number of Marxist critics (Zizek and Parenti for example.) The usual defense is that a liberal administration changes the public political discourse from one of triumphalist exhortations for greater empire and "traditional American" values to considerations of race, women's rights, enviormental issues, etc. The fact that the current liberal administration admits the reality of global warming is already a big difference. In the context of the power of ideas to open spaces for action Zizek notes, "Words are never 'only words; they matter becuase they define the contours of what we can do."

[x359594]

Zizek: "Nothing was decided by Obama’s victory, but his victory widens our freedom and thereby the scope of our decisions."

[Kayser_Soso]

Zizek: "Nothing was decided by Obama’s victory, but his victory widens our freedom and thereby the scope of our decisions."

Yeah but...it doesn't really. All it does is let the Republicans rally their forces so they can get someone even more reactionary in power, which is what they did from 1992-2000.

[Communist]

.
Globalization Marches On

Growing popular outrage has not
challenged corporate power. (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/26-14)

By Noam Chomsky
New York Times Syndicate
Common Dreams
March 26, 2010


Shifts in global power, ongoing or potential, are a
lively topic among policy makers and observers. One
question is whether (or when) China will displace the
United States as the dominant global player, perhaps
along with India.

Such a shift would return the global system to
something like it was before the European conquests.
Economic growth in China and India has been rapid, and
because they rejected the West's policies of financial
deregulation, they survived the recession better than
most. Nonetheless, questions arise.

One standard measure of social health is the U.N. Human
Development Index. As of 2008, India ranks 134th,
slightly above Cambodia and below Laos and Tajikistan,
about where it has been for many years. China ranks
92nd-tied with Belize, a bit above Jordan, below the
Dominican Republic and Iran.

India and China also have very high inequality, so more
than a billion of their inhabitants fall far lower on
the scale.

Another concern is the U.S. debt. Some fear it places
the U.S. in thrall to China. But apart from a brief
interlude ending in December, Japan has long been the
biggest international holder of U.S. government debt.
Creditor leverage, furthermore, is overrated.

In one dimension-military power-the United States
stands alone. And Obama is setting new records with his
2011 military budget. Almost half the U.S. deficit is
due to military spending, which is untouchable in the
political system.

When considering the U.S. economy's other sectors,
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and other economists
warn that we should beware of "deficit fetishism." A
deficit is a stimulus to recovery, and it can be
overcome with a growing economy, as after World War II,
when the deficit was far worse.

And the deficit is expected to grow, largely because of
the hopelessly inefficient privatized health care
system-also virtually untouchable, thanks to business's
ability to overpower the public will.

However, the framework of these discussions is
misleading. The global system is not only an
interaction among states, each pursuing some "national
interest" abstracted from distribution of domestic
power. That has long been understood.

Adam Smith concluded that the "principal architects" of
policy in England were "merchants and manufacturers,"
who ensured that their own interests are "most
peculiarly attended to," however "grievous" the effects
on others, including the people of England.

Smith's maxim still holds, though today the "principal
architects" are multinational corporations and
particularly the financial institutions whose share in
the economy has exploded since the 1970s.

In the United States we have recently seen a dramatic
illustration of the power of the financial
institutions. In the last presidential election they
provided the core of President Obama's funding.

Naturally they expected to be rewarded. And they were-
with the TARP bailouts, and a great deal more. Take
Goldman Sachs, the top dog in both the economy and the
political system. The firm made a mint by selling
mortgage-backed securities and more complex financial
instruments.

Aware of the flimsiness of the packages they were
peddling, the firm also took out bets with the
insurance giant American International Group (AIG) that
the offerings would fail. When the financial system
collapsed, AIG went down with it.

Goldman's architects of policy not only parlayed a
bailout for Goldman itself but also arranged for
taxpayers to save AIG from bankruptcy, thus rescuing
Goldman.

Now Goldman is making record profits and paying out fat
bonuses. It, and a handful of other banks, are bigger
and more powerful than ever. The public is furious.
People can see that the banks that were primary agents
of the crisis are making out like bandits, while the
population that rescued them is facing an official
unemployment rate of nearly 10 percent, as of February.
The rate rises to nearly 17 percent when all Americans
who wish to be fully employed are counted. Bringing
Obama to Heel

Popular anger finally evoked a rhetorical shift from
the administration, which responded with charges about
greedy bankers. "I did not run for office to be helping
out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street," Obama
told 60 Minutes in December. This kind of rhetoric was
accompanied with some policy suggestions that the
financial industry doesn't like (e.g., the Volcker
Rule, which would bar banks receiving government
support from engaging in speculative activity unrelated
to basic bank activities) and proposals to set up an
independent regulatory agency to protect consumers.

Since Obama was supposed to be their man in Washington,
the principal architects of government policy wasted
little time delivering their instructions: Unless Obama
fell back into line, they would shift funds to the
political opposition. "If the president doesn't become
a little more balanced and centrist in his approach,
then he will likely lose" the support of Wall Street,
Kelly S. King, a board member of the lobbying group
Financial Services Roundtable, told the New York Times
in early February. Securities and investment businesses
gave the Democratic Party a record $89 million during
the 2008 campaign.

Three days later, Obama informed the press that bankers
are fine "guys," singling out the chairmen of the two
biggest players, JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs: "I,
like most of the American people, don't begrudge people
success or wealth. That's part of the free-market
system," the president said. (Or at least "free
markets" as interpreted by state capitalist doctrine.)

That turnabout is a revealing snapshot of Smith's maxim
in action.

The architects of policy are also at work on a real
shift of power: from the global work force to
transnational capital.

Economist and China specialist Martin Hart-Landsberg
explores the dynamic in a recent Monthly Review
article. China has become an assembly plant for a
regional production system. Japan, Taiwan and other
advanced Asian economies export high-tech parts and
components to China, which assembles and exports the
finished products. The Spoils of Power

The growing U.S. trade deficit with China has aroused
concern. Less noticed is that the U.S. trade deficit
with Japan and the rest of Asia has sharply declined as
this new regional production system takes shape. U.S.
manufacturers are following the same course, providing
parts and components for China to assemble and export,
mostly back to the United States. For the financial
institutions, retail giants, and the owners and
managers of manufacturing industries closely related to
this nexus of power, these developments are heaven
sent.

And well understood. In 2007, Ralph Gomory, head of the
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, testified before Congress,
"In this new era of globalization, the interests of
companies and countries have diverged. In contrast with
the past, what is good for America's global
corporations is no longer necessarily good for the
American people."

Consider IBM. According to Business Week, by the end of
2008, more than 70 percent of IBM's work force of
400,000 was abroad. In 2009 IBM reduced its U.S.
employment by another 8 percent.

For the work force, the outcome may be "grievous," in
accordance with Smith's maxim, but it is fine for the
principal architects of policy. Current research
indicates that about one-fourth of U.S. jobs will be
"offshorable" within two decades, and for those jobs
that remain, security and decent pay will decline
because of the increased competition from replaced
workers.

This pattern follows 30 years of stagnation or decline
for the majority as wealth poured into few pockets,
leading to what has probably become the greatest
inequality between the haves and the have-nots since
the end of American slavery.

While China is becoming the world's assembly plant and
export platform, Chinese workers are suffering along
with the rest of the global work force. This is an
unsurprising outcome of a system designed to
concentrate wealth and power and to set working people
in competition with one another worldwide.

Globally, workers' share in national income has
declined in many countries-dramatically so in China,
leading to growing unrest in that highly inegalitarian
society.

So we have another significant shift in global power:
from the general population to the principal architects
of the global system, a process aided by the
undermining of functioning democracy in the United
States and other of the Earth's most powerful states.

The future depends on how much the great majority is
willing to endure, and whether that great majority will
collectively offer a constructive response to confront
the problems at the core of the state capitalist system
of domination and control.

If not, the results might be grim, as history more than
amply reveals.

c 2010 The New York Times
___________________

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor (retired) at MIT.
He is the author of many books and articles on
international affairs and social-political issues, and
a long-time participant in activist movements. His most
recent books include: Failed States, What We Say
Goes(with David Barsamian), Hegemony or Survival, and
the Essential Chomsky.

.

[Across The Street]

When I first saw World Orders: Old and New in my high school library back in 2000 I had no interest in politics whatsoever and really just thought it was an interesting title. The book expanded my view on nearly everything, and got me paying attention to what happens in the world politically, and in particular the realm of american foreign policy, something that chomsky focuses on in nearly every book of his that i've read. I owe him my thanks in the very least for raising my consciousness to a considerable degree back then.

thanks to communist usa for the NYT article

[howblackisyourflag]

I think he has many good insights on foreign policy, the motives of the ruling class, and it's great that there is a leftist with a profile high enough that conservatives and TV pundits use it as an epitaph - no one says "shut up and read some Mike Davis, you hippie!" for example.

I think his main political flaw is that he is not really connected to any movements and doesn't seem to advocate change or seem to really think change will happen. If somehow we could put Chomsky and Zinn into one of the machines Jeff Golblum had in "The Fly" and combine the two!

But I don't know why he is so well known as a speaker - I must have had half a dozen professors who were more interesting to listen to even if I didn't agree with them; I probably know 20 leftists who are more fiery and better speakers.

Maybe his boring presentation is the reason that he's the one leftist who has a fan-base among NPR liberals. Actually it's probably his non-advocacy that brings in the liberal fans: "ohh he makes a lot of great points but doesn't make me feel like I need to actually become a political organizer and do anything about it! Who wants some Tofuti cuties!"


My one problem with him is like this, he so accurately points out the overwhelming power of the ruling classes that it almost seems pointless to even try, althought I try to anyway.

The fact that the problems in society are institutional ones and not individual ones really disarms people into disaction, because we're just so far away from real change.

[RadioRaheem84]

I look at Chomsky's writings as sort of an introductory course for anyone wanting to learn about the functions of the State and how it serves it's interests over the individual. After having learned so much more now and reading harder stuff, I look back at Chomsky and see that his analysis is rather simple. Yet, it is always good to come back to Chomsky every now and then. I am amazed at how much I missed when I go back to Chomsky to see just what he picks up that I missed from reading other, more technical writers.

Parenti is better though. I am always impressed by his speeches. Both Parenti and Chomsky and even Zinn are excellent people that have such amazing analytical skills and so much built up knowledge on the mechanisms of the State that they can easily dissect any piece of public policy and usually be right on the money with the analysis (and have impecible sources to back it up).

[Barry Lyndon]

I look at Chomsky's writings as sort of an introductory course for anyone wanting to learn about the functions of the State and how it serves it's interests over the individual. After having learned so much more now and reading harder stuff, I look back at Chomsky and see that his analysis is rather simple. Yet, it is always good to come back to Chomsky every now and then. I am amazed at how much I missed when I go back to Chomsky to see just what he picks up that I missed from reading other, more technical writers.

Parenti is better though. I am always impressed by his speeches. Both Parenti and Chomsky and even Zinn are excellent people that have such amazing analytical skills and so much built up knowledge on the mechanisms of the State that they can easily dissect any piece of public policy and usually be right on the money with the analysis (and have impecible sources to back it up).

I like Chomsky and think his exhaustive exposure of the crimes of US imperialism are invaluable, and he's a good point of reference because he always extensively cites his sources, which is what makes the right(and an astonishing number of liberals/progressives) apoplectic-they can't really refute his points. However, I do like others on this thread think he is very weak on theory and political solutions("popular movements" doesn't cut it, sorry), and his optimism about how we have become a "much more civilized society" is annoying. His bashing of Leninism also leaves a bad taste in my mouth, too.

Parenti I like because he is much easier to understand in his books and in his speeches then Chomsky is. He is also a much more engaging and fiery speaker, combining his academic knowledge with a tangible sense of outrage that is well warranted. Also, unlike Chomsky, he doesn't give a damn about the stigma surrounding communism among American left intellectuals and forthrightly not only defends Marxist theory but also defends the practice of existing socialist revolutions, which has undoubtedly harmed his career. However, occasionally he makes errors of judgement and even throws out falsehoods, such as his denial of Milosevic's responsibility for ethnic cleansing, or his claim that Saddam did not gas the Kurds.