"There is no God, and Chomsky is his prophet" - An inetersti

[Larissa]

This is an interesting post from another site (again) we can discuss here...

By Jon Yom-Tov, web posted February 17, 2003

[...]

Chomsky gives no credit at all to the ideas of those who support Saddam Hussein's forceful removal, but instead relegates them to one of two roles: brainwashed sheep or evil producers of war mongering propaganda. He
completely discounts the perfectly legitimate fears of many Americans. Fear of a ruthless, megalomaniac dictator possessing the means and motivation to
arm terrorists who would harm American citizens.

While this may be discounted as yet another diatribe by an academic who has let his status fuel his ego, it would not be wise to do so. For Noam Chomsky is the preeminent ideologue of the anti-war movement. His voice is heard in virtually every important anti-war forum and his publications are widely read and quoted by many anti-war activists. His simplistic message, so disparaging of those who disagree with his views, influences many people.

[...]

A year or so ago, after Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and the crushing of the Taliban by US backed forces, opposition to the war in the West was more or less restricted to Muslim communities. Though Bush stated his aim to disarm Iraq or, failing that, to remove its dictator by force, in no uncertain terms, such was the shock of the September 11th attacks that no real opposition to the war materialized. However, disagreement within the administration, specifically Collin Powell's opposition to armed intervention, the unpreparedness of America's troops in the Gulf and
international pressure led President Bush to decide to postpone the war and seek UN sanction of an invasion of Iraq.

That was a grave mistake. For while 9/11 was still fresh in people's minds, opposition to America, always present and after the Soviet Union's collapse ever growing, was dulled. But, as time passed, the feeling of solidarity with the United States weakened. That, however, was not what brought opposition to the war to its present vocal and powerful state, it just made
it possible. What made the movement popular was a process both simple and ubiquitous in the West: it became fashionable. The opposition to the war became a part of pop-culture.

Although Noam Chomsky gives the anti-war movement its veneer of respectability it is people from the entertainment industry which give it its strength. Sheryl Crowe appeared at the MTV Music Awards wearing a
sequined shirt which proclaimed that "War Is Not The Answer". Martin Sheen, who plays the American president in the popular TV show "The West Wing",
stands at the forefront of the opposition to the war.

Recently, a computer animator brought out an online "game" which simulates the outcome of a war in Iraq. Although usually games contain an interactive
component the creator of this one supplied only one ending: total disaster.

The reason? "There is only one deliberate outcome. It didn't make sense to give people the idea that they could avoid the worst". One need only take a look at the hundreds of anti-war cartoons and flash movies posted on the net to become convinced of the strong element of pop-culture in the anti-war movement.

So, while the supporters of the anti-war movement bask in their self righteous anger at America and the Bush administration, they can be pleasantly entertained by anti-war concerts and anti-war e-mail attachments, all the while ignoring the very serious aspects of the crisis.

And while this makes for a very clear cut definition between "us", the good people supported by showbiz and sympathetic intellectuals, and "them", the shadowy military-industrial complex, oil companies and President Bush, it also reduces the level of debate to that of Southpark. Thus, proponents of the war are automatically labeled "war mongers" and Saddam's numerous crimes are relegated secondary status to Bush's perceived inadequacies.

Since the entertainment industry, rarely, if ever, gives birth to very profound or complicated ideas this reduction of discourse to sloganeering is hardly unexpected. Also unsurprising is Chomsky's use of relatively uncomplicated ideas. He simply knows his audience. He knows he won't get very far with a deeper discussion of the situation so he simply caters to his audience by supplying them with simple groupings of good vs. evil.

While at present it is too early to make accurate predictions it appears that the anti-war movement is creating a new paradigm for political activism. Although it is true that the Vietnam anti-war movement took on a
similar aspect it is worth noting that, in contrast to the Vietnam War, this war is intended to remove a direct threat to the well being of America.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art...0203chomsky.htm (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0203/0203chomsky.htm)

Comments?

[Valkyrie]

It is really insulting to human life that this guy would liken authentic anti-war sentiment -- the mass killing of people, to some trendy-pop culture hype. What a low blow.

[redstar2000]

I have a feeling that what lies behind such "critiques" of Professor Chomsky is that...they can't touch him.

Any of you who've read any of his books knows what I'm talking about...every sentence he writes bristles with footnotes and documentation. He is the scholar's scholar, the researcher without peer...and they just hate him for that.

Chomsky is a nightmare to the "imperial intelligencia" of the American ruling class; it is as if Ralph Nadar wrote a book called EMPIRE--UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED. :cheesy:

As for some of the icons of pop culture making anti-war sentiments "fashionable", I think it's the other way around. I think the agents & advisors of "pop icons" have a keen sense of observation...they need that to make sure their "icons" stay iconic. Thus, it probably goes like this:

Agent: I've booked you to speak at a big anti-war rally.

Icon: Wha?

Agent: Anti-war stuff is hot right now & I want to keep you in the public eye.

Icon: I dunno nuthin about the war. What war?

Agent: Never mind. Just learn your lines, rehearse, perform. Like always.

Icon: Ok...I guess. You sure it'll be ok? I won't get in any trouble?

Agent: Trust me. It'll be worth an extra 10 million for your next movie.

:cool:

[Arkham]

Celebrities are entitled to their opinions, and had I the soapbox they have, I damn sure would use it too. I think its incredibly cynical to assume that famous people can't be smart historically and politically. Tim Robbins is a good example of a leftist celeb who's work and opinions I admire greatly. If you havent seen Bob Roberts, see it.

[redstar2000]

Arkham, you could be right about your "favorite celebrity", but you'll never have any way of knowing that unless you actually meet and talk with that individual over a period of time.

"Celebrities" in imperial America do not have to pass an intelligence test to achieve their status of "demi-gods"...usually physical attractiveness and the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time are sufficient.

It's definitely been documented that their "public personalities" are carefully constructed with the aid of considerable demographic research. It's all about marketing, these days. You really shouldn't allow yourself to be taken in by it.

As for being "incredibly cynical", my career ambition at this point is to be "Minister of Incredible Cynicism" in the che-lives revolutionary government. :cheesy:

:cool:

[Arkham]

Its not about meeting them, and understanding them. Its about reading interviews with them, or hearing them speak at rallies, or watching them defend their leftist natures to corporate media mouthpieces. Im sure there are plenty of celebrities who are fairly stupid and jump on bandwagons, but I will note, rather cynically, that there were no intelligence tests to post in this forum, or for Marx or Engels to write each other. They are human beings who are just as capable of independent thought as you or I.


(Edited by Arkham at 4:09 pm on Feb. 20, 2003)

[Larissa]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:46 am on Feb. 20, 2003
Arkham, you could be right about your "favorite celebrity", but you'll never have any way of knowing that unless you actually meet and talk with that individual over a period of time.

"Celebrities" in imperial America do not have to pass an intelligence test to achieve their status of "demi-gods"...usually physical attractiveness and the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time are sufficient.

It's definitely been documented that their "public personalities" are carefully constructed with the aid of considerable demographic research. It's all about marketing, these days. You really shouldn't allow yourself to be taken in by it.

As for being "incredibly cynical", my career ambition at this point is to be "Minister of Incredible Cynicism" in the che-lives revolutionary government. :cheesy:

:cool:
About "celebrities" and "heros" being constructed, i've just remembered a movie called "Hero" with Dustin Hoffman and Geena Davis :biggrin:

(http://www.powerspeaking.com/fall98page2.html)

[redstar2000]

Arkham, are you really unaware, as you seem to be, that such things as "interviews" can be scripted and even rehearsed in advance?

Good grief, even business executives now attend special training seminars on how to deal with embarrassing incidents in front of the cameras.

I'm starting to feel like I blundered into a quasi-religious argument. I've told you (in a cruel way) that America's demi-gods have feet of clay...and you are outraged by my lack of faith. Sorry. :(

Someone with a personal fortune in the millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars may indeed be "capable of independent thought"...but you can bet we'll never know what they really think unless the effect is to add to those numbers.

Celebrities are not real, Arkham, and neither are their public "views". You may "worship" one or more of them as you wish, but they and their owners are laughing at you all the way to the bank.

:cool:

[Arkham]

Wow, I'm not sure what your point is, aside from the fact that celebrities aren't real people, which strikes me as both amazingly inept anger, and passive aggressive thought patterns. Of course they are real people, who live in admittedly different situations than I do. If you suddenly became famous, via any route that didn't lead to your being a pariah of some kind, your intellect and abilities wouldn't change. Certainly you would be faced with choices regarding which of those views to air and when. But to suggest that every single celebrity, or famous person is an amalgam of popular views is utterly specious. Bill Maher is an excellent example of someone that made astoundingly astute, yet unpopular statements that led to the end of his known career. In your worldview, this must have been a calculated move on his agent's part that simply backfired. I don't think every celebrity is genuine, nor do I think any celebrity is genuine on everything they state. But that's my view of anybody.

Insofar as you are likening my views on celebrities as people with the ability and rights to have opinions as to my worshipping them, you do yourself and the discussion a disservice. I understand that many people have a conflict on the social level and the intellectual level leading them to follow whatever a celebrity says. This is not the case, as far as who I was referring to/thinking about.

Incidentally, if a celebrity started espousing many of Marx's views correctly and eloquently, would they too just be conditioned and trained?

[redstar2000]

"If a celebrity started espousing many of Marx's views correctly and eloquently, would they too just be conditioned and trained?"

Right now, should such a thing be reported, I'd regard it as a hoax.

When it does happen, and I think it will, it will be because the remaining life-span of capitalism is being measured in hours.

You don't make it to the top of the celebrity racket in America without a good instinct for knowing when to jump ship.

"Fame" is not "sudden", Arkham, it's a project that people work on. In the course of that project, their personal views are sacrificed to the main goal: success and huge amounts of money. It is just like any other business endeavor under capitalism. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Celebrities are not people; they are products. You are not their "friend"...you are the potential purchaser of goods and services with their brand name attached. They have no interest in sharing with you their "insight" into "world problems"...they are marketing themselves and the goods and services associated with them.

And while this process was once, like other capitalist enterprises, rather anarchic if not chaotic, it is now as well-organized as any other modern corporate effort. They research the appeal of every celebrity in their "stable"--focus groups, etc.--and make the same kinds of adjustments that any other corporation would make when sales are lagging.

Do you really think that contemporary celebrities spend time "agonizing" over the existential conflict between their personal views and the demands of fame? Do you also believe that pigs can fly?

I have no idea what a "passive-aggressive thought pattern" is. It sounds rather metaphysical to me. If I am "guilty", it is, no doubt, in the same sense that I am "confirmed in sin." I guess I'll just have to live with it.

:cool:

[Exploited Class]

(Edited by exploitedclass at 5:23 am on Feb. 21, 2003)

[Exploited Class]

"If a celebrity started espousing many of Marx's views correctly and eloquently, would they too just be conditioned and trained?"

Right now, should such a thing be reported, I'd regard it as a hoax.

When it does happen, and I think it will, it will be because the remaining life-span of capitalism is being measured in hours.

During the late 40's early 50's red scare in America the one community hit maybe the hardest or at least the most publicly was the actors and film industry. Talk about careers deystroyed, name dropping and senate hearing targeting a specific industry; Walt Disney's testimony alone should be enough to let anybody know that the actors are the wild gun and most feared people by the ruling class. Popularity, fame and the ability to have press conferences just coming out of a restaurant makes them dangerous to the upper class. They can speak when they want about what they want at any moment and have a crowd of reporters right there waiting for them. Taking them down word for word.


"Fame" is not "sudden", Arkham, it's a project that people work on. In the course of that project, their personal views are sacrificed to the main goal: success and huge amounts of money. It is just like any other business endeavor under capitalism. What is so difficult to understand about this?
The acting buisness is probably the least like any other buisness endeavour under capititalism. The product is just a person, it can't be reproduced, you have to count on, the product is paid and not just sold. You can't count on the product to do what you want it to do. It's pretty risky, and what you believe to be successful and turn out to be a flop. They might come out of a closet, take a political stance or something that a product never will no.


Celebrities are not people; they are products. You are not their "friend"...you are the potential purchaser of goods and services with their brand name attached. They have no interest in sharing with you their "insight" into "world problems"...they are marketing themselves and the goods and services associated with them.

Saying that they are not people, is the first step to demonizing them. Bush does it to his enemies too, make something not human and it becomes easier to attack. They aren't jappanesse, they are japs and they aren't like us. Middle Eastern people aren't like us, they are fanatics. It just makes it easier to attack somebody when they are no longer human or people. It is an ugly stance to take against anybody and I am pretty sure you picked up that argument style from the upperclass. Arkham never says that "They are our friends, they'll go and have a beer with you."
An Anit-war stance is not a marketing idea when the peace movement is a minority in a country. Its risky and nobody is going to do something risky which might threaten their career when they could just be quiet on the subject and go on.

Careers get ruined by politics. For everybody you might get for taken a stance on something you are likely alienating the people on the other side. Look at what happened to the anti-vietnam, have you ever seen the hated target against Jane Fonda? They called her a traitor and wanted to kick her out of the country.


And while this process was once, like other capitalist enterprises, rather anarchic if not chaotic, it is now as well-organized as any other modern corporate effort. They research the appeal of every celebrity in their "stable"--focus groups, etc.--and make the same kinds of adjustments that any other corporation would make when sales are lagging.

Do you really think that contemporary celebrities spend time "agonizing" over the existential conflict between their personal views and the demands of fame? Do you also believe that pigs can fly?
Okay you need to stop personal attacks! You deystroy anything you are trying to convey in message when you do something like that.
It would be a lot easier to think that every star or public figure is non human and doesn't have feelings like you or I. I would say this is true for a good 90% of them. Just like the general public, maybe a lot of them don't worry about the bombs being dropped on innocent people. They just want to earn money and live great lives, or like many of us just go to work and live the if it isn't happening to me, why care? But there is exceptions to every group of people, there are people that are going to be socially aware. Actors as well. They are going to agonize, just like I do. They have the same capacity I do. Remember they aren't the capitalists, they are under the same yoke as you and I, they are making money for somebody else. They just get a bigger pay check than you and I, and for most of the actors out there I would say that is enough to wash away any political ideas they might have. Just like the workers' gin at the end of the day.


I have no idea what a "passive-aggressive thought pattern" is. It sounds rather metaphysical to me. If I am "guilty", it is, no doubt, in the same sense that I am "confirmed in sin." I guess I'll just have to live with it.

Passive aggressive is when you are take out anger on people through passiveness. like, "I don't want to go to the movies now, no, no, no Let's do what you want to do." It is when you use agreemant as a weapon. Like if I just now said to you, "Fine Redstar you are right about all this." But I did it angerly. It is a dangerous thing to do and not a good personality trait or action to do or repeat. It isn't something generally a thing that somebody would want to just live with. A lot of people go to anger managment classes to learn to erase that type of learned behavior pattern.

Okay to recap really quick.
It doesn't make sense to take a political stance as an actor. Because for every fan you might pick up for that stance you have an equal chance of alienating others on the other side of the spectrum.

There is no reason for actors that are financially stable or have steady acting jobs to take a risky stance as political stances with minority opinion.

Taking political stances by actors have has serious career harming results.

It isn't possible for every single actor and actress in the industry to follow a black and white represintation. It would make it easier if they did. But people aren't predictable, and that is what actors are, people.

On a side not* You are adding statements to your argument that are hurting your argument. Do you also believe that pigs can fly? Arkham is on your side, don't attack the people on your side. and You are not their "friend" He never said they were our friend. Just that they have views that can be shared by any of us.

Let's not get all emotionaly built up against our support, let's save that for the opposition.

[Exploited Class]

And Redstar to not completely make it sounded like I discount what you said.

If you had 100 actors and 70 of them were silent, 20 of them were pro war or pro-government and 10 were ant-war.

I would say 5 out of the anti-war group truly felt what they said as well as 5 of the pro-war group. I would say the remaining are possibly jumping on a bandwagon like you described. But not all of them.

I would never underestimate the power of focus groups, selling and marketing technics. They are under handed and souless. They can sell human crap as flowers and a good 80 percent of consumers would buy it and tell you that it does indeed smell as great as sold to them by the model.

[redstar2000]

Exploitedclass, I'll accept your criticism on one level; naivete on the left does bring out the worst--most sarcastic--attributes in my "style" of discussion, e.g., can pigs fly?

The bulk of your post makes a statistical argument...that among the "anti-war" celebrities are at least some who "must be sincere." You could be right...but how would we ever know?

If you wish to just assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that "anti-war" celebrities "are sincere"...well, that's a different argument. I'm not proposing that we publicly attack all "anti-war" celebrities as liars; I'm proposing that we not take them seriously and certainly never ask for or follow their political advice.

Ec, I am not "demonizing" celebrities any more than I would "demonize" Coca-Cola or Camel Cigarettes. But when I say they are "products", not people, I am only observing what they have made of themselves.

As to political stands being "risky", yes, they are. On the other hand, if they work, the payoff is huge. I would suggest you consult Ronald Reagan on the matter...but he's on the phone with his cactus at the moment.

Funny thing, Jane Fonda's brief flirtation with the "left" actually didn't hurt her career at all. Ultimately she found Ted Turner and Jesus (in that order).

And those "Hollywood communists"--the tragedy of their lives was that they got punished for something they never did...namely, publicly advocate communism. By the time they started hanging out with the American Communist Party, it was little more than a lap-dog for New Deal bourgeois liberalism.

The idea that celebrites are "the wild gun and most feared people by the ruling class" is utter nonsense. What the ruling class fears above all else is a working class imbued with communist ideas...anything else is a very distant second place.

"Remember that [celebrities] aren't the capitalists..." Well, ec, actually they often are. Perhaps not on the scale of Bill Gates or Ted Turner or other infamous entities...but by the time your personal fortune has exceeded U.S.$10 million, I'd say that to all intents and purposes your "working class background" (if you had one) is definitely a thing of the past.

"An anti-war stance is not a marketing idea when the peace movement is a minority in a country"--oh yes it is, provided only that the "peace niche" is sufficiently large. Surely you've heard of "niche marketing"?

Based on your description of "passive-aggressive thought patterns", I am clearly not guilty. I always disagree openly.

By the way, I should add that in my remarks about celebrities, I'm not just talking about motion picture actors...I mean all those who are held up to us as "super-human" or "semi-divine" by the capitalist media. The capitalist media are in the icon-manufacturing business; communists are iconoclasts!

:cool:

[canikickit]

I think you're talking complete shit Redstar. I agree with you to an extent, but Noam Chimsky is a celebrity. In your first post you said how great he was, I think he is in fact engaging in cynical marketing ploys.

[Arkham]

Exactly my point Cani. He's taking celebrity to mean people who are on fear factor, or Joe Millionaire, or something, and applying it to every famous person. The burden of proof is upon him to back that claim up, and we can all come up with examples that disprove that bizarre blanket statement.

[redstar2000]

Noam Chomsky is a "celebrity"? on what planet?

(See, ec, there I go being sarcastic again...I guess I just can't help it. :cheesy:)

Is Professor Chomsky engaging in "cynical marketing ploys"? Not to my knowledge; his dissident scholarship is legendary...his achievements are in plain sight for anyone to see.

Of course, I don't own a television and never watch mainstream movies...perhaps Chomsky has been popping up on late night infomercials plugging the "anti-war diet" or something. Damn, here come those flying pigs again!

Arkham, there actually have been a number of academic studies on this matter written by people in university departments called "media studies" and the like...unfortunately, I don't remember the titles or the authors, probably because their arguments seemed to me to be clearly self-evident.

So I will freely admit in advance: I cannot "prove" that your favorite demi-god (or anybody's) is a cynical bastard who'll say anything for money. Does that make you feel better? Do you feel vindicated?

As long as you avoid any critical scholarship on the entertainment industry, you'll be just fine.

:cool:



(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:14 pm on Feb. 21, 2003)


(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:17 pm on Feb. 21, 2003)

[Arkham]

Well, not to belabour the point, but the point you were arguing is not whether these people wouldn't be able to blast the entertainment industry, but whether or not they were real people who's opinions were valid.

I would also note that by attempting to limit your definition of celebrity, something I argued against from the first, you made your own points somewhat unclear. I stated over and over that I agreed some celebrities made lots of false statements to advance themselves, as Im sure every class of person contains those types of people. Noam Chomsky is a celebrity, as is Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, and yes, Che Guevara.

(Edited by Arkham at 12:42 am on Feb. 22, 2003)

[canikickit]

Your broad sweeping statements hold little meaning, Redstar. How do you define "celebrity"?

Do you discriminate against people based on their background and current job?

I think the point you are making is fair, but as usual you go to ridiculous (you love it, don't you) extremes to make your point.

I think it a little silly to presume that all people who work in a particular industry are only concerned with one thing.

I think Sean Penn went to Iraq because he feels the war is wrong, I think Martin Sheen is against the war because he believes it is wrong, not so that more people will watch the West Wing.

ugh

[Arkham]

But that will only draw accusations that you somehow worship Martin Sheen as a god, not just respect that he has an opinion.


(Edited by Arkham at 1:33 am on Feb. 22, 2003)

[canikickit]

Isn't it obvious? I mentioned his name, that means I worship the ground he walks on, I view him as a perfect shing example of humanity, because that iss how he is shown on the screen, I am completely incapable of rational though, I just take things as they are presented to me by the people that want to make money.

[redstar2000]

I agree that the definition of "celebrity" can be elusive on occasion.

It clearly means more than simply "well-known"...which is what seems to be implied by suggesting names like Nadar, Zinn, Chomsky and Che. In fact, when the names of serious critics of American society appear in the media, the coverage is more likely to be negative than positive. And none of these folks are likely to receive any product endorsement offers in the near future...or ever! Which is just as well, as they'd turn them down instantly.

The sprawling entertainment complex is a rather different matter...where promotion of self as icon is the top priority. In such an environment, to presume any kind of personal integrity is, in my opinion, simply naive.

This is not to deny that such people may have personal opinions about social or political matters...though insulated as they are from the conditions of ordinary workers, I would anticipate that their sincere personal opinions would resemble those of others in their tax-bracket.

What I am saying is that those opinions, whatever they might be, will be instantly discarded as far as the public is concerned, if saying something different is thought to be a "good marketing move" for the "star".

If you folks really believe otherwise, I think you're going to be in for some serious disappointments.

:cool: