<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Chris Hedges recently wrote, correctly it seems to me, that "The
real enemy of the liberal class has never been Glenn Beck, but Noam
Chomsky." And that's because Chomsky has for years offered a
consistent critique of fashionable liberalism. See, notably, his
"Government in the Future" from 40 years ago, and compare it with
this interview. Disagreements with even admirable contributors to
the discussion (as well as with less than admirable ones) doesn't
imply inconsistency.<br>
<br>
If one compares the loss of life and environmental destruction in
the two dissimilar societies, Vietnam and Iraq, it's clear that
American savagery had worse effects in the former - in part because
there was little popular restraint on Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon, until
the draft army revolted. That produced the "Vietnam syndrome" that
sorely hampered the war-making of Carter-Reagan-Bush I. <br>
<br>
Vietnam today has assumed the role the US picked out for it: it begs
for foreign investment so that it might set up factories to make,
say, running shoes for the US market... The jury does seem still to
be out on Iraq, where we did much less damage. But the results of
the two wars are quite dissimilar in many ways, altho' "in both
we've succeeded in destroying, displacing, and killing [murdering?]
untold numbers of innocents."<br>
<br>
And as Chomsky himself has consistently said in the 40 years I've
been listening to him, don't "uncritically accept whatever he says,"
but go and take a look. --CGE<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/28/10 9:34 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1F963994-1896-4C2A-B7E0-261A741A6611@illinois.edu"
type="cite"><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 28, 2010, at 7:12 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> In fact, to anyone
who's been reading what Chomsky's written over the years,
his consistency is clear. (See, e.g., his views in "Peace in
the Middle East? Reflections on Justice and Nationhood"
[1975], where I first read of a "bi-national socialist
state.") <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Not to me, who have listened and read him "over the years". I
remember his disagreements with Ali Abunimah, Mazin Qumziyeh,
and others close to the situation, Palestinians and others. Even
Edward Zaid, whom he praises.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <br>
Chomsky agrees with the best English-language reporter on
the scene, Patrick Cockburn, that the US war aims in Iraq -
viz., bases in that major oil-producing country and control
of its oil production - have been at best only partially
accomplished. And he's pointed out accurately for many
years that the murder of 4 million SE Asians and the
devastation of a peasant society with several times the
ordnance used in WWII prevented the emergence of an
independent, socialist Vietnam - and that was the primary US
aim, to prevent "the threat of a good example." But the
opposition to the Bush/Obama war by the US population and
major segments of the foreign policy elite meant that the
carpet-bombing of Vietnam couldn't be repeated in Iraq. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
One could say that destroying the Iraq society was not so
different than destroying Vietnam, where the U.S. certainly
"lost face". And who says that now we don't have an independent
Vietnam, one country, undivided, not so different in governance
than China. Our bases linger in Iraq, as do our contractors.
We'll see how soon all this will be abandoned. We are closer
threat to Iran from there. Our companies and
allied corporations have gotten their oil contacts and made a
financial killing there. We no longer have to worry about a
hostile Saddam, etc. Oh, yes our ends have not been completely
fulfilled, we have not <i>completely</i> succeeded in all our
aims; as Cockburn says they've "been at best only partially
accomplished". How's that for spin? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In other words, the results in those two wars are similar in
many ways; in both we've succeeded in destroying, displacing,
and killing untold numbers of innocents. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The point is that Chomsky, despite his brilliance, is no
oracle, and one ought not uncritically accept whatever he says,
as some are wont to do.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--mkb</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <br>
On 10/28/10 6:47 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:4D9BC5E6-77BA-4EC2-A3BD-377D8F02D940@illinois.edu"
type="cite">Curious interview. For example,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">Hicham Yezza: …
You compared the Iraq war protest movement
favourably to the anti-Vietnam one due, largely, to
the fact mass opposition to the Iraq war actually
started before the invasion. Do you still see the
anti-Iraq-war movement in that positive light,
especially considering how small it is now, seven
years on?<br>
<br>
Noam Chomsky: The anti-Iraq-war movement was always
much too small in my view, though in fact much
larger than the anti-Vietnam-war movement at any
comparable stage -- a crucial qualification often
ignored. I think there is good reason to believe
that the anti-Iraq-war movement contributed to the
US defeat in Iraq as contrasted with its
considerable victory in Vietnam, already evident 40
years ago -- abandonment of core war aims in Iraq,
while they were basically achieved in Vietnam.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I've always believed that Chomsky's views about
anti-Iraq war activism were overly sanguine. Here, he's
equivocating, for it's obvious that after seven years,
the anti-war movement is far from having the strength of
the anti-war movement at that time in Vietnam. Then, his
statement that we won ["a considerable victory"] the
Vietnam war, whereas the anti-war movement was largely
effective in causing our "defeat" in Iraq, seems
uncompelling at best. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Later in the interview, there is a similar kind of
equivocation with respect to Israel-Palestine. He
clearly has backed off his former antipathy to talking
about a one-state solution. His remarks about BDS, which
he formerly dismissed/discouraged/"dissed" [He calls
that notion mythology—I wonder how/why it arose.] , now
appears somewhat modified. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Chomsky is never one to admit that his positions or
ideas might have changed. Surprising?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--mkb</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:51 PM, C. G. Estabrook
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> "<b>The tea
party movement itself is quite small,</b> though
heavily funded and granted enormous media
attention, Much more significant is the great
number of Americans, probably a majority, for whom
it has some appeal, even though its programs would
be extremely harmful to their interests if
implemented. <b>There is tremendous anger in the
country, and bitter opposition to virtually all
institutions</b>: government, corporations,
banks, professions, the political parties
(Republicans are even more unpopular than
Democrats), etc. At the same time, careful studies
show that <b>people largely retain attitudes that
are basically social democratic</b>, facts
rarely discussed in the media. The anger and
frustration are understandable: <b>for about 30
years, real incomes have stagnated for the
majority, working hours have increased (far
beyond Europe), benefits -- which were never
great -- have declined, while public funds are
bailing out the rich and economic growth is
finding its way into very few pockets.</b> In
manufacturing industry unemployment is at the
level of the Great Depression, and these jobs are
not coming back if the bipartisan policies of
financialization of the economy and export of
production proceed. But anger and frustration can
be very dangerous, unless focused on the real
causes of the plight of the population. That is
barely happening, and the outcome could be
ominous, as history more than amply illustrates."<br>
<br>
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Hicham Yezza<br>
Ceasefire, September 22, 2010<br>
<br>
Hicham Yezza: In your recent London lectures, you
recounted a wonderful anecdote about student
radicalism days in MIT and also at the LSE. Do you
think the intellectual/academic culture has
changed drastically since then? You compared the
Iraq war protest movement favourably to the
anti-Vietnam one due, largely, to the fact mass
opposition to the Iraq war actually started before
the invasion. Do you still see the anti-Iraq-war
movement in that positive light, especially
considering how small it is now, seven years on?<br>
<br>
Noam Chomsky: The anti-Iraq-war movement was
always much too small in my view, though in fact
much larger than the anti-Vietnam-war movement at
any comparable stage -- a crucial qualification
often ignored. I think there is good reason to
believe that the anti-Iraq-war movement
contributed to the US defeat in Iraq as contrasted
with its considerable victory in Vietnam, already
evident 40 years ago -- abandonment of core war
aims in Iraq, while they were basically achieved
in Vietnam.<br>
<br>
HY: The global recession and crisis in the past
two years have yielded a lot of popular anger
against financial institutions and governmental
subservience to them. And yet, nothing structural
has shifted in terms of people saying: we want a
different system. Do you think the left has made
mistakes in responding to the crisis?<br>
<br>
NC: A lot more can be done, and should be. To take
merely one example, the left could be active in
efforts by workers and communities to take over
production that is being shut down by the
state-capitalist managers and convert the
facilities to urgent needs, such as high-speed
public transportation and green technology. Just
one case.<br>
<br>
HY: Your 1970 lecture* on 'Government in the
Future' is now a classic of the genre. Does it
still reflect your views entirely or has there
been a change? Many find it now extremely rare to
see this sort of explicit, serious engagement with
fundamental ideas about how society should be run,
as if the case for state capitalism has been
definitively made and the left should just give up
trying to argue for radical alternatives. Is this
your view? Or do you think the situation is more
hopeful?<br>
<br>
NC: I have not changed my views on these matters
-- of course expressed only sketchily in this
talk. In fact, I had pretty much the same views as
a teen-ager. The left should very definitely be
actively engaged in critical analysis of the
destructive system of state capitalism and in
developing the seeds of the future within it, to
borrow Bakunin's image. I think there are many
opportunities, and some of them are being pursued,
though still on much too limited a scale.<br>
<br>
HY: Turning to the Middle East, regarding the
movement which calls for boycotting, divesting
from and sanctioning (BDS) Israel, why do you
think there is such a drastic disagreement between
yourself and people (such as Naomi Klein) who
traditionally agree with you wholeheartedly on
Middle-East and other issues? Is this a mere issue
of tactics? Is the BDS movement doing more harm
than good?<br>
<br>
NC: There is an interesting mythology that I have
opposed the BDS movement. In reality, as explained
over and over, I not only support it but was
actively involved long before the "movement" took
shape. BDS is, of course, a tactic. That should be
understood. Norman Finkelstein warned recently
that it sometimes appears to be taking on
cult-like features. That should be carefully
avoided. Like all tactics, particular
implementations have to be judged on their own
merits. Here there is room for legitimate
disagreement. I have been opposed to certain
implementations, particularly those that are very
likely to harm the victims, as unfortunately has
happened.<br>
<br>
More generally, I think we should question the
formulation you gave. It is convenient,
particularly for Westerners, to regard it as an
"anti-Israel movement." There are obvious
temptations to blaming someone else, but the fact
of the matter is that Israel can commit crimes to
the extent that they are given decisive support by
the US, and less directly, its allies. BDS actions
are both principled and most effective when they
are directed at our crucial contribution to these
crimes, without which they would end; for example,
boycott of western firms contributing to the
occupation, working to end military aid to Israel,
etc.<br>
<br>
HY: My understanding is that you believe a one
state solution can only happen via a two state
solution. Is this correct? If so, do you think a
call for a one state solution is detrimental to
Palestinian interests? Or merely unhelpful?<br>
<br>
NC: I have never felt that we must honour the
boundaries imposed by imperial violence, hence do
not see a solution keeping to the Mandatory
boundaries as something holy, or even desirable in
the long-term. A "no-state solution" eroding those
boundaries is, in my view, both preferable and
conceivable, a matter I have discussed elsewhere.
However, I know of no suggestion as to how to
reach that goal without proceeding in stages, at
first by way of a "one-state" (bi-national)
solution of the kind I have advocated since the
1940s, and still do.<br>
<br>
There have been periods when it was feasible to
move fairly directly towards a settlement of this
sort -- pre-1948 and from 1967 to the mid-70's,
and during those periods I was quite actively
involved in urging direct moves towards such a
settlement. Since Palestinian nationalism became
an active force in the international system in the
mid-1970s, I know of no suggestion as to how to
reach this limited goal without proceeding in
stages, at first by way of the two-state solution
of the overwhelming international consensus,
blocked for 35 years by the US (and Israel) with
rare and temporary exceptions.<br>
<br>
Calling for a one-state (or better, a no-state)
settlement is fine, as are many other calls, for
example, for eliminating nuclear weapons, warding
off environmental catastrophe, etc. But we should
distinguish between "calls" and true advocacy,
which requires sketching a path from here to
there. The latter is the more serious and
demanding task, both in thought and action.<br>
<br>
HY: You have said before that you would accept
whatever solution the Palestinians/Israelis wanted
(one state/two state/etc), but you also said that
if, for instance, Somalis were in favour of an
international course of action that, in your view,
would actually harm them, you naturally wouldn't
participate in it. How would you clarify the
distinction between the two moral imperatives? Is
it possible at the same time to listen to the
Palestinians' wishes but also independently decide
what's good for them?<br>
<br>
NC: If I said that, it was misleading. I have no
authority, right or ability to "accept" or
"reject" international agreements. Speaking
personally, I do not regard nation-states as
acceptable institutions, except as temporary
expedients. It is always possible, and often
imperative, to decide that the wishes of some
population are not good for them. We all do it all
the time, surely. And if we are serious about
decent human values, we may often decide not to
participate in actions that populations choose to
carry out. I see no general issues here, though
particular cases always raise questions.<br>
<br>
HY: You've recently dismissed the idea that China
and India can pose any serious challenge to
Western dominance. What will the post-unipolar
world look like in your view, if current trends
continue?<br>
<br>
NC: They do pose a serious challenge, something I
have been speaking and writing about, though much
of the excited rhetoric about the topic is highly
misleading. For many years the world has been
becoming more diverse, with more diffusion of
power. In the past decade, even Latin America --
which the US has traditionally taken for granted
-- is drifting out of control.<br>
<br>
One striking illustration today is Iran's nuclear
programs. For the US and most of Europe, that is
THE problem of the day. This is "the year of Iran"
in foreign policy circles, and the "Iranian
threat" is depicted as the greatest current danger
facing the world. The US is demanding that China
and others meet their "international
responsibilities": to adhere to unilateral US
sanctions, which have no force other than what is
conferred by power. Few are paying attention. Not
China, not Brazil, not the nonaligned countries
(most of the world), not even Iran's neighbors,
particularly Turkey.<br>
<br>
HY: Recent reports have shown inequality in the US
to be greater than ever. And yet all we hear of is
the rise of the tea party movement and its crusade
against Obama's "socialist" agenda. Is this
because people are campaigning against their own
interests out of ignorance? Or is it that those
who really suffer from inequality (the very poor)
are completely cut off from the political debate
in the first place and thus utterly voiceless?<br>
<br>
NC: The tea party movement itself is quite small,
though heavily funded and granted enormous media
attention, Much more significant is the great
number of Americans, probably a majority, for whom
it has some appeal, even though its programs would
be extremely harmful to their interests if
implemented. There is tremendous anger in the
country, and bitter opposition to virtually all
institutions: government, corporations, banks,
professions, the political parties (Republicans
are even more unpopular than Democrats), etc.<br>
<br>
At the same time, careful studies show that people
largely retain attitudes that are basically social
democratic, facts rarely discussed in the media.
The anger and frustration are understandable: for
about 30 years, real incomes have stagnated for
the majority, working hours have increased (far
beyond Europe), benefits -- which were never great
-- have declined, while public funds are bailing
out the rich and economic growth is finding its
way into very few pockets.<br>
<br>
In manufacturing industry unemployment is at the
level of the great depression, and these jobs are
not coming back if the bipartisan policies of
financialization of the economy and export of
production proceed. But anger and frustration can
be very dangerous, unless focused on the real
causes of the plight of the population. That is
barely happening, and the outcome could be
ominous, as history more than amply illustrates.<br>
<br>
HY: You often state that global warming and
nuclear war are the two great dangers threatening
human life. Why do you think there's such
resistance against believing in human-caused
climate change? It's difficult to put this simply
down to financial interests since many "sceptics",
as they call themselves, seem genuinely convinced
global warming is some sort of hoax. Are they just
blinded by propaganda?<br>
<br>
NC: There is a very small group of serious
scientists who are skeptical about global warming.
Major sectors of business have been entirely open
about the fact that they are running propaganda
campaigns to convince the public that it is a
hoax. That is an interesting phenomenon, because
those very same corporate executives probably
share our views on the severity of the crisis. But
they are acting in their institutional capacity as
corporate managers, which require them to focus on
short term gain and to ignore "externalities," in
this case the fate of the species.<br>
<br>
The problem is institutional, not individual. As
for the public, many are genuinely confused. That
is not surprising when the media present a
"debate" between two sides -- virtually all
scientists versus a scattering of skeptics --
while incidentally ignoring almost entirely a much
more serious array of skeptics within the
scientific world, namely those who believe that
the general scientific consensus is much too
optimistic. There are doubtless other reasons too.
Taking the problem as seriously as we should leads
to difficult choices and actions. It is easier to
transfer the problems somewhere else, in this case
to the world's poor and to our grandchildren.<br>
<br>
HY: We had a discussion recently with some of our
readers about independent media outlets receiving
money from foundations. Some argue this is
fundamentally wrong because even if it comes with
no explicit strings attached, it would still
affect the way an organisation reports and
analyses the news. A case that was mentioned was
Democracy Now!, which we love. Do you think
receiving donations from charities/foundations is
fine, or is it merely a lesser evil to be avoided
if possible?<br>
<br>
NC: I do not feel that it must be avoided in
principle, though naturally considerable caution
is necessary.<br>
<br>
HY: Our next print issue, out in October, will
feature a celebration of the late Edward Said. Why
should young students/activists pay a great deal
of attention to his legacy?<br>
<br>
NC: In his highly original and justly influential
scholarly work, and in his dedicated and
courageous activism in support of suffering and
oppressed people, Edward Said -- a close and
highly valued friend -- was one of those very rare
figures who actually fulfilled the responsibility
of intellectuals that he wrote about so
compellingly. He is an inspiring model.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://chomsky.info/">chomsky.info</a><br>
________________________<br>
<br>
* I was present to hear this lecture, at MIT in
1970, and I was quite impressed; it's still much
worth reading. <br>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<pre wrap=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>