<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body 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>
chomsky.info<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>
</body>
</html>