[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on capitalism, the campaign & compliance

[C. G. Estabrook]

	SPIEGEL ONLINE
	10/10/2008 06:44 PM
	INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY
	'The United States Has Essentially a One-Party System'

The linguist and public intellectual Noam Chomsky has long been a critic of 
American consumerism and imperialism. SPIEGEL spoke to him about the current 
crisis of capitalism, Barack Obama's rhetoric and the compliance of the 
intellectual class.

SPIEGEL: Professor Chomsky, cathedrals of capitalism have collapsed, the 
conservative government is spending its final weeks in office with 
nationalization plans. How does that make you feel?

Chomsky: The times are too difficult and the crisis too severe to indulge in 
schadenfreude. Looking at it in perspective, the fact that there would be a 
financial crisis was perfectly predictable, its general nature, if not its 
magnitude. Markets are always inefficient.

SPIEGEL: What exactly did you anticipate?

Chomsky: In the financial industry, as in other industries, there are risks that 
are left out of the calculation. If you sell me a car, we have perhaps made a 
good bargain for ourselves. But there are effects of this transaction on others, 
which we do not take into account. There is more pollution, the price of gas 
goes up, there is more congestion. Those are the external costs of our 
transaction. In the case of financial institutions, they are huge.

SPIEGEL: But isn't it the task of a bank to take risks?

Chomsky: Yes, but if it is well managed, like Goldman Sachs, it will cover its 
own risks and absorb its own losses. But no financial institution can manage 
systemic risks. Risk is therefore underpriced, and there will be more risk taken 
than would be prudent for the economy. With government deregulation and the 
triumph of financial liberalization, the dangers of systemic risks, the 
possibility of a financial tsunami, sharply increased.

SPIEGEL: But is it correct to only put the blame on Wall Street? Doesn't Main 
Street, the American middle class, also live on borrowed money which may or may 
not be paid back?

Chomsky: The debt burden of private households is enormous. But I would not hold 
the individual responsible. This consumerism is based on the fact that we are a 
society dominated by business interests. There is massive propaganda for 
everyone to consume. Consumption is good for profits and consumption is good for 
the political establishment.

SPIEGEL: How does it benefit politicians when the populace drives a lot, eats a 
lot and goes shopping a lot?

Chomsky: Consumption distracts people. You cannot control your own population by 
force, but it can be distracted by consumption. The business press has been 
quite explicit about this goal.

SPIEGEL: A while ago you called America “the greatest country on earth.” How 
does that fit together with what you've been saying?

Chomsky: In many respects, the United States is a great country. Freedom of 
speech is protected more than in any other country. It is also a very free 
society. In America, the professor talks to the mechanic. They are in the same 
category.

SPIEGEL: After travelling through the United States 170 years ago, Alexis de 
Tocqueville reported, "the people reign over the American political world as God 
rules over the universe." Was he a dreamer?

Chomsky: James Madison’s position at the Constitutional Convention was that 
state power should be used "to protect the minority of the opulent against the 
majority." That is why the Senate has only a hundred members who are mostly rich 
and were given a great deal of power. The House of Representatives, with several 
hundred members, is more democratic and was given much less power. Even liberals 
like Walter Lippmann, one of the leading intellectuals of the 20th century, was 
of the opinion that in a properly functioning democracy, the intelligent 
minority, who should rule, have to be protected from “the trampling and the roar 
of the bewildered herd.” Among the conservatives, Vice President Dick Cheney 
just recently illustrated his understanding of democracy. He was asked why he 
supports a continuation of the war in Iraq when the population is strongly 
opposed. His answer was: “So?”

SPIEGEL: “Change” is the slogan of this year’s presidential election. Do you see 
any chance for an immediate, tangible change in the United States? Or, to use 
use Obama’s battle cry: Are you "fired up”?

Chomsky: Not in the least. The European reaction to Obama is a European delusion.

SPIEGEL: But he does say things that Europe has long been waiting for. He talks 
about the trans-Atlantic partnership, the priority of diplomacy and the 
reconciling of American society.

Chomsky: That is all rhetoric. Who cares about that? This whole election 
campaign deals with soaring rhetoric, hope, change, all sorts of things, but not 
with issues.

SPIEGEL: Do you prefer the team on the other side: the 72 year old Vietnam 
veteran McCain and Sarah Palin, former Alaskan beauty queen?

Chomsky: This Sarah Palin phenomenon is very curious. I think somebody watching 
us from Mars, they would think the country has gone insane.

SPIEGEL: Arch conservatives and religious voters seem to be thrilled.

Chomsky: One must not forget that this country was founded by religious 
fanatics. Since Jimmy Carter, religious fundamentalists play a major role in 
elections. He was the first president who made a point of exhibiting himself as 
a born again Christian. That sparked a little light in the minds of political 
campaign managers: Pretend to be a religious fanatic and you can pick up a third 
of the vote right away. Nobody asked whether Lyndon Johnson went to church every 
day. Bill Clinton is probably about as religious as I am, meaning zero, but his 
managers made a point of making sure that every Sunday morning he was in the 
Baptist church singing hymns.

SPIEGEL: Is there nothing about McCain that appeals to you?

Chomsky: In one aspect he is more honest than his opponent. He explicitly states 
that this election is not about issues but about personalities. The Democrats 
are not quite as honest even though they see it the same way.

SPIEGEL: So for you, Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations 
of the same political platform?

Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody 
should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system 
and the ruling party is the business party.

SPIEGEL: You exaggerate. In almost all vital questions -- from the taxation of 
the rich to nuclear energy -- there are different positions. At least on the 
issues of war and peace, the parties differ considerably. The Republicans want 
to fight in Iraq until victory, even if that takes a 100 years, according to 
McCain. The Democrats demand a withdrawal plan.

Chomsky: Let us look at the “differences” more closely, and we recognize how 
limited and cynical they are. The hawks say, if we continue we can win. The 
doves say, it is costing us too much. But try to find an American politician who 
says frankly that this aggression is a crime: the issue is not whether we win or 
not, whether it is expensive or not. Remember the Russian invasion of 
Afghanistan? Did we have a debate whether the Russians can win the war or 
whether it is too expensive? This may have been the debate at the Kremlin, or in 
Pravda. But this is the kind of debate you would expect in a totalitarian 
society. If General Petraeus could achieve in Iraq what Putin achieved in 
Chechnya, he would be crowned king. The key question here is whether we apply 
the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others.

SPIEGEL: Who prevents intellectuals from asking and critically answering these 
questions? You praised the freedom of speech in the United States.

Chomsky: The intellectual world is deeply conformist. Hans Morgenthau, who was a 
founder of realist international relations theory, once condemned what he called 
“the conformist subservience to power” on the part of the intellectuals. George 
Orwell wrote that nationalists, who are practically the whole intellectual class 
of a country, not only do not disapprove of the crimes of their own state, but 
have the remarkable capacity not even to see them. That is correct. We talk a 
lot about the crimes of others. When it comes to our own crimes, we are 
nationalists in the Orwellian sense.

SPIEGEL: Was there not, and is there not -- in the United States and worldwide 
-- loud protest against the Iraq war?

Chomsky: The protest against the war in Iraq is far higher than against the war 
in Vietnam. When there were 4,000 American deaths in Vietnam and 150,000 troops 
deployed, nobody cared. When Kennedy invaded Vietnam in 1962, there was just a yawn.

SPIEGEL: To conclude, perhaps you can offer a conciliatory word about the state 
of the nation?

Chomsky: The American society has become more civilized, largely as a result of 
the activism of the 1960s. Our society, and also Europe's, became freer, more 
open, more democratic, and for many quite scary. This generation was condemned 
for that. But it had an effect.

SPIEGEL: Professor Chomsky, we thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Gabor Steingart

URL:

     * http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,583454,00.html

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2008