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

Fri Oct 10 22:08:22 CDT 2008

Too bad Siegel didn't ask him if, and how, and why, if he is going to  
vote. --mkb

On Oct 10, 2008, at 2:06 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> 	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
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss