[Peace-discuss] Noam Chomsky: An Interview
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Thu Oct 28 17:51:57 CDT 2010
"*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. 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.* 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."
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Hicham Yezza
Ceasefire, September 22, 2010
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
NC: I do not feel that it must be avoided in principle, though naturally
considerable caution is necessary.
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?
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.
chomsky.info
________________________
* I was present to hear this lecture, at MIT in 1970, and I was quite impressed;
it's still much worth reading.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101028/9351bbad/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list