[Peace-discuss] Noam Chomsky: An Interview

[C. G. Estabrook]

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.")

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.

On 10/28/10 6:47 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> Curious interview. For example,
>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Chomsky is never one to admit that his positions or ideas might have changed. 
> Surprising?
>
> --mkb
>
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:51 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> "*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 <http://chomsky.info>
>> ________________________
>>
>> * I was present to hear this lecture, at MIT in 1970, and I was quite 
>> impressed; it's still much worth reading.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101028/33ed50a7/attachment-0001.html>