CHOMSKY: the danger of yesterday today

in Chomsky 2019 · Nation 2019 · Politics 2019 · Skepticism 2019 · State 2019 · USA 2019 · YOUTUBE 2019 163 views / 22 comments
          
91% посетителей прочитало эту публикацию

Europe 

GEOMETR.IT  acTVism Munich

* Changes and progress very rarely are gifts from above. They come out of struggles from below. Noam Chomsky

In this exclusive interview with Noam Chomsky, renowned linguistic, activist, anarchist and author, we talk about U.S hegemony and its influence in Europe taking into account past & present developments.

This interview was held via video-conference from Munich in November 2015. Given the recent developments on the transatlantic relationship between Europe, Germany and the U.S. as well as the rising nuclear threat between Russia & the U.S., acTVism has reproduced and is republishing this video to provide viewers historical context.

The United States happens to be pretty much at the extreme of keeping to the principle that the corporate system must be pathological, and that the government is allowed to and glad to intervene to uphold that principle. The European system is somewhat different, the British system is somewhat in between, and they all vary.

  • Like during the New Deal period in the United States and during the 1960s, the United States veered somewhat towards a social market system. That’s why the Bush administration, who are of extreme reactionary sort, are trying to dismantle the few elements where the social market exists.
  • Why are they trying to destroy social security, for example? I mean, there’s no serious economic problem, it’s all fraud. It’s in as good fiscal health as it’s ever been in its history, but it is a system which benefits the general population. It is of no use at all to the wealthy. Like, I get social security when I retire, but I’ve been a professor at MIT for fifty years, so I got a big pension and so on and so forth, I wouldn’t even notice if I didn’t get social security.
  • But a very large part of the population, maybe 60% or something like that, actually survive on it. So therefore it’s a system that obviously has to be destroyed. It’s useless for the wealthy, it’s useless for privilege, it contributes nothing to profit. It has other bad features, like it’s based on the principle that you should care about somebody else, like you should care whether a disabled widow has food to eat. And that’s hopelessly immoral by the moral principles of power and privilege, so you’ve got to knock that idea out of people’s heads, and therefore you want to get rid of the system.

And in fact a lot of what’s called – ridiculously – “conservatism” is just pathological fanaticism, based on maximization of power and wealth in accord with principles that do have a legal basis.

But to get back to your original question, these are just choices. I mean, there are choices as to whether corporations should even exist, or why they’re even legitimate. They’re just tyrannies. Why should tyrannies exist? They are not supposed to exist in the political realm, there’s no reason why they should exist in the economic realm. But if they do, they could be imagined in all sorts of different ways, and there’s constant class struggle and pressures that lead to one or another outcome.

  • I mean the European system developed out of its complex historical background. I’m sure you know the original welfare states were basically Germany in the Bismarckian period – not because Bismarck was a big radical.
  • And in fact to an extent, the European systems reflect the fact that they grew out of a feudal system. A feudal system is non-capitalist. In a feudal system everyone has a place – maybe a rotten place, but some place. So the serf has some place in the feudal system, they have some rights within that place in the system.
  • In a capitalist system, you don’t have any rights. And in fact when modern capitalism developed in the early 19th century – this is post-Adam Smith or anything like that, but Ricardo and Malthus and so on – their principle was pretty simple: you don’t have any rights. The only rights a person has are what they can gain in the labor market.
  • And beyond that, you’ve no right to live, you’ve no right to survive. If you can’t make out on the labor market, go somewhere else. And in fact they could go somewhere else, they could come here and exterminate the population and settle here. But in Europe, you couldn’t do that, so some remnants of the whole feudal system and conservative structures and so on did lead to – after all, Europe had huge labor movements, the German social democratic party grew out of very powerful movements, and they just forced the development of what became social market systems.

After World War II, it was a very complex situation; the Second World War had a highly radicalizing effect, and the anti-fascist resistance had plenty of prestige. It was pretty radical; it was calling for quite radical democracy – it’s sometimes called communism, but it often had nothing to do with that. It’s just very radical democracy, worker’s control and so on and so forth, and it was so wide-spread, some kind of settlement had to be made with it.

If anyone were to write an honest history of post-WWII period, the first chapter would be devoted to how the British and American forces liberating Europe, one of the first things they did was to destroy the resistance, and to undermine the labor movement, and to try to beat back the efforts to create radical democratic programs. It varied in different countries but happened everywhere. Like in Italy, it started happening in 1943, since they moved in. By the time, the British and American forces reached Northern Italy, it had been pretty well liberated by the resistance, they had driven out the Germans mostly, and they had established their own institutions: worker-managed industrial systems, cooperatives, and so on. The British and Americans were totally appalled, they had to dismantle the whole thing and restore the rights of owners, meaning restore the traditional fascist system. An in fact, in the case of Italy, it’s particularly interesting. It continued at least into the 1970s. Italy was the main center of CIA subversion, well into the 1970s, but it happened everywhere else, too. In Greece, there was a war to destroy the resistance; they killed about a 150,000 people, and ended up restoring something like the traditional fascist structure.

Not long after the United States strongly supported the first restoration of actual fascism in Europe, and continued to support it, it was overthrown by the Greeks. And elsewhere it took different forms. In England and the United States, there were similar things happening. The population was also radicalized, and there had to be some adaptation to them, so you get the welfare state periods. But this is just the constant flux of struggle and conflict internal to hierarchic societies. There’s no right answer to it.

Noam Chomsky is a world-renowned political dissident, anarchist, linguist, author and institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. Chomsky has written more than 100 books, his latest being “Because We Say So“.  Chomsky has been a highly influential academic figure throughout his career, and was cited within the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) more often than any other living scholar from 1980 to 1992.

His work has influenced a wide range of domains, including artificial intelligence, cognitive science, computer science, logic, mathematics, music theory and analysis, psychology and immunology. Chomsky also developed the propaganda model of media criticism with Edward S. Herman which they presented in their book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media“. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, neoliberal capitalism, and mainstream news media. To watch our complete video series with Noam Chomsky

YOUTUBE: If you want to know the real truth about WWII and not the “US is the greatest country in the world who saved the universe” propaganda, then see this film

The publication is not an editorial. It reflects solely the point of view and argumentation of the author. The publication is presented in the presentation. Start in the previous issue. The original is available at:   acTVism Munich

GEOMETR.IT

22 Comments

  1. never mind the Nuclear missiles 80x more powerful than Hiroshima… them kids protesting against Global Disaster should be in school. How stupid are we becoming. What about our Grandchildren what about the Future. Are we Lost.

  2. I ‘d like to ask Chomsky what american intelligence had in mind when the plan for Germany was the “Morgenthau plan”. He says in this talk that America thought it would divide the world with a victorious German state, but what exactly drove parts american intelligence to develop a plan to dismantle Germany. They obviously changed their mind because of the USSR and the Marshall plan was implemented.

  3. Chomsky has variously argued that JFK was killed either by Oswald acting alone, the mafia acting alone, or by a “jealous husband” (he can’t seem to make up his mind). But …perish the thought that anyone in the US government was involved in the assassination. In the same breath, Chomsky has insisted that JFK’s assassination was (anyhow) a non-event, and has ridiculed those who refuse to forget it.

  4. In short, when it comes to old news and “fluff” issues where the cat’s-already-out-of-the-bag about US misdoings, Chomsky’s quite famously vocal. But where the runner meets the road… his disinformation serves none other than the government.

  5. A response to Noam’s point about the US military strength around 9:29, the Soviet Union tank was technologically superior to American tanks and matched Nazi panzers. That’s what happens when a nation focuses on education. Walter Reuther and his brother Victor traveled to the Soviet Union to train nomadic Russians on automechanics and metal work shortly after Hitler took power, they traveled Europe weeks after Hitler took power in fact, and were in Germany when he “won his election.” Also there was an attack staged by Hitler’s thugs who then blamed it on the Communists so it would trigger a purge.

  6. Funny thing about Chomsky — is why he never ever mentions how US created and financed this hegemony. How does the US fund a War Machine???? Want to know how??? Fiat money — which is money created out of thin air / nothing. And the Federal Reserve our central banks have printed Trillions of these dollars.

  7. Chomsky has made a lucrative career posing as a “leftist” critic of US foreign policy. In actuality, Chomsky is to the “Left” exactly what Alex Jones is to the “Right”: Controlled Opposition. All of his criticism of the US government concerns things that everyone already knows about. On other, murkier topics, however, he consistently promulgates disinformation that serves the interests of the CIA. For example:
    (1) Chomsky has variously argued that JFK was killed either by Oswald acting alone, the mafia acting alone, or by a “jealous husband” (he can’t seem to make up his mind). But …perish the thought that anyone in the US government was involved in the assassination. In the same breath, Chomsky has insisted that JFK’s assassination was (anyhow) a non-event, and has ridiculed those who refuse to forget it.

  8. A democracy without a market economy and private property cannot remain a democracy. A democracy with complete control over economic outcomes becomes the subject of vicious fighting, because he who controls the government decides everyone’s economic fate. A government with that much power cannot remain democratic.

  9. The corporations are acquiring large sums of money (hence power) with the capitalism the way it is. That is why we have the idea we have the freedom to change the world into a better system. Imagine what they can do if they see the possibility of losing their realm with a change like that. We have to be careful.

  10. Corporations have essentially become monopolies, which are illegal under capitalism. The founding fathers were well aware of this possibility and corporations could not exist for more than 20 years in the early history of the US. In fact, the Tea Party was a direct action against the East India Trading Co., the largest corporation at the time. Essentially the Wal-Mart of the 1700’s. Capitalism was formed to regulate mercantilism. It’s not supposed to look like this. Should we abolish Wal-Mart and the like? Fuck yeah. But that has nothing to do with turning to communism. We need more of a purge of crony capitalism, a return to small local businesses, an environment designed for them to thrive. We need a minimum wage based on a percentile of company dollars for workers who don’t own businesses, so they can thrive too.

  11. Chomsky is giving out arguments and examples to back up his arguments and most of the comments I read are of people bashing him with little to now credible evidence. You may not agree with what he says but before attacking him why don’t you look into his resources and then come back and produce a coherent defence. The worst is when people disregard what he is saying and attack not his arguments but the sort of person he is

  12. What Noam is actually talking about is Fascism. Its when politicians who are supposed to be upholding the law make unconstitutional laws in favor of individual commerce. It is illegal. Laws are in place to prevent this abuse but not upheld. It is our duty as citizens to recognize when this happens and demand liberty. Furthermore, we are not a democracy.

  13. Mankind can never establish a true democracy or stable society, simple because it is in the nature of mankind to cheat, to go for own interest, to play mindgames, seek power, money. For true justice, honesty, peace mankind needs to change itself first. It all starts with changing your mind, that is the true core of all the trouble. Google TruthContest read the Present, it explains the big picture of life in every facet. It is the key to change your mind ( overcome the badstates of the mind). The Truth is only for the real, are you ready?

  14. In short, I think all political scientists are hypocrites by virtue of being political scientists. I don’t care about your knowledge of world events, or how many books you regurgitate, or how much intellectual camouflage you’re capable of. You’re the type that thinks the problem is always “out there.”

Добавить комментарий

Your email address will not be published.

Latest from

Go to Top