Hopes and Prospects

August 13, 2010 5:39 AM

Noam Chomsky A brief interview with Chomsky. Starts with some I/P stuff, then talks about Bush and Obama and then his new book. "The ones you are concerned with are the victims, not the powerful, so the slogan ought to be to engage with the powerless and help them and help yourself to find the truth. It’s not an easy slogan to formulate in five words, but I think it’s the right one."
posted by marienbad (31 comments total)

I am a great fan of Chomsky's, and he has certainly more than earned the great respect he gets around the world. He remains the most influential voice on the subject of Israeli and and American idiot-policy. He is the go to guy on the issue.

But, he is not a young man, and he has hit that horse so long and on so many occasions I wonder how much relevance he has outside of the groups who support him, how much weight his logic carries with the people that really matter in the debate. To them I suspect, he has become a caricature of sorts.

Chomsky appears to have failed to leave a legacy, or any series of coherent and effective voices to pick up the flag once he has gone. Where is the cadre of young Chomsky's, apostles willing to fight the good fight with the energy and sacrifice he has for over 50 years now?

On the subject of organizing and building a self propelled machine with weight and substance, he has been less successful. This is a shame indeed.

Just the same, as 80 years of age, he is passionate, engaged, and tireless. History will be very kind to Noam Chomsky. great post.
posted by Aetius Romulous at 5:55 AM on August 13, 2010 [5 favorites]

On the subject of organizing and building a self propelled machine with weight and substance, he has been less successful.

I'm not sure you can blame Chomsky for this. There just simply is no coherent, cohesive American Left and hasn't been for...60 years? "Chomsky followers" are a subset of this non-existence.
posted by DU at 6:03 AM on August 13, 2010 [4 favorites]

There just simply is no coherent, cohesive American Left and hasn't been for...60 years? "Chomsky followers" are a subset of this non-existence.

But that's not just some abstract, random happening. It's because the leading public intellectuals of the left have, like Chomsky, chosen to not build institutions and movements. They write, they give speeches, they work in universities -- they (with a few exceptions, of course) have not spent the past four or five decades doing the frustrating and dirty work of building organizations that can take an active political role.

A major reason -- though this gets into a chicken/egg conundrum for the cause and effect -- is that there have been fewer Dem presidencies, and the few that we've had after Carter haven't been forceful about appointing young, rising intellectuals of the left into positions where they can learn how to operate in a real-world political environment. An entire generation on the right learned this during Reagan's two terms and another did under Bush; so did many from the left under Carter but that was just one term and ended in something of a debacle; Clinton didn't leave that kind of legacy, and the jury is still out on Obama.
posted by Forktine at 6:22 AM on August 13, 2010 [4 favorites]

Chomsky appears to have failed to leave a legacy, or any series of coherent and effective voices to pick up the flag once he has gone. Where is the cadre of young Chomsky's, apostles willing to fight the good fight with the energy and sacrifice he has for over 50 years now?

This goes against the very spirit of the anarcho-syndicalism Chomsky explicitly endorses, however, since it's only disappointing if one expects him to be an activist prophet leading an army of some sort, rather than what he actually is: a prolific author, outspoken polemicist, and original thinker.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 6:31 AM on August 13, 2010 [19 favorites]

Whether or not Chomsky failed at organizing a new left is not the issue. The reasons the left cannot organize run very deep and are complicated. My own opinion is that there is a structural, almost geometrical, reason Capitol has quashed the left in the US in recent times.

But like all things, counter-balancing forces are at play. Capitol is very good at abstracting the source of wealth. With our current budgetary situation, that abstraction could shatter soon.
posted by kuatto at 6:41 AM on August 13, 2010

This goes against the very spirit of the anarcho-syndicalism Chomsky explicitly endorses, however, it's only disappointing if one expects him to be an activist prophet leading an army of some sort, rather than what he actually is: a prolific author, outspoken polemicist, and original thinker.

thank you
posted by jammy at 6:43 AM on August 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

"Today, I'm just going to kick back and enjoy some much-needed Noam Time."
posted by norm at 6:45 AM on August 13, 2010 [5 favorites]

To anyone claiming that there's no Chomsky legacy, consider the fact that a sitting black president has publicly expressed regret for the CIA overthrowing the government of Iran in '53. Now try to imagine that same type of admission happening in the 80s, or the 70s, or the 60s. Chomsky and millions of activists have fought for social justice and improved the lives of all Americans. He is also the main reason anyone is even aware of the propaganda model, or the other side of the story when it comes to the conflict with Palestine.

I sincerely doubt he'd want some foundation defending his work until the end of time. I think it's strong enough to stand on it's own.
posted by atypicalguy at 6:47 AM on August 13, 2010 [4 favorites]

There just simply is no coherent, cohesive American Left and hasn't been for...60 years?

Agreed, and the remaining cohesive blob is the religious left and their holier platitudes that do more harm than good. We simply don't need a moralistic reason to tax wealth, because it's a damn good idea on its own.
posted by Brian B. at 6:54 AM on August 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

"this magazine may be nothing more than a subtle media tool intended to obfuscate the government's violent agenda with comforting bromides, but I'm not going to let that get under my skin," Chomsky said. "I mean, why should I? It's absolutely beautiful outside"

There, my friends, is a man with perspective
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:14 AM on August 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

History will be very kind to Noam Chomsky
Yay! Most definitely.
posted by Monkeymoo at 7:23 AM on August 13, 2010

That the CIA admists overthrowing one regime in Iran (a hnorrible one for those who knew it!) and replaced it with another horrible one, sure regrets. Should have kept secular horror regime in place rather than religious horror regime, the one now our enemy.
A true far lefty, Noam fully identifies with all that are downtrodden, without, at times, exploring the causes of downtroddeness. Here for example he states that Hezbollah (an arm of Iranian military) is no more terrorist than his own country, the USA!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-jh2R-_eQY
Now I am qwilling to accept that we do manage lots of bad shit...but the terror record of Hez. is on record, and I am not willing to accept that we are as good or as bad as that group. But that is my bias, right?
posted by Postroad at 7:24 AM on August 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

I admire Chomsky's intellect, and he's more often right than wrong, but what I really love about him is his calm, almost blasé cadence.
posted by Scoo at 7:34 AM on August 13, 2010 [4 favorites]

When it comes to being critical of the USA and Israel he has the biggest cajones balls out there.
posted by melt away at 7:49 AM on August 13, 2010

In order to minimize the extent of Pol Pot's crimes, Chomsky asks, "In the first place, is it proper to attribute deaths from famine and disease to the Cambodian authorities?" 8 It is quite proper if those very authorities caused the famine and disease, which they did by evacuating the cities. He also asks, "Or, one might wonder, how can it be that a population so oppressed by a handful of fanatics does not rise up to overthrow them?" 9 If he were stupid, one could understand the question. According to Chomsky's logic, there should be no oppressed people anywhere, since they all would have overthrown their oppressors. We must conclude his question is both dishonest and utterly heartless.

Why harp now on a petition and a book that both date from 1979? The reason is that they are part of a larger pattern. Chomsky ignored Faurisson's racism because he feels that nationalism, especially Jewish nationalism and Zionism, are themselves examples of racism. In the case of Cambodia, Chomsky felt he had to show that the massacres were less serious than the crimes committed by the United States, the most powerful country in the world and the one that Chomsky considers the most destructive.

Link
posted by docgonzo at 8:07 AM on August 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

A true far lefty, Noam fully identifies with all that are downtrodden, without, at times, exploring the causes of downtroddeness. Here for example he states that Hezbollah (an arm of Iranian military) is no more terrorist than his own country, the USA!

I don't believe "We are all Hezbollah" but the US has certainly killed more civilians than they have (even in the time since Hezbollah's founding, since it's hard to compete with, say, the millions of southeast Asians kiled). This is probably simply a question of scale and power in the case of Hezbollah, who have not challenged the sectarian/confessional structure of their country's government, but simply want more of a share of the pie for Shias. Finally, Hezbollah is not simply "an arm of Iranian miltary" although it obviously has Iranian funding and supplies.

I admire Chomsky's intellect, and he's more often right than wrong, but what I really love about him is his calm, almost blasé cadence.

I think he uses it to infuriate his enemies, given that Chomsky is engaged in very polemical writing (well-sourced, but polemical).
posted by Gnatcho at 8:09 AM on August 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

The rarity of such a common voice in a thread here in Metafilter, gives me hope that something might actually begin to change. So it just could be that Chomsky's voice is beginning to resonate in a way it hasn't until now. At least I hope so.
posted by donfactor at 8:14 AM on August 13, 2010

Reading the interview, I noticed that he mentioned (paraphrasing here) that NPR blackballed him. However, I remember having heard him on some program or another. I did a quick Google search and saw a couple of programs with him on it. I don't have much time, so I would appreciate someone linking to something on this.
posted by JKevinKing at 8:18 AM on August 13, 2010

... consider the fact that a sitting black president has publicly expressed regret for the CIA overthrowing the government of Iran in '53.

Especially if it will help you ignore what Chomsky, you know, actually says about Obama's record:

During the Bush presidency, we saw the US use torture in Iraq, extraordinary rendition, and force in international affairs, sidelining the UN despite international protests. Will we see efforts by the US to restore its image in world opinion, given that Obama’s record so far has been underwhelming?

More than that, almost nothing has been done, and in fact in some respects it’s worse than Bush. ... there was a Supreme Court case, in which the Supreme Court determined that the prisoners in Guantanamo had habeas corpus rights, and the Bush administration accepted that and argued that it didn’t apply to Bagram. This went to the courts, and a lower court judge, who was a Bush appointee, a right-wing lower court judge, overruled them and said, yes it applies to Bagram too. Obama’s justice department is trying to overturn that, to try to say, no, it doesn’t apply to Bagram. In this respect, he’s going beyond Bush.

But of course Chomsky is the very definition of a "professional leftist". And Robert Gibbs has made clear what the administration thinks about them.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:43 AM on August 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

I remember when, during the darkest part of the surreal nightmare Bush years, C-Span had Noam Chomsky on for a couple of hours. It was like a kind of holiday celebration around chez Auden, such a relief to hear these things heard on TV - TV - for and extended period. Also around this time (2003), Charlie Rose had him on for an hour interview and Charlie just lost his shit; he couldn't let Chomsky get in more than half a sentence before interrupting him, getting more and more agitated the whole time.
posted by Auden at 8:46 AM on August 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

Postroad: "But that is my bias, right?"

Right.
posted by dancestoblue at 9:07 AM on August 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

That the CIA admists overthrowing one regime in Iran (a hnorrible one for those who knew it!) and replaced it with another horrible one, sure regrets. Should have kept secular horror regime in place rather than religious horror regime, the one now our enemy.

You may be missing something here. The CIA overthrew the (secular, liberal) democratically-elected government of Iran back in the 1950s, and installed a government led by Iranian Nazis (!) and restored the monarchy (i.e. the Shah). It was these guys that the "religious horror regime" took over from - clients of the US and UK (the initial coup spurred by the Iranians desire to nationalize their oil reserves).

If you have cites about the Mossadegh government being "horrible" I'd like to see them. Everything I've read puts them pretty much in the mainstream of postwar liberal nationalism. But it was the guys we replaced them with - the Shah and his cronies - that really fucked things up.
posted by jtron at 10:47 AM on August 13, 2010 [8 favorites]

I guess I spoke too soon.
posted by donfactor at 10:48 AM on August 13, 2010

This goes against the very spirit of the anarcho-syndicalism Chomsky explicitly endorses

Exactly. It's not simply that Leftist intellectuals have chosen to not build institutions, it's that they promote ideas that undermine the very possibility of institutions. Chomsky hasn't failed, anarchism has failed.
posted by AlsoMike at 12:24 PM on August 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm sure I am quite, quite alone in this, but I think Chomsky is a terrible interviewee. What he has to say is very perceptive, interesting and important. But the manner of his speaking does a terrible disservice to his ideas, most of the time. Everything from the volume of and monotony of his delivery, to his meandering self-interrupting, going off on tangents and cram-in-the-kitchen-sink manner of developing his arguments. Now, if you are very familiar with the subjects and the general intellectual context of the subject, then you can follow what he says while constantly irritated by the ineptitude and clumsiness of his torturous delivery (keep the remote handy to adjust volume though). But I pity the average viewer (not a member of the choir Chomsky preaches to) who happens to stumble on one of these interviews, and finds himself trying to make heads or tails of what is being said - I'm afraid he'll likely conclude that Chomsky is another ivory tower disconnected from reality confused and irrelevant lefty extremist.
posted by VikingSword at 12:32 PM on August 13, 2010

Btw. my remarks about Chomsky as interviewee were written in response to Auden's link above to a live interview on Charlie Rose, not the written interview from the FPP.
posted by VikingSword at 12:38 PM on August 13, 2010

the manner of his speaking does a terrible disservice to his ideas... the average viewer (not a member of the choir Chomsky preaches to) who happens to stumble on one of these interviews, and finds himself trying to make heads or tails of what is being said - I'm afraid he'll likely conclude that Chomsky is another ivory tower disconnected from reality

It wouldn't matter if he talked like Ted Koppel. In that average viewer's reality, none of the imperial American atrocities Chomsky talks about have ever taken place. He's as lunatic fringe to them as 9/11 conspiracy theorists are to most of you.
posted by Joe Beese at 2:06 PM on August 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

"anarcho-syndicalism" . It has a nice ring to it; If you don't try to figure out what it means. Anyway it's better than anti-Amrican. I wonder how he receives it if some critics label him that. Probably the same way he handles cloak-and-dagger attacks on his legacy and his role from his would-be Mefi critics.
posted by Student of Man at 3:43 PM on August 13, 2010

It's not simply that Leftist intellectuals have chosen to not build institutions, it's that they promote ideas that undermine the very possibility of institutions. Chomsky hasn't failed, anarchism has failed.

There's one institution that Chomsky has frequently voiced his support for, and that's strong labor unions. He has done so not just because the concept of workers collectives fits his ideology, but because he has a very intimate historical knowledge of the struggles between the labor movement and the ruling class. See here for more background on Chomsky's view of anarchism as a form of organized socialism.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 5:18 PM on August 13, 2010

Am I the only one who find it odd that Noam Chomsky makes so many factual errors in an interview subtitled "speaking of truth and power"? Some of them are just sloppy, like the assertion that "Israel's attack" on the Mavi Marmara resulted in "killing at least ten passengers", but others are less excusable.

Here's how Noam Chomsky describes the start of the blockade of Gaza:

The siege of Gaza itself does not have the slightest credible pretext. It was imposed by the US and Israel in January 2006 to punish Palestinians because they voted “the wrong way” in a free election, and it was sharply intensified in July 2007 when Hamas blocked a US-Israeli attempt to overthrow the elected government in a military coup, installing Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan.

In fact sanctions on both Gaza and the West Bank were initially imposed by Israel and the "Quartet" - a quadrumvirate consisting of the USA, the EU, Russia and the UN. I'm sure Israel was pushing for the sanctions, but it's at least misleading to describe them as being imposed by the USA and Israel - and to ignore the fact that they were aimed at the Palestinians as a whole, to persuade the new Hamas-led government to renounce violence and accept Israel's right to exist. These sanctions were terminated in June 2007, when new sanctions were imposed specifically against the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Mr Chomsky says that "Hamas blocked a US-Israeli attempt to overthrow the elected government in a military coup". The fact of the matter is that there was a Hamas coup. It should be obvious to even the most die-hard supporters of Mr CHomsky that Hamas controls Gaza and refuses to allow any challenges to its authority - they will not allow even local elections. Fatah's leaders literally take their life in their hands if they travel there. There's good reason to to believe that Israel and the USA were backing Fatah against Hamas, but it's disingenuous to portray Hamas as blocking a coup, when in fact their best defense is that they captured Gaza before Fatah could take it from them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:30 AM on August 14, 2010

I was first introduced to Chomsky as a political thinker when I read his October 2001 MIT lecture transcript. It was powerful stuff for me at the time. The September 11 attacks sent shockwaves around the world that arrived even in the traditionally placid Netherlands, and it seemed the entire world was on the cusp of some kind of transformation. After the attacks for a while there was a palpable mistrust against the non-Dutch ethnicities and as a mixed race descendant, this was a time of some confusion and uncertainty. I was looking for moorings and bearings. In that climate, Chomsky's voice was like waking from a dream and being brought into the light. His arguments were sound, his command of facts humbling, his placement of blame meticulous and incontrovertible. It was exhilirating. I sent out links to family and friends, raised his points in conversation, expecting people to share my enthusiasm. But to my surprise they were utterly unimpressed.

I still remember my father's response. "Chomsky? What influence has he had outside of linguistics? He should have stuck with that." It struck me like a wet blanket. How can you be so cavalier in dismissing the opinions of a man who lays out so clearly, and with such authority, the US machinations in South America, the Middle East, and South East Asia? How can you ignore the facts? I didn't understand it, but it did put me on guard. If so many people, who I value and respect, remain largely indifferent to Chomsky, then what does this mean?

Well, it might mean I am a piss-poor judge of people, to be sure. It might mean all the people I value and respect are intellectually and/or morally lazy, and they ignore Chomsky because engaging his arguments and putting them into action means hard work. This is all possible. But the problem with that line of reasoning is: it is not just my friends. My dad was right, and it is hinted at again in this thread: Chomsky, despite his academic and other accomplishments, is a marginal figure where it concerns affairs of state or even the broader political discourse, let alone the day-to-day of average folk. He has carved out a niche in which he churns out intricate and compelling masterworks, that are then largely ignored.

Because even if I still do not fully understand why or how this works, there is a real sense in which you can ignore Chomsky. For all his chilling tales of murder and subversion of the rule of law, it fails to add up to the kind of undeniable moral imperative that people like M.L.King, Gandhi and Mandela were able to establish. What he says is all true, but now what? Abolish the CIA? Dissolve the Federal government? Let a thousand flowers bloom?

Not going to wrap this up with a tidy paragraph. My feelings are mixed and I don't want to coagulate them in words. Link to his MIT address: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/98, for those interested.
posted by eeeeeez at 7:32 AM on August 14, 2010