[Marxism] Re: Noam Chomsky and the capitalist state

[Brian Shannon <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.isreview.org/issues/37/chomsky.shtml

In this interview Chomsky's gives a clear and detailed explanation of 
the causes and methods used by U.S. imperialism in maintaining its 
rule--militarily in the Third World and ideologically in the United 
States. At first glance this interview is itself a short history of our 
modern world and the role of the U.S. political system in maintaining 
the control of capital.

However, when you look more closely, there is very little here about 
the bipartisan role of both the Democratic and Republican parties in 
carrying this out. Here is Eisenhower, a little bit of Nixon, a lot of 
Reagan, and a lot, of course, on G. W. Bush. There is also a smidgen of 
Carter and a section on Clinton's bombing of the pharmaceutical factory 
in the Sudan. However, there is nothing about Carter's continuing 
recognition of the Pol Pot government or the Carter/Brzezinski role in 
the Islamic reactionary war in Afghanistan. Kennedy isn't mentioned at 
all.

Before anyone objects that this is a minor quibble, I would agree that 
elsewhere Chomsky has attacked the Democratic Party presidents as 
firmly as the Republican ones, but not here in this pre-November 2004 
election interview.

The reason for these lacunae lies at the end of the interview. David 
Barsmamian asks:
You say that there is "a fraction" of difference between George Bush 
and John Kerry. And this raised some eyebrows. I heard, "It sounds like 
Chomsky is coming out for Kerry." Could you expand on your position[?]

Chomsky begins carefully: "There are differences. They have different 
constituencies. There are different groups of people around them. On 
international affairs I wouldn’t expect any major policy changes. It 
would probably be more like back to the Clinton years, when you have 
sort of the same policies, but more modulated, not so brazen and 
aggressive, less violent. And I would expect a kind of return to that."

Chomsky ignores Kerry's assertion that he would be even more activist 
than Bush in attacking the Chavez government of Venezuela and the 
miner's resistance in Bolivia and would work to add European troops to 
the occupation of Iraq. He also says nothing about Kerry's endorsement 
of Sharon's walled-in Bantustan for the Palestinians, etc.

Then Chomsky turns to domestic issues. Or does he? Unfortunately, we 
have the old bait and switch. He can't really talk about Kerry's 
domestic policy, for Kerry voted for the Patriot Act and for the 
Clinton welfare "reforms." Instead he talks about Bush's constituency:

"There are other differences. The popular constituency of the Bush 
people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious 
sector in the country, which is huge. There is nothing like it in any 
other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat 
to keep them in line. While they’re shafting them in their economic and 
social policies, you’ve got to make them think you’re doing something 
for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous 
for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for 
the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way. 
The Kerry people don’t have that constituency. They would like to have 
it, but they’re never going to appeal to it much. They have to appeal 
somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that 
makes a difference."

Having said nothing about domestic issues, but only about Bush's 
constituency, Chomsky then attacks those who would support Nader, 
without actually mentioning Nader by name:

"These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into 
quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says 'I don’t 
care if Bush gets elected' is basically telling poor and working people 
in the country, 'I don’t care if your lives are destroyed. I don’t care 
whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled 
mother. I just don’t care, because from my elevated point of view I 
don’t see much difference between them.'"

Apparently, Kerry is also not going to help one's "disabled mother" 
either, for Chomsky says nothing about what these "quite big effects" 
will be. It is obvious that they are nothing or at least not "big" 
enough to describe. For Chomsky, since Kerry is the alternative to 
Bush, anyone who is opposed to him will appear to be against "disabled 
mother[s]." The only "big effect" will be that not being for ABB will 
isolate you. In other words, if you tell the truth, "it’s a recipe for 
disaster if you’re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a 
political alternative."

Ironically, much of the Chomsky interview is a criticism of the 
cover-up of the Reagan years. He fails to understand that the purpose 
of a political campaign in this period is precisely to expose to 
two-party shell game of American capitalism.

There is a theoretical underpinning to Chomsky's argument. Towards the 
middle of the article, when asked about "Bitter Fruit: the story of the 
American coup in Guatemala" by Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer, 
Chomsky replies:

"That’s a good book. It was written before a lot was known, but it’s 
basically on target. However, this was not the CIA’s history. It’s the 
history of the White House. The CIA acted, as it regularly acts, as an 
agency of the White House to carry out actions where you can have 
what’s called plausible deniability. Kissinger-style orders are rare. 
They’re usually given quietly. Actually, this one, too, was given 
quietly, but it was exposed. The CIA is assigned the responsibility of 
carrying out the crimes and atrocities. And then if anything goes 
wrong, you can blame it on the CIA, sort of rogue elements out of 
control. But that’s a joke. It’s very hard to find a case where the CIA 
acted outside presidential authority. And this is a clear case. 
Eisenhower gave the orders."

Chomsky follows up with a short comment on Dulles and Eisenhower and 
then the Reaganites as if these are all different entities from the 
Democratic Party regimes. When a new administration comes in, according 
to Chomsky, it is brand new. Of course, as indicated above, he has to 
admit that the only practical difference between the two parties is the 
constituency to which each appeals in order to get elected.

Apparently "presidential authority" is something different from the 
system itself. What Chomsky doesn't see is that the politicians are 
completely intertwined with the whole economic, governmental, military 
and police system, including the armed forces, CIA, FBI, INS and other 
agencies. The politicians are not separate from these institutions. 
They are just new participants. In fact, they are not even new, just 
substitutes in waiting.

Politically, legally, and juridically the election of the American 
President is the election of the chief executive of the state. However, 
by staying within the two-party system, we are merely choosing to 
substitute a few players who are anointed new leaders much as a coach 
puts in a new quarterback or, under pressure for a failing season or 
franchise, management fires the old coach and comes up with a new one. 
We, the populace, think that we are the coach changing quarterbacks or 
even the management making the decision. But it is the same game, the 
same team, and the same management. To urge opponents of the capitalist 
system to continue the everlasting struggle to win or defend the 
prettier Democratic Party over its homelier twin is to continue a great 
lie.

Unfortunately the faux anarchist Chomsky 
[http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html] has become one of 
the applauders of this fraud.

from Brian Shannon
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism