There are few political thinkers that have been as prolific and formative as Noam Chomsky. Whether it’s through Manufacturing Consent or audio recordings of his voice thrown into the beginning or end of punk songs, it seemed his influence throughout the 90s and early 2000s was inescapable, and for good reason.
Somewhat surprisingly, though, I have actually read very little of Chomsky’s work. The odd book or anthology here and there, and so forth. When I read his work on media production and analysis, I had the proverbial moment of scales falling from my eyes. I also find that he is consistently worldly, aware of all kinds of social movements around the globe, which is perhaps one of the factors that drew me towards reading his book How the World Works.
How the World Works is a collection of interviews with David Barsamian and edited for focus and clarity by Arthur Naiman. The interviews discuss U.S. foreign policy and how it has operated in particular areas, like NIcaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Southeast Asia, and beyond. There is also discussion of class confrontations within the U.S. itself, particularly with respect to the drug war, the health care system, and exploitation of workers by corporations. That exploitation then takes a global focus, considering how the global economy and free trade in particular has impacted the “Third-World.” There are also various sections of miscellany in which Chomsky offers some more general ideas about things like postmodernism and popular resistance.
In short, the book covers a lot of ground, if shortly. One of the issues of having a selection of interviews is that they are decontextualized from their original source. This volume was published in 2011 and it relies on interviews from even earlier; not that things have changed that much, but the nature of a discussion is that it is ephemeral. As a result, the book does not and cannot offer the most up-to-date discourse on issues like, for instance, the current state of affairs in the Middle East. The other issue is that the conversations often seem to come up short; Chomsky will make an interesting statement and then the section simply ends. If anything, the book has shown me how much more enriching it is for me, personally, when books follow a cohesive structure and really delve into one topic. Chomsky certainly does that elsewhere but the compilation format of text here takes away from the incisiveness of his thought. Also, if somewhat ironically, the observations here offered are not exactly revolutionary. Perhaps at the time Chomsky’s dissidence was unique, but now many of his observations are commonplace—it’s the curse of being a trailblazer, I suppose, that the Left has popularized the ideas to a point where they are no longer, in my eyes, controversial.
That’s not to say he doesn’t offer some excellent commentary rooted in helpful historical frameworks. Something I really appreciate about Chomsky is that he is so informed about popular movements around the world that he never comes across as being a partisan hack. Even on some topics we take for granted—like NAFTA, say—he offers a balanced view that remains critical of corporate power while subverting what we in the general populace have accepted and been sold by corporate-owned media.
Just a brief tangent here: in one section, Chomsky discusses how in one of his books he was challenged as being a pedant because of his use of footnotes and he pointed to the double-edged sword. If you don’t use footnotes, the right will accuse you of making things up. If you use footnotes and document all of your research, you’re seen as a pedant. Go figure.
Incidentally, one of the things he discusses is that the language of politics is deliberately obscure in order to make it impossible for the masses to talk about them coherently. In turn, we cannot understand what is happening in the world and therefore cannot take action. One example he provides is the discussion of what “socialism” means and the confusion that is strewn about it. He then targets the term “special interest” in common parlance. Chomsky notes that the Republicans in the U.S. have often accused Democrats of being the party of “special interests,” by which they meant “women, labor, the elderly, the young, farmers — in short, the general population.” Chomsky then suggests that there was one area of the population that was never listed as a special interest: corporations and business. It’s funny how political motivations can be masked so easily.
Chomsky takes that discussion further and notes that Democrats then suggested they were not the party of special interests and that they served the national interest, too. What I found particularly surprising is how Chomsky then suggests that the Democrats lack the “single-minded class consciousness of their Republican opponents.” He discusses how the Republicans are aware of their status as owners and managers in class war against the population, implying that they have adopted (bastardized) Marxist rhetoric and concepts and resorting to “jingoist hysteria, fear, and terror, awe of great leaders, and the other standard devices of population control.” Chomsky says that, by comparison, the Democrats are less clear about their motivations and thus lose in the propaganda war. Of course, we couldn’t possibly look to the contemporary United States to find a readymade example in the recent election—surely!
In pointing to the term “conservative,” Chomsky notes they are “advocates of a powerful state that interferes massively in the economy and in social life. They advocate huge state expenditures and a post-war peak of protectionist measures and insurance against market risk, narrowing individual liberties through legislation and court packing, protecting the holy state from unwarranted inspection by the irrelevant citizenry. In short, those programs that are the precise opposite of traditional conservatism.” They are in allegiance to the people that own the country. Personally, I’m more inclined towards Zadie Smith’s definition of conservatives as arsonists, particularly now. Although I’d perhaps add that they are consistently shadows: conservatives pretend to advocate for minimal spending and “axing the tax” and whatnot while secretly spending more than liberal governments at every turn. They may claim desire for a free market while legislating where trade can happen. They may claim to be the popular and populist party but repeal protections on lawful protest. But I digress,
The point is that Chomsky reveals the complexity of language that aims to bar people from political action. Even the supposedly simple categorizations of right and left are not as easily understood. Actually, one of the most poignant discussions in that regard is the discussion of freedom as a concept. The right often makes the claim that the left wants to take away freedoms (while they themselves are literally taking away freedoms…). Chomsky reframes the discussion of freedom and rights, giving several notable examples. We may opt to limit someone’s freedom to smoke in public—sure, it’s a reduction of freedom—but that’s because it impacts others’ right to life and good health. Red lights limit our freedom to drive as we wish to get to work, but protect the rights of the little girl crossing the street. In reframing the discussion, I think it really places good emphasis on what the Left and the Right are after: protection for the vulnerable vs. unmitigated actions.
Chomsky also gave some compelling stats in that regard; I’d be curious where the data originated at the time of his citing it and then what the data looks like now. About 90%-95% of people polled suggested that corporations had a responsibility to limit profits and redistribute wealth among their workers. I feel like they’ve been winning the PR battle and people now think that it’s some kind of Commie Plot to think that corporations should be paying their workers more—although, given the response to the recent CEO shooter, perhaps I’m mistaken.
Returning to a few of the more controversial points regarding language and politics, I was interested in Chomsky’s brief comments on postmodernism. Postmodernism is often presented as a leftist philosophy (cf. Jordan Peterson—or better yet don’t.) Chomsky criticizes its jargon and its oblique nature as actually inhibiting popular action and suggests that at least some of the critiques postmodernism has to offer are formed in ignorance. Their critique of systems as nonsense is somewhat valuable, but at the same time allows the logical systems to be owned exclusively by those who benefit from them. What good does it do, for instance, to expose the fallacies of the economic system to those who are continually exploited by it? Similarly, Chomsky resists the phrase “speaking truth to power” on very sensible grounds—power already knows the truth. We must speak truth about power to and with the workers and the underclass in order to better challenge it.
Of course, that’s where everything leads: how do we change the world? Chomsky offers an interesting discussion of how that question gets framed along the lines of privilege. For oppressed people, when he gives talks they say, “Here’s what we’re doing. How do we improve?” For privileged people, when he gives talks they say, “What’s the solution?” Chomsky’s answer is always for people to organize and continue to do the relentless work of challenging power. I have to admit my own privilege here, because it seems very hard. Chomsky himself recognizes that the workers are left with no time to organize—that’s by design. He notes how student organization is at an all-time low. Everyone is struggling, thus they have no time or energy to resist. The question for me then becomes, how do we liberate people enough that they can continue their work fighting for social causes? I appreciate that there are organizations already doing the work and you just have to join them, but then I also worry about how only the relatively privileged are able to take action on behalf of those who are even more pressed—but then we run into a vanguard situation. I don’t know how to resolve that contradiction.
I would also posit my own idea here for why people are not taking action like they used to or why privileged people keep asking, “What can be done?” The reality is this: people want to see the needle move. We may take action over and over and over and volunteer every weekend but the gains are not immediate. It’s hard to envision continuing to do the work if you feel there’s no effect, and until we can see that needle move we will continually have people asking “What is the solution?” I don’t think that’s a bad thing, per se. It’s not an ill-intentioned question; in my mind, it’s one of pragmatism: where can we see the most gains?
Chomsky refers to a group in (I believe) Brazil a few times. He talks about how the outside intelligentsia went in and made a series of commercials that didn’t land with the public. Then, they hired local students to do the filmography and write the scripts and that was far more effective with the population there. It’s a revolutionary act to put media back in the hands of the populace so that they can discuss more thoroughly the impacts that global policies have on them, free from the corporate biases that sneak into popular media. Some of Chomsky’s comments there are highly encouraging and I hope that people have the sense to engage with their more local media. (Although, Jon Oliver has a great and depressing piece about how local media in the United States is owned and is distributed stories by corporate masters…) Chomsky also proves prescient with respect to social media. I’d be very curious to read his thoughts on social media today; I suspect it’s just as corporately owned and antidemocratic as our previous systems, though now we have the illusion of public discourse. That may be a bit harsh, but even my particular bubbles that I approve of serve to reinforce my own beliefs and play into the illusion of choice with the content that I’m consuming.
Overall, Chomsky’s commentary is illuminating, if not all that surprising anymore. I’d say on most issues I’m in fundamental agreement and otherwise it’s only a matter of the particulars. I’ll continue to appreciate the influence Chomsky has had on me, my chosen communities, and the world at large. Really, I can’t express how foundational he has been. So, there are two net steps to keep that legacy alive: 1) read more of his non-anthology books and 2) get organizing.
Happy reading; happy resisting!
No comments:
Post a Comment