Why some people think Noam Chomsky is wrong

[alanjjohnstone]

I can’t help myself once i get started. So Chomsky insists that voting Democrat is the better option for the American worker aned is prepared to ignore, or should i say, over-look, Obama’s pro-business, and consequently, anti-union, bias. Recent actions of the Obama administration seem to support low wages are the answer to globalization and runaway shops (ie out-sourcing). General Electric, a company President Obama called a “model for America” because it had returned some work to its U.S. factories.Obama is committed to GE’s wage-slashing approach to revive manufacturing, calling it “insourcing” regardless that it is squeezing its workers, cutting pensions, wages and benefits. In January’s State of the Union speech, Obama highlighted a consultants’ study that said low wages, weak unions, and high productivity will soon make Southern U.S. states competitive with China. He argued that companies that bring manufacturing jobs back onshore—even if barely above minimum wage—deserve new tax incentives. http://www.alternet.org/labor/154990/50_percent_pay_cuts_at_ge%27s_plants%3A_is_this_the_future_of_american_jobs_/?page=1 And socialists are expected to vote for him as the lesser evil !! I have taken the liberty of quoting a few articles that in my opinion should be our approach which is to expose Obama and to oppose those on the Left an inside the union movement who become de facto apologists  for Obama which i think Chomsky regardless of all his other valued insights and criticisms has been guilty of being.  He is failing to build or give support to those who wish a re-allignment of labour and politics. And what i argue is not nuetrality or passive apathy but we should be urging our fellow workers to take the leaf out of the book of those GE workers who are organising themselves without the President voicing support or encouragement to theie employers efforts to undemine it.http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12674/ge_workers_vote_in_union_for_first_time_in_ten_years/The Los Angeles Times reported that labor leaders are talking about “shifting” their tactics by spending less on politics and more on movement-building. The Times reports that the Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents some 190,000 transit workers in the U.S. and Canada, “has shifted ‘the culture of [the] union from…political activity to broader coalition building,’ ”  ” Clearly, more rank-and-file involvement is needed to both challenge union officials and undercut misconceptions on the left about the labor movement.  Ultimately, real union power is not displayed by workers canvassing for Democrats. It’s exercised by workers on the job, like the 70 UE factory workers who again occupied their workplace last month and won their demands to keep the plant open while they find a new buyer, or perhaps run the factory themselves. Or the nearly 500 Seattle port truck drivers who went on strike for two weeks in February in protest against abuse and deregulation that has prevented them from organizing with the Teamsters. Or the teachers in New York City and Chicago who, along with Occupy protesters, have led fiery demonstrations against budget cuts and school closures.  “…Two years ago, Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.5 million-member American Federation of Teachers (AFT), lashed out at President Obama who she said was part of the “blame the teacher crowd” of education reform.  “I never thought I’d see a Democratic president, whom we helped elect, and his education secretary applaud the mass firing of 89 teachers and staff,” she said – referring to the firing of all teachers at Central Falls High School in Rhode Island earlier that year.  Last month, the AFT executive council unanimously voted to endorse Obama for reelection. Last year, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka criticized Obama for aligning with the right and cutting social programs. “If they [Obama administration] don’t have a jobs program, I think we’d better use our money doing other things,” the leader of the nation’s largest union federation said, threatening to withhold labor’s support for Obama. Less than two months later, Trumka told reporters that the AFL-CIO would most likely endorse the reelection campaign, saying, “President Obama has been a friend for us.” The AFL-CIO’s executive board unanimously voted to endorse Obama. Last month, Last year, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka criticized Obama for aligning with the right and cutting social programs. The reason for the turn-arounds – the lesser evil.  “Notwithstanding all our disappointment with the Obama presidency, it’s clear that the clowns on the Republican side would be devastating to working people,” a Communication Workers of America (CWA) official told In These Times last month. “But we’re anticipating a tougher challenge motivating people because there is a lot of disappointment and letdown,” he admitted.That’s probably because workers are hard-pressed to imagine what could be more “devastating to working people” than what they’ve seen in the last year alone. Workers have faced the erosion of collective bargaining rights, the first state in the Midwest passing “Right to Work” legislation, an FAA reauthorization bill signed by Obama that makes it more difficult for airline workers to organize, plans for massive layoffs of postal workers nationwide, and ramped-up attacks on public education.And that’s by no means an exhaustive list of the recent blows suffered by the labor movement. Both Republicans and Democrats have been ratcheting up the war against unions, a fact that is making it increasingly difficult for union leaders to justify their support for Obama to their rank-and-file members. In addition to the AFT and AFL-CIO, major unions that have declared their endorsement for Obama’s reelection include SEIU, AFSCME, Laborers’ International Union (LIUNA), United Food and Commercial Workers, CWA, the Machinists, United Farm Workers, United Steel Workers, and the National Education Association. The list is sure to grow as the election season moves forward.  Chris Townsend, Political Action Director of United Electrical Workers (UE). “How many more times is labor going to go back to the members and tell them to vote for some Democrat that has left us hanging? It’s no wonder that many union members and workers are not buying the Obama-Biden rhetoric this time. Instead of tackling the corporations and the Republicans head-on, the White House stands by in silence while organized labor is subjected to a life and death struggle in Wisconsin and Ohio. If union members get stuck voting for Obama because Romney is so much worse, we should just tell the truth. We are trapped in a profoundly corrupt and rigged political system. By going back again and again and hanging the union seal of approval on candidates who are not supportive of our cause, we merely hasten our own demise.”In an apparent mission to turn the U.S. into a source of cheap labor, policymakers in both political parties have for decades demonstrated their commitment to permanently lower working-class living standards. And recently Obama has been less shy about his role in this effort, touting his own policies for helping to make the U.S. more competitive with low-wage countries.Sometimes there are tactical reasons for unions to engage in electoral politics, but trade unionism is not about electing Democrats. Workers join unions to enforce decent pay and working conditions on the job. Organizing in an active union also raises the consciousness of workers around working-class issues beyond an individual workplace, like national healthcare policy and globalization. And like other social justice movements, labor cannot attribute much of its success to voting within the corporate confines of the two-party system. Real power for workers and the oppressed exists in the streets and in the workplace, in the form of militant grassroots struggle. Every national election points to the urgency for radicals to free the muscle of the union movement from the grip of the Democratic Party – to tighten the grip of the working class around the machinery of profit.” http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/14-9 This is what Chomsky’s mistake is, by recommending a Obama vote,  he is continuing the illusion that the unions and the Democrats share a common interest. And those of us who in this country who suggest we should all vote Labour and condone our unions and our union leaders support for Labour are equally in error.  

[robbo203]

Personally, I think voting for the lesser evil is not so much the decent, as the daft , thing to do – though it may well be motivated by decent urges.  Apart from the tricky business of determining precisely which Party is the lesser evil – Labour or Tory, Democrat of  Republican – and I must say I cannot see any real difference to speak of, there is this point to consider. We all know that capitalist  “democratic” politics is a see saw affair.  In fact, I would go so far as to say it is almost inevitable that it should be so.  No Party can ever administer the system in the way that it promises to do. Failure is thus guaranteed and cynicism and disillusionment are virtually built into the very foundations of our so called parliamentary democracy.  In short, voting for Labour is actually the same thing as voting for the Tories – eventually!- in the sense that it is only preparing the ground and paving the way for the Tories eventual and almost certain return. So I cannot for the life of me see the logic behind this tactic of voting for the lesser evil.  What is it meant to achieve? To convey some message to our would-be rulers that we would rather they not behave like the outright bastards on the Other Side and that they  should temper their ruthless pursuit of a capitalist agenda with a little more human empathy and Christian charity?   Or is it saying to the Other Side  “we know what you are up to,  you bastards, we’ve got your number and this just to forewarn that there are sufficient numbers of us who  have voted for your main opponents to make life difficult for you “.  Are either “side” really going to take note and mend their ways? To think that you would have to be extremely naive.  Capitalist politics would be a very different ball game if that were true So  I believe the logic of voting for the lesser evil is deeply flawed. And not only that, it is highly irresponsible..  If you want to convey a message to our would-be rulers then,  for chrissakes, spoil your ballot (assuming there is no socialist candidate to vote for)  or even just don’t vote at all.! That is far more effective way of telling the politicians where to get off.  Rather than give them legitimacy like the SWP does with its craven idiotic “vote labour but without illusions” (Ha!) deny them all legitimacy and don’t allow them to dictate the terms of the debate with their fake scaremongery that “if you don’t vote for us you will let the other side in”   You will eventually anyway by voting for them   

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

Rather than give them legitimacy like the SWP does with its craven idiotic “vote labour but without illusions” (Ha!)

Here’s another example from another Trotskyoid group putting a tortuous argument for voting Labour:http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2012/03/07/vote-livingstone-very-criticallyI’m not quite sure how you register a critical vote. I’ve not noticed this possibility whenever I’ve gone to vote. If you vote for a candidate any reservations are not taken into account. I’m sure Livingstone and the Labour Party will gratefully accept any and every vote however “critical”..

[alanjjohnstone]

I increasingly find Al Jazeera despite its faults for a Mainstream News Media to be a well worth source of information compared to the others and I recommend we all have it on our favourites. In relation to this debate and the OWS and Iran comparisons this article is pertinent. I am not sure which thread to post it upon “One way of assessing what the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement is capable of is to examine whether its adversaries have a chance of being defeated. OWS has generated a great deal of debate since its inception as a movement that has sought to push back against “politics as usual”, to “change the dominant order”, etc. Yet this debate has rarely touched on the political framework within which the movement assembles and reassembles itself…” “…The fact that both conservatives and reformists had always been faced with the possibility of real defeat – permanent elimination from official politics and economic integration – characterises Iran’s domestic politics…Republicans and Democrats in the US system share the same discursive practices and the same patrons…Moreover, neither side has it, as its fundamental goal, to permanently eliminate the other from politics, economic integration etc, as they are indeed both part of the same network.”[BTW, I touched on this in a SOYMB blog where I quoted Lloyd George ‘Is it not a real advantage to the country that there should be two great parties, each capable in turn of providing responsible administration for the service of the Crown? How much better our system of government, as worked upon this balance, than in those countries where there is a permanent governing class, with all those interests of wealth and privilege massed around them, keeping the rest of their fellow-countrymen in sullen subjection by force of arms’] http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/may-farce-be-with-you-old-fraud-with.html”…US political parties try to distinguish their position from one-another by rallying around, and highlighting, specific issues such as abortion, gay rights, or even taxation arrangements. But even these differences between the two groups are firmly situated within “politics as usual”, and unlike the situation in Iran, there is no contest over the doctrinal foundation of the state in the US. The result is that, while people go to the polls every four years in the US, substantive political discussions are generally absent from everyday life.Conversely, substantive debates are prevalent in Iran within each movement’s plethora of public spheres (in taxis, bread lines, coffee houses, private gatherings, religious sermons, hayats, etc). Yet these debates often lead to a mediated criticism of the state that creates a crisis of legitimacy – as a result of real competition between, and the possibility of permanent elimination of, each side.In short, reformists created a political crisis in Iran because conservatives had a chance of losing. OWS, on the other hand, cannot create a crisis of political legitimacy in the US, because its adversaries dominate completely and are not faced with the possibility of defeat…This sober perspective on where OWS stands points to the enormous task that lays ahead of the movement…” “…a word of caution for OWS activists whose involvement with the movement stems from their lived-experience of dealing with poverty, police brutality, etc, along with the lower middle class that is now being pushed down to the ranks of the proletariat. Be wary of those whose activism stems from their abstract understanding of your problems. We have seen many of these activists (such as Marxist millionaires and privileged ideologues) join the movement and become, in many instances, its de facto spokespersons…While their hearts are in the right place and they can articulate your problems brilliantly…That maybe [they are] not as radical as [they] think [they are]… the same top elementary/middle/high schools, the same Ivy leagues, and the very same sources that bankrolled it all have produced some of our most firebrand activists… Never relinquishing their credit cards, never refusing to deploy their enormous cultural capital, their sympathy for your problems, while real, stems from an abstract world, a world that could never produce an alternative discourse…”taken fromhttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012411152431103541.html That last statement reminds me of Marx and Engels constant refrain to the workers’ movement  to be cautious of intellectual leaders. 

[jondwhite]

News media enterprises naturally concentrates into specific opinions so that when foreign ruling-classes launch news media channels such as al-Jazeera (Qatari ruling classes) and Russia Today it can sound radically different.

[alanjjohnstone]

Despite being written by the ISO (the American version of the SWP but now split) this long piece from 2004 and the Bush/Kerry election is actually quite good and much of it still applies today. It challenges Chomsky’s case for voting for the lesser evil. http://www.internationalsocialist.org/pdfs/democrats_lesserevilism.pdf Its conclusion, I think, echos our own position:- “…The task of socialists should be to break illusions in the capitalist system and its politicians—not to strengthen those illusions. It follows that the first task of socialists in the U.S. today is to reject any support for Democratic candidates, no matter how “left-liberal” their rhetoric sounds. But once socialists reject the Democratic Party, they must pose a clear socialist alternative.”

[alanjjohnstone]

This another thought provoking interview of Chomsky but i cannot resist highlighting something he says that Danny in the election video pointed out similarly. Great minds think alike!!…(oops, that word great again) LF: Have you ever had a taste of a non market system — had a flash of optimism –– on this is how we could live? NC: A functioning family for example… Anyways, the full article is at :http://www.alternet.org/economy/155281/noam_chomsky_on_america%27s_economic_suicide/?page=entire

[alanjjohnstone]

Another article from Chomsky which makes for provocative reading. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/201251114163762922.html In it in a more sombre perhaps pessimistic tone Chomsky lays out the stark choice before us:- “I’m just old enough to remember the Great Depression…Despite the hard times, there was a sense that, somehow, “we’re gonna get out of it”. It’s quite different now. For many people in the United States, there’s a pervasive sense of hopelessness, sometimes despair. I think it’s quite new in American history. And it has an objective basis. In the 1930s, unemployed working people could anticipate that their jobs would come back. If you’re a worker in manufacturing today – the current level of unemployment there is approximately like the Depression – and current tendencies persist, those jobs aren’t going to come back…We’re really regressing back to the dark ages. It’s not a joke. And if that’s happening in the most powerful, richest country in history, then this catastrophe isn’t going to be averted – and in a generation or two, everything else we’re talking about won’t matter. Something has to be done about it very soon in a dedicated, sustained way.It’s not going to be easy to proceed. There are going to be barriers, difficulties, hardships, failures. It’s inevitable. But unless the spirit of the last year, here and elsewhere in the country and around the globe, continues to grow and becomes a major force in the social and political world, the chances for a decent future are not very high.””The Occupy movements could provide a mass base for trying to avert what amounts to a dagger pointed at the heart of the country…where we’re heading…the Occupy movement is the first real, major, popular reaction that could avert this. But it’s going to be necessary to face the fact that it’s a long, hard struggle. You don’t win victories tomorrow. You have to form the structures that will be sustained, that will go on through hard times and can win major victories. And there are a lot of things that can be done.”What can be done? According to Chomsky its workers’ self-managed co-operatives (see the recent UCS post on Socialist Courier)  but less predictably, increased government spending on infra-structure such as high speed trains and even a “Buy American” programme!But there is no denying that a determined fight-back has to be launched and expanded by the working class and that it will find expression in various ways. 

[alanjjohnstone]

An interview with International Organization for Participatory Society http://mobile.zcommunications.org/chomsky-on-iops-by-noam-chomsky “The way to overcome doubts is to show what can be achieved.”There has been criticism that the WSM’s propaganda can be slightly on the negative side. We frequently raise the issue of limitations of what can be done yet still nevertheless advocate them to advance beyond the limits towards socialism. When faced with such movements as Occupy or anti-austerity movements should we simply concentrate solely upon their positive aspects of their successes and ignore the rest? We possess the “common goal” and we possess the “long term vision” yet fail to emphasise the “practical implications” to use Chomsky’s words. “”the call has simply reached very few people. And they tend to be a select group” . In our case to even more few and more select. We cannot simply blame it upon lack of tools – we have the internet, we have the printed medium available, the organisation and the facilities to employ them. Our message is being heard and it is being rejected. I have sided with the view that it is the perception of it,  the style it is conveyed,  which we fail . We do not make the long-term vision a short-term one. It is still considered by most as the ultimate object, not the immediate one. Perhaps we should single out the positve successes of struggles and emphasise  this could lead to socialism. The democracy of Occupy, the control over production by the work-force, linking it more directly to socialism – you have now taken the first step 1,  to keep going  forward you have to take another step..and another…otherwise you are standing still…..and steps that are required need to be this or that or whatever. Yes, the risk is appearing to be vanguardist, accusations of directing the movement. But i disagree. When we advocate protests have to progress to political action and suggest that it has to be through parliament and peacefully if possible we are doing what the Communist Manifesto describes – not leading the movement but pushing it forward with arguments and analysis. ” Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement….Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.”   

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

………………except by evoking the authority of the great man himself as the argument for the lesser evil. 

 Great man?  Strewth!  What pearls of wisdom has Chomsky ever uttered for him to earn this epithet?  Unless this was intended as a tongue in cheek description I'm simply staggered to see such sanctimonious sycophancy on a socialist forum………

[Author]

Posts