On the other hand, if you look at the world, it's not that remarkable. So let's take the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Haiti and Bolivia. In Haiti, there was an election in 1990 which really was an extraordinary display of democracy much more so than this. ... Take the second poorest country, Bolivia. They had an election in 2005 that's almost unimaginable in the West. Certainly here, anywhere. The person elected into office was indigenous. That's the most oppressed population in the hemisphere, those who survived. He's is a poor peasant. How did he get in? Well, he got in because there were again, a mass popular movement, which elected their own representative. And they are the source of the programs, which are serious ones. There's real issues, And people know them. Control over resources, cultural rights, social justice and so on. ... ctually what happened here is understood by elite elements. The public relations industry which runs elections here-quadrennial extravaganzas essentially- makes sure to keep issues in the margins and focus on personalities and character and so on-and-so forth. They do that for good reasons. They know- they look at public opinion studies and they know perfectly well that on a host of major issues both parties are well to the right of the population. That's one good reason to keep issues off the table. And they recognize the success. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections
On the other hand, if you look at the world, it's not that remarkable. So let's take the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Haiti and Bolivia. In Haiti, there was an election in 1990 which really was an extraordinary display of democracy much more so than this. ... Take the second poorest country, Bolivia. They had an election in 2005 that's almost unimaginable in the West. Certainly here, anywhere. The person elected into office was indigenous. That's the most oppressed population in the hemisphere, those who survived. He's is a poor peasant. How did he get in? Well, he got in because there were again, a mass popular movement, which elected their own representative. And they are the source of the programs, which are serious ones. There's real issues, And people know them. Control over resources, cultural rights, social justice and so on. ... ctually what happened here is understood by elite elements. The public relations industry which runs elections here-quadrennial extravaganzas essentially- makes sure to keep issues in the margins and focus on personalities and character and so on-and-so forth. They do that for good reasons. They know- they look at public opinion studies and they know perfectly well that on a host of major issues both parties are well to the right of the population. That's one good reason to keep issues off the table. And they recognize the success.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections
Let me make one final comment on this. There was meeting on November 7, I think of a group of couple, of a dozen advisers to deal with the financial crisis. Their careers were, records were reviewed in the business press, and Bloomberg News had an article reviewing their records and concluded that these people, most of these people shouldn't be giving advice about the economy. They should be given subpoenas. [applause] Because most of them were involved in one or other form of financial fraud, that includes Rahm Emanuel, for example. What reason is there to think that the people who brought this crisis about are some how going to fix it? Well, that's a good indication of what's likely to come next, at least if we look at actions. ibid
[applause]
Because most of them were involved in one or other form of financial fraud, that includes Rahm Emanuel, for example. What reason is there to think that the people who brought this crisis about are some how going to fix it? Well, that's a good indication of what's likely to come next, at least if we look at actions.
ibid
First he says, that in Haiti and Bolivia there is more democracy than in the West, later explaining it with "which elected their own representative". We do that every for years. And before we had dictators, imperators, feudal lords, theocrats,... that were all our own representatives wrt race. The unusual thing about electing Obama was, that a representative of a racial minority (e.g. NOT 'own representative') that is not a privileged one, was elected. Chomsky doesn't name a single example from the rest of the world, where this would have been in such dramatic terms the case.
Already from other comments of Chomsky I had the impression that his view of Europe is a grotesque caricature far from reality. E.g. he said once, that while in the US the professor would greet the caretaker (which may be true), in Europe there wouldn't be such kind of communication between people of different classes. This is utter nonsense. The existence of some class conscience doesn't mean, we don't communicate with people of other classes. If he would have said, the professor invites the caretaker to his birthday in the US, that would have been impressive.
As well the claim there an election of somebody like Obama would be impossible in Europe is wrong. Many newspapers indeed wrote such rubbish. But I'm absolutely convinced, that race plays a minor role compared with the US in Europe. European Tribune is one of the most race obsessed places in the internet or real live I ever interacted with. The real reason for the lack of a black head of gov't is the lack of an Obama, a person with all the other characteristics of Obama. He is culturally undoubtfully an American, he has parents, who were going to a renowned university (as both his parents), he didn't run his election campaign focusing on the Afro-American community (as e.g. Al Sharpton), but even that would have been different than let's say a Hispanic running on opening the border to Mexico. He was brought up by white Americans, and if it were not for the colour of his skin, most likely he would not even be identified as any kind of minority (Ok, that maybe the point of racism). There are simply very few black people of the age, that the leadership typically has, born here. I know a couple of black people, who identify themselves unambiguously with Germany, but the oldest of them is 29. Give us an Obama, and we would vote for him. Actually probably even Obama could run in Europe and win. Citizenship honores causa.
With regard to non-black immigrants, one may note, that Nicolas Sarkozy is the son of an immigrant, has a name, that sounds for many French people very unusual (I heard a radio cast by a Frenchman, where he called 'presidente Sarkozy' an oxymoron by the very way it sounds). But Sarko isn't seen so much as an immigrant(?). The obsession with blacks is typically US American. E.g. for the much beloved Napoleon only Frenchness counted. The live of a German was as important as the live of an ant for him.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit recently said about the elections in Hesse, people would like to see Al Wazir against Koch. One remaining obstacle for immigrants to get to the highest office is of course that those who want to engage in German politics often join the greens, who usually don't provide the top officials, and membership of the greens means already, that you will have a tough time not making your background a political issue. (I predict, that the CDU will be the first in Germany to provide a black chancellor or president and would bet 60 to 40, that the Christian Democratic Union will provide the first practising muslim chancellor or president as well.) Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Martin:
would bet 60 to 40, that the Christian Democratic Union will provide the first practising muslim chancellor
A reasonable proposition. The only reason I would bet against you is that so far the CDU seems congenitally unable to realize (or admit?) that the majority of Muslims share their values. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
You take his phrase "which elected their own representative" out of context, which makes the difference obvious:
Take the second poorest country, Bolivia. They had an election in 2005 that's almost unimaginable in the West. Certainly here, anywhere. The person elected into office was indigenous. That's the most oppressed population in the hemisphere, those who survived. He's is a poor peasant. How did he get in? Well, he got in because there were again, a mass popular movement, which elected their own representative. And they are the source of the programs, which are serious ones. There's real issues, And people know them. Control over resources, cultural rights, social justice and so on. Furthermore, the election was just an event that was particular stage in a long continuing struggle, a lot before and a lot after. [CF. his comment on Haiti:] In Haiti, there were grassroots movements, popular movements that developed in the slums and the hills, which nobody was paying any attention to. And they managed, even without any resources, to sweep into power their own candidate. A populist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. That's a victory for democracy when popular movements can organize and set programs and pick their candidate and put them into office, which is not what happened here, of course. ... [cf. the end of the talk] The Wall Street Journal, at the opposite end of the spectrum, [re Obama]... Talked about the tremendous grassroots army that has been developed , which is now waiting for instructions. What should they do next to press forward Obama's agenda? Whatever that is. But whatever it is, the army's supposed to be out there taking instructions, and press work. Los Angeles Times had similar articles, and there are others. What they don't seem to realize is what they're describing, the ideal of what they're describing, is dictatorship, not democracy. ... But in the sense of say, much of the south, where mass popular movements developed programs; organize to take part in elections but that's one part of an ongoing process. And brings somebody from their own ranks to implement the programs that they develop, and if the person doesn't they're out. Ok, that's another kind of democracy.
Furthermore, the election was just an event that was particular stage in a long continuing struggle, a lot before and a lot after.
[CF. his comment on Haiti:]
In Haiti, there were grassroots movements, popular movements that developed in the slums and the hills, which nobody was paying any attention to. And they managed, even without any resources, to sweep into power their own candidate. A populist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. That's a victory for democracy when popular movements can organize and set programs and pick their candidate and put them into office, which is not what happened here, of course.
...
[cf. the end of the talk]
The Wall Street Journal, at the opposite end of the spectrum, [re Obama]... Talked about the tremendous grassroots army that has been developed , which is now waiting for instructions. What should they do next to press forward Obama's agenda? Whatever that is. But whatever it is, the army's supposed to be out there taking instructions, and press work. Los Angeles Times had similar articles, and there are others. What they don't seem to realize is what they're describing, the ideal of what they're describing, is dictatorship, not democracy.
... But in the sense of say, much of the south, where mass popular movements developed programs; organize to take part in elections but that's one part of an ongoing process. And brings somebody from their own ranks to implement the programs that they develop, and if the person doesn't they're out. Ok, that's another kind of democracy.
As for his comment on class re academics in US and Europe, as an ex-academic in the UK I think it's probably true. But anyway, it's the kind of trivial point (with no link to a source) seized on by right-wing critics because they don't have any arguments about his main points. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
So right wing critics critisise Chomsky for not appreciating the importance of the election of Obama?
So your long diatribe about Europe is beside the point.
You posted this as a response to Twank's question about the comparison of racism in the US and Europe. Of course from a POV of the target audience this is just a side point for Chomsky. But it was Twank's question and Chomsky refers to it. So I focused on that, and think it is legitim.
And yes, Chomsky talks as well about other things than race, but not solely. As well from rereading I can't see, that only the part you boldened is important. I would even say it is less important from the structure the paragraph is made up. And he refers to the election of Obama as if it were something that could happen everywhere in the poor countries in a similar way. As well from rereading I get that impression. Probably he is not completely wrong. But the phenomenon Obama is so far unique, even if indeed I would argue it could happen elsewhere - most likely in the West, but less likely somewhere else. How good is the chance that the ANC puts up a white person or a refugee from Zaire?
On Haiti, he ignores again the majority relations. A functioning democracy doesn't have such large movements, because the parties have that role. If interests are very diverse a movement can't bring together a majority. Parties include already compromises between different subgroups. If many are in a similar situation popular movements work. But Chomsky celebrates, that Haitians get to manage something that happened in the Western world hundreds of years ago. Minority movements of course may get into elections - by forming a new party, like the greens across most of Europe or WASG/Die Linke in Germany.
For the last part, again you can join work groups etc. of a party. How many people of the movements in Haiti or Bolivia are really introducing new ideas? How complex can the policies become, before you need to rely on a couple of experts, whom you trust without permanent control? Are the ideas of Obama supporters compatible with each other - that I can answer: No.
Chomsky often says a lot of interesting things, but he has a defeatist bone. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
They AND "liberals" in the US - but his reasons for why he doesn't appreciate it are not trivial and are the ones given in the talk. It includes a lot of discussion about the way in which the system works in the US and how limited the general range of opinion is in the US - (including in comparison with Europe; a point he often makes elsewhere in Europe's favour).
"So your long diatribe about Europe is beside the point." You posted this as a response to Twank's question about the comparison of racism in the US and Europe. Of course from a POV of the target audience this is just a side point for Chomsky. But it was Twank's question and Chomsky refers to it. So I focused on that, and think it is legitim.
Yes, but you use it as stick to beat Chomsky with
I read that piece of Chomsky, too, and was quite disappointed. First he says...
First he says...
As well from rereading I can't see, that only the part you boldened is important. I would even say it is less important from the structure the paragraph is made up.
Not at all, it's central to the contrast he is making, i.e. about the much more active and prolonged involvement is in the democratic process, in contrast to the US. Cf., also in the talk, if you read it:
Actually what happened here is understood by elite elements. The public relations industry which runs elections here - quadrennial extravaganzas essentially - makes sure to keep issues in the margins and focus on personalities and character and so on-and-so forth.
Probably he is not completely wrong. But the phenomenon Obama is so far unique, even if indeed I would argue it could happen elsewhere - most likely in the West, but less likely somewhere else. How good is the chance that the ANC puts up a white person or a refugee from Zaire?
You continue to miss the key point - see previous quotation; he's arguing that focus on the candidate's character, personality or colour is typical of these "quadrennial extravaganzas" - which he contrasts with the far more significant involvement in a more general democratic process elsewhere in the world.
But Chomsky celebrates, that Haitians get to manage something that happened in the Western world hundreds of years ago. Minority movements of course may get into elections - by forming a new party, like the greens across most of Europe or WASG/Die Linke in Germany.
Chomsky is well aware of the history of political struggle in Europe (he wrote an essay about the Spanish Civil War when he was 12 !) and in the US. He's talking about the US TODAY and he has also written extensively on how working class movements have been suppressed and how the US democratic process has been largely reduced to voting every four years on the character, etc. of candidates for parties in a political spectrum which has greatly shifted to the Right. In this talk - as well as often elsewhere - he discussues this process, e.g.:
... at the liberal end the progressive end, the leading [very influential] public intellectual of the 20th century was Walter Lippman. A Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy progressive. And a lot of his work was on a democratic theory and he was pretty frank about it. ... He said that in a democracy, the population has a function. Its function is to be spectators, not participants. He didn't call it the population. He called it the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. The ignorant and meddlesome outsiders have a function and namely to watch what's going on. And to push a lever every once in a while and then go home. But, the participants are us, us privileged, smart guys. Well that's one conception of democracy. And you know essentially we've seen an episode of it. The population very often doesn't accept this. As I mentioned, just very recent polls, people overwhelmingly oppose it. But they're atomized, separated. Many of them feel hopeless, unorganized, and don't feel they can do anything about it. So they dislike it. But that's where it ends. In a functioning democracy like say Bolivia or the United States in earlier stages, they did something about it. That's why we have the New Deal measures, the Great Society measures. In fact just about any step, you know, women's rights, end of slavery, go back as far as you like, it doesn't happen as a gift. And it's not going to happen in the future.
In a functioning democracy like say Bolivia or the United States in earlier stages, they did something about it. That's why we have the New Deal measures, the Great Society measures. In fact just about any step, you know, women's rights, end of slavery, go back as far as you like, it doesn't happen as a gift. And it's not going to happen in the future.
IF the system goes on as it is - but he gives talks like this - MANY of them - and writes his many books and articles and gives interviews precisely because that's his way of trying to change the system. So your point about his supposed "tone" is wrong.
"Chomsky often says a lot of interesting things, but he has a defeatist bone."
He is being realistic about the problems, but goes on working as an activist because he clearly believes things CAN change (and HAVE, as he says, in the US since the 60s), cf. Gramsci, "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will":
So something's happened to the country in 40 years. And what's happened to the country - which is we're not supposed to mention - is that there was extensive and very constructive activism in the 1960s, which had an aftermath. So the feminist movement, mostly developed in the 70s - the solidarity movements of the 80's and on till today. And the activism did civilize the country. The country's a lot more civilized than it was 40 years ago and the historic achievements illustrate it. That's also a lesson for what's next. What's next will depend on whether the same thing happens. Changes and progress very rarely are gifts from above. They come out of struggles from below.
What's next will depend on whether the same thing happens. Changes and progress very rarely are gifts from above. They come out of struggles from below.
Chomsky: Consumption distracts people. You cannot control your own population by force, but it can be distracted by consumption. The business press has been quite explicit about this goal. SPIEGEL: A while ago you called America "the greatest country on earth." How does that fit together with what you've been saying? Chomsky: In many respects, the United States is a great country. Freedom of speech is protected more than in any other country. It is also a very free society. In America, the professor talks to the mechanic. They are in the same category. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,583454,00.html
SPIEGEL: A while ago you called America "the greatest country on earth." How does that fit together with what you've been saying?
Chomsky: In many respects, the United States is a great country. Freedom of speech is protected more than in any other country. It is also a very free society. In America, the professor talks to the mechanic. They are in the same category.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,583454,00.html
I think he's generally right about this greater degree of egalitarianism - in attitudes not wealth, obviously. But it's not crucial to any of his main points. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
But it's not crucial to any of his main points. Then why is he saying that? Of course it is not related with the other stuff, but why is he saying such stuff that? Does he know so much about how it is in other countries, that he can decide that? If he really said it, why did he call America "the greatest country on earth." and not just a great or a very great country, implying with "the greatest" that other countries are somehow worse. If he didn't say it, why doesn't he correct spiegel and says, America has many positive and great aspects or something like that. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
If he really said it, why did he call America "the greatest country on earth." and not just a great or a very great country, implying with "the greatest" that other countries are somehow worse. If he didn't say it, why doesn't he correct spiegel and says, America has many positive and great aspects or something like that.
SPIEGEL: A while ago you called America "the greatest country on earth." How does that fit together with what you've been saying? Chomsky: In many respects, the United States is a great country. Freedom of speech is protected more than in any other country. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,583454,00.html
Chomsky: In many respects, the United States is a great country. Freedom of speech is protected more than in any other country.
Cf.:
A SMALL computer file appeared on the Internet last week, purporting to list the 13,000 members of the racist, far-right British National Party. ... Make no mistake, the Web sites of the large newspapers, frequent victims of strict libel laws in Britain, have done their part. Reporting on what cannot be reported is something in which the British have much more experience. "In the U.S., the starting point is that you have the right of freedom of expression," said James Edelman, a law professor at Oxford. "There are ways it can be curtailed, but that is the starting point. It is almost the opposite in the U.K." http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/24/technology/24link.php
Make no mistake, the Web sites of the large newspapers, frequent victims of strict libel laws in Britain, have done their part. Reporting on what cannot be reported is something in which the British have much more experience.
"In the U.S., the starting point is that you have the right of freedom of expression," said James Edelman, a law professor at Oxford. "There are ways it can be curtailed, but that is the starting point. It is almost the opposite in the U.K."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/24/technology/24link.php
