Much to the chagrin of many a conservative (even though his position of supporting free speech for fascists is much the same as ours,) Noam Chomsky has been awarded the 2011 Sydney Peace Prize. The award goes to the veteran American linguist, social scientist, human rights campaigner and political activist for "an unfailing moral courage and critical analysis of democracy and power." Previous winners include Archbishop Desmond Tutu, journalist John Pilger, former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, Palestinian activist Hanan Ashrawi, and Indigenous human rights activist Patrick Dodson. Chomsky is always always armed with the most original details and devastating facts, the latest scholarly research and reports, and a common-sense analysis that leaves you thinking that you could have done it all yourself. Indeed, it’s Chomsky’s firm belief that you could have done. His analysis is, as an introductory guide to him once put it, common sense elevated to genius. He was influenced by writers such as Anton Pannekoek and Paul Mattick.
His books and lectures are bought and attended in the thousands and he has a strong influence amongst the Left. But Chomsky fails to come to the conclusion that his analysis deserves. Knowledge of how capitalism works and oppresses is not enough. Without an alternative, opposition to capitalism leads nowhere. Granted, many who read or hear Chomsky will arrive at something close to anti-capitalist conclusions but without the aim of abolishing capitalism itself this means relatively little. Chomsky does little to redress this.
While Chomsky blames capitalism for poverty, human rights abuse, limited democracy and so on, his ranks of supporters support fruitless reformist campaigns. To blame Chomsky for his supporters may seem a little harsh. Although consistently stating the limitations of legal and other changes to capitalism, he does not oppose reformism as such and so unfortunately his analysis serves to assist futile reformism, however much this may not be his aim. Leftists persist in quoting his analysis while campaigning for minimal gains and not for the abolition of the system. Chomsky has stated his opposition to the "renting" of workers for their abilities in return for survival. He also opposes the state as a form of social organisation and suggests that alternatives may exist that are greatly preferable to the present system of organised robbery. He's been quoted as saying, "capitalist relations of production, wage labor, competitiveness, the ideology of 'possessive individualism' - all must be regarded as fundamentally antihuman." Elsewhere he has stated that “It’s a truism, but one that needs to be constantly stressed, that capitalism and democracy are ultimately quite incompatible.” Hideous acts of state terrorism are generally presented as noble quests for justice, not because of some conspiracy or official state censorship, but because of the basic operation of capitalism. It's all about money after all: the ruthless securing of markets, trade routes, raw materials to make the world safe for the profit system. Although he puts poverty, hunger, human "rights" abuses and the rest down to capitalism and its organisation, he does not see reformism and moralistic campaigns as a damaging side-track to the conclusion that capitalism itself is the problem and as such attracts the adulation of single-issue reformists.
His books and lectures are bought and attended in the thousands and he has a strong influence amongst the Left. But Chomsky fails to come to the conclusion that his analysis deserves. Knowledge of how capitalism works and oppresses is not enough. Without an alternative, opposition to capitalism leads nowhere. Granted, many who read or hear Chomsky will arrive at something close to anti-capitalist conclusions but without the aim of abolishing capitalism itself this means relatively little. Chomsky does little to redress this.
While Chomsky blames capitalism for poverty, human rights abuse, limited democracy and so on, his ranks of supporters support fruitless reformist campaigns. To blame Chomsky for his supporters may seem a little harsh. Although consistently stating the limitations of legal and other changes to capitalism, he does not oppose reformism as such and so unfortunately his analysis serves to assist futile reformism, however much this may not be his aim. Leftists persist in quoting his analysis while campaigning for minimal gains and not for the abolition of the system. Chomsky has stated his opposition to the "renting" of workers for their abilities in return for survival. He also opposes the state as a form of social organisation and suggests that alternatives may exist that are greatly preferable to the present system of organised robbery. He's been quoted as saying, "capitalist relations of production, wage labor, competitiveness, the ideology of 'possessive individualism' - all must be regarded as fundamentally antihuman." Elsewhere he has stated that “It’s a truism, but one that needs to be constantly stressed, that capitalism and democracy are ultimately quite incompatible.” Hideous acts of state terrorism are generally presented as noble quests for justice, not because of some conspiracy or official state censorship, but because of the basic operation of capitalism. It's all about money after all: the ruthless securing of markets, trade routes, raw materials to make the world safe for the profit system. Although he puts poverty, hunger, human "rights" abuses and the rest down to capitalism and its organisation, he does not see reformism and moralistic campaigns as a damaging side-track to the conclusion that capitalism itself is the problem and as such attracts the adulation of single-issue reformists.
1 comment:
Im a simple human.State school educated, yet know that the only answer is full blown Marx/Engels guide to social harmony for all.
I see Chomsky, as a boat rocker.Not a plug puller.
Post a Comment