The linguist and public intellectual Noam Chomsky has long been a critic of American consumerism and imperialism. SPIEGEL spoke to him about the current crisis of capitalism, Barack Obama’s rhetoric and the compliance of the intellectual class.
SPIEGEL: Professor Chomsky, cathedrals of capitalism have collapsed, the conservative government is spending its final weeks in office with nationalization plans. How does that make you feel?
Chomsky: The times are too difficult and the crisis too severe to indulge in schadenfreude. Looking at it in perspective, the fact that there would be a financial crisis was perfectly predictable, its general nature, if not its magnitude. Markets are always inefficient.
SPIEGEL: What exactly did you anticipate?
Chomsky: In the financial industry, as in other industries, there are risks that are left out of the calculation. If you sell me a car, we have perhaps made a good bargain for ourselves. But there are effects of this transaction on others, which we do not take into account. There is more pollution, the price of gas goes up, there is more congestion. Those are the external costs of our transaction. In the case of financial institutions, they are huge.
SPIEGEL: So for you, Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations of the same political platform?
Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party.
SPIEGEL: You exaggerate. In almost all vital questions — from the taxation of the rich to nuclear energy — there are different positions. At least on the issues of war and peace, the parties differ considerably. The Republicans want to fight in Iraq until victory, even if that takes a 100 years, according to McCain. The Democrats demand a withdrawal plan.
Chomsky: Let us look at the “differences” more closely, and we recognize how limited and cynical they are. The hawks say, if we continue we can win. The doves say, it is costing us too much. But try to find an American politician who says frankly that this aggression is a crime: the issue is not whether we win or not, whether it is expensive or not. Remember the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Did we have a debate whether the Russians can win the war or whether it is too expensive? This may have been the debate at the Kremlin, or in Pravda. But this is the kind of debate you would expect in a totalitarian society. If General Petraeus could achieve in Iraq what Putin achieved in Chechnya, he would be crowned king. The key question here is whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others.
via Interview with Noam Chomsky: ‘The United States Has Essentially a One-Party System’ – SPIEGEL ONLINE – News – International
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Chomsky: If I were in a swing state, I’d vote for Obama follow-up questions to this interview by Peter Jaworski (Western Standard)
Greg Palast on Vote Rigging and Suppression + Is 2008 already fixed?
Divide and Conquer by Bruce Gagnon (+ video)
The Debate That Made No Difference By Timothy V. Gatto
Pingback: More Than a Two-Person Race « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: How Should You Vote? By Jeremy R. Hammond « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Chomsky: Current crisis demonstrates anti-democratic nature of financial system « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Chomsky: Pick the lesser of two evils « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: The Financial Crisis 2008 Interview with Noam Chomsky « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Obama: Change You Can Believe In–Not (Part 1: The Economy) « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Chomsky: If I were in a swing state, I’d vote for Obama « Dandelion Salad
Good point, Diana.
I have the Jewish version of the Golden Rule posted at the top of the blog on the left-hand side.
The Golden Rule
“That which is hateful to you do not do to another … the rest (of the Torah) is all commentary, now go study.”
– Rabbi Hillel
The key question here is whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others
How quaint…. It’s The Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”… learned it when I was a very young child in a tiny one room church in the mountains of West Virginia. It seems like I was born knowing it. How is it that our leaders don’t seem to know?