Excellent New Chomsky Interview

[HomerThompson]

Terrific, sober analysis as per usual. I particularly liked his take on the Middle East.

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-complete-disaster/

 

[Quequeg]

Accurate and depressing.

 

[Black Helicopters]

inb4 tr*tsky and p*ssum

 

[xcvbn]

What’s your overall sense about Trumpism? What is it really all about, and do you think Trumpism is showing us the future of right-wing politics in the US?

Trumpism is one of many manifestations of the effects of the neoliberal policies of the past generation. These have led to extreme concentration of wealth along with stagnation for the majority. There have been repeated crashes of the deregulated financial institutions, each worse than the last. Bursting bubbles have been followed by huge public bailouts for the perpetrators while the victims have been abandoned. Globalization has been designed to set working people throughout the world in competition with one another while private capital is lavished with benefits. Democratic institutions have eroded. As already mentioned, all of this has led to anger, bitterness, often desperation — one remarkable effect is the increasing mortality among middle-age whites discovered by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, analyzed as “deaths of despair,” a phenomenon unknown in functioning societies. While there are variations from place to place, some features are common. One is the decline of the centrist parties that have long dominated political life, as we see in election after election. In the US, in recent years, whenever candidates arose from the base in the Republican primaries, the established powers were able to crush them and impose their own choice: Mitt Romney, most recently. In 2016, for the first time they were unable to do so, but they quickly rallied to the winning candidate, who proved quite willing to front for the more brutal wing of the traditional party. The real surprise in the election was the Sanders campaign, which broke with a long tradition of pretty much bought elections, and was stopped only by machinations of the Obama-Clinton party managers. The Democratic Party is now split between the donor-oriented New Democrat managers and a growing activist social democratic base.

What all of this portends, worldwide, is far from clear. Though there are also significant signs of hope, some commentators have — with good reason — been quoting Gramsci’s observation from his prison cell: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

I love how Chompsky disregards the interviewers repeated attempts at solely shitting on the right, and assigns blame equally when it's not a partisan matter. He realizes theres nothing we can do about Trump supporters- they're pieces of shit and will remain pieces of shit.

What we need to do is consolidate liberal support by letting neoliberal politicians and their policies die in order to allow social democratic policies and their supporters thrive. But Democrat leadership refuses to bend the knee and make concessions that appeal to the majority of liberals. They're willing to forego a house and Senate sweep all in an effort to appease their donors- donors which Bernie Sanders proved are obsolete.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Terrific, sober analysis as per usual. I particularly liked his take on the Middle East.

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-complete-disaster/

Chomsky bless.

 

[HomerThompson]

Chomsky bless.

He's always so accurate and measured in his language. Hardly surprising considering his background, but still; it's a terrific read, or listen, every single time.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I love how Chompsky disregards the interviewers repeated attempts at solely shitting on the right, and assigns blame equally when it's not a partisan matter. He realizes theres nothing we can do about Trump supporters- they're pieces of shit and will remain pieces of shit.

What we need to do is consolidate liberal support by letting neoliberal politicians and their policies die in order to allow social democratic policies and their supporters thrive. But Democrat leadership refuses to bend the knee and make concessions that appeal to the majority of liberals. They're willing to forego a house and Senate sweep all in an effort to appease their donors- donors which Bernie Sanders proved are obsolete.

I think he was more fair to Trumpsters than that; acknowledging the neoliberal policies they were born of.
Even the "death of despair" data is compelling when you see that economics didn't matter as much as originally thought.

 

[HomerThompson]

Me, @mr.bigglesworth, and @Anung Un Rama right now:

 

[Fawlty]

His takes on Trump and Ryan seem spot-on. I'm still not convinced about his stance on trade agreements (all trade agreements). I wish he would contrast things in the trade agreements with whatever he would consider to be good trade agreements. It's not obvious to me that a deal that protects a corporation's ability to move goods between countries is always horrible.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

His takes on Trump and Ryan seem spot-on. I'm still not convinced about his stance on trade agreements (all trade agreements). I wish he would contrast things in the trade agreements with whatever he would consider to be good trade agreements. It's not obvious to me that a deal that protects a corporation's ability to move goods between countries is always horrible.

Do you think Chomsky is opposed to a company moving goods from country to country?

 

[Fawlty]

Do you think Chomsky is opposed to a company moving goods from country to country?

He doesn't make that clear. He just rails against it as part of his objection to the internationalization of production. His complaint then is that there are not really transnational unions to reduce the negative effects of global trade. But I don't hear him kicking in support for transnational labor movements, or suggesting how those could be negotiated. He just bemoans that trade agreements ignore those. Well, okay, but lower barriers to trade is desirable. It's up to the people to demand unions. That's our job- we aren't going to be given that. We have always had to fight for it.

So in the end, I don't get that particular complaint about trade.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

He doesn't make that clear. He just rails against it as part of his objection to the internationalization of production. His complaint then is that there are not really transnational unions to reduce the negative effects of global trade. But I don't hear him kicking in support for transnational labor movements, or suggesting how those could be negotiated. He just bemoans that trade agreements ignore those. Well, okay, but lower barriers to trade is desirable. It's up to the people to demand unions. That's our job- we aren't going to be given that. We have always had to fight for it.

So in the end, I don't get that particular complaint about trade.

So it looks like you've answered your question about Chomsky regarding trade; he doesn't oppose trade, but the aspects of the agreements that hurt workers and the environment to the benefit of corporate owners.

And now it looks like yours shifting your position to 'why isn't he doing something about it'.

I know he supports unions. Why do you think he doesn't? And how are unions to negotiate international trade treaties when they're barely represented at the negotiations?

You don't see a problem with we, the people, having to form unions to protect ourselves from exploitation while our government negotiates transnational treaties on behalf of multibillion dollar multinational corporations? You don't see a problem with that practice from a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

 

[Fawlty]

So it looks like you've answered your question about Chomsky regarding trade; he doesn't oppose trade, but the aspects of the agreements that hurt workers and the environment to the benefit of corporate owners.

And now it looks like yours shifting your position to 'why isn't he doing something about it'.

I know he supports unions. Why do you think he doesn't? And how are unions are to negotiate international trade treaties when they're barely represented at the negotiations?

You don't see a problem with we, the people, having to form unions to protect ourselves from exploitation while our government negotiates transnational treaties on behalf of multibillion dollar multinational corporations? You don't see a problem with that practice from a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

I'm not "shifting my position."

You need to learn some fucking manners, and I'm going to instruct you. I have an INQUIRY. Not a POSITION.

It's still not clear whether Chomsky opposes the low barriers to international movement of goods in and of itself, or whether he opposes them on the premise that those provisions exclude labor rights by their nature, or whether he opposes them only because any trade agreement should address all of the concerns, including workers' rights. We know that he holds the third positions, but he's not clear about the first or second. My INQUIRY was expressing that I would expect, if it's the case that Chomsky supports a kind (and which kind?) of transnational labor organization, that he would talk about that. Probably, knowing Chomsky, he would cite somebody whose work I could look up.

You are no help in that. You are just going to give me your opinion, or get mad at me. I don't care about your opinion. You don't know what I want to know. You could be a doll and see if you can fetch it for me, though.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I'm not "shifting my position."

You need to learn some fucking manners, and I'm going to instruct you. I have an INQUIRY. Not a POSITION.

lol! Not to make a big thing about it and further rustle your jimmies, but you did shift form wondering why Chomsky opposed free trade agreements, answering the question on your own (yay!), and then complaining that he wasn't doing anything about supporting unions to help create better free trade deals. So from why doesn't he tell us why he disagrees with the agreement to why doesn't he solve the parts he disagrees with. A shift.

It's still not clear whether Chomsky opposes the low barriers to international movement of goods in and of itself,

No, its clear.

or whether he opposes them on the premise that those provisions exclude labor rights by their nature, or whether he opposes them only because any trade agreement should address all of the concerns, including workers' rights. We know that he holds the third positions, but he's not clear about the first or second.

Its is clear that he holds both the second and third positions. You could add in that he also opposes them for concerns about the environment and democracy.

My INQUIRY was expressing that I would expect, if it's the case that Chomsky supports a kind (and which kind?) of transnational labor organization, that he would talk about that. Probably, knowing Chomsky, he would cite somebody whose work I could look up.

I'm not aware of a transnational labor organization, are you? If there was and Chomsky didn't endorse them is that meaningful?
Why not just support our own unions, who are given very little clout at these negotiations? What Chomsky has endorsed is a mobilization of union and labor to transform US politics.

You are no help in that. You are just going to give me your opinion, or get mad at me. I don't care about your opinion. You don't know what I want to know. You could be a doll and see if you can fetch it for me, though.

You're such a sad person, you know that. This faux intellectual persona you've been trying to carve out for yourself doesn't fool anybody. If you just spoke like a real human being and didn't try and shift your positions to squirrel away form looking silly all the time you'd be a much better poster.

 

[Gandhi]

I'll just weigh in and say in summary

Good read, it provokes a deep thinking about the current state of the political economic power structure and how it interacts with democracy.

I agree with @Fawlty on questioning C's position on trade. Is there any mention of the positives of actual trade ( ie in reducing global poverty / reducing wars)? Is there any trade deal that C or the far left has ever supported? At the risk of being overly crass, the ideology seems to revolve around the idea that anything good for corps is bad for people and is devoid of the simple tension between creating wealth and the sharing of it, that western democracies face.

I enjoyed his overview of the Middle East although he overplays Iran as some honest broker in wanting a nuclear free Middle East if only not for evil Israel.

He also seems to be taking the worse cases of the USA and generalizing them to the western liberal model. My final gripe is that he makes statements about the USA violating agreements, like in the case of NK with bush, but is short on details, so it's hard to assess.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I'll just weigh in and say in summary

Good read, it provokes a deep thinking about the current state of the political economic power structure and how it interacts with democracy.

I agree with @Fawlty on questioning C's position on trade. Is there any mention of the positives of actual trade ( ie in reducing global poverty / reducing wars)? Is there any trade deal that C or the far left has ever supported? At the risk of being overly crass, the ideology seems to revolve around the idea that anything good for corps is bad for people and is devoid of the simple tension between creating wealth and the sharing of it, that western democracies face.

I enjoyed his overview of the Middle East although he overplays Iran as some honest broker in wanting a nuclear free Middle East if only not for evil Israel.

He also seems to be taking the worse cases of the USA and generalizing them to the western liberal model. My final gripe is that he makes statements about the USA violating agreements, like in the case of NK with bush, but is short on details, so it's hard to assess.

If you look at his position as damning trade altogether rather than the consequences of the overarching trade agreements, then sure, but I think thats a gross distortion of his actual position.

 

[Fawlty]

I'll just weigh in and say in summary

Good read, it provokes a deep thinking about the current state of the political economic power structure and how it interacts with democracy.

I agree with @Fawlty on questioning C's position on trade. Is there any mention of the positives of actual trade ( ie in reducing global poverty / reducing wars)? Is there any trade deal that C or the far left has ever supported? At the risk of being overly crass, the ideology seems to revolve around the idea that anything good for corps is bad for people and is devoid of the simple tension between creating wealth and the sharing of it, that western democracies face.

I enjoyed his overview of the Middle East although he overplays Iran as some honest broker in wanting a nuclear free Middle East if only not for evil Israel.

He also seems to be taking the worse cases of the USA and generalizing them to the western liberal model. My final gripe is that he makes statements about the USA violating agreements, like in the case of NK with bush, but is short on details, so it's hard to assess.

I have never heard him say anything positive about trade. I've only heard him give excellent talks on labor and the way we think about labor and capital. But his blanket criticisms are frustrating. I have no doubt that he could pull something out of that encyclopedia in his head if he had to.

Trying to read his mind is silly, but I would have to guess that he just hates the entire way that labor and capital are organized and thus doesn't have anything positive to say about trade, as if it's just not worth his time. That bugs me because I think we could work toward better conditions for labor if we could make a better case for trade. A lot of the shit corporations get away with is because labor is not engaged with capital at all. The unions of the future are cooperative, as much as that rustles old anarchist jimmies.

 

[Fawlty]

lol! Not to make a big thing about it and further rustle your jimmies, but you did shift form wondering why Chomsky opposed free trade agreements, answering the question on your own (yay!), and then complaining that he wasn't doing anything about supporting unions to help create better free trade deals. So from why doesn't he tell us why he disagrees with the agreement to why doesn't he solve the parts he disagrees with. A shift.


No, its clear.

Its is clear that he holds both the second and third positions. You could add in that he also opposes them for concerns about the environment and democracy.


I'm not aware of a transnational labor organization, are you? If there was and Chomsky didn't endorse them is that meaningful?
Why not just support our own unions, who are given very little clout at these negotiations? What Chomsky has endorsed is a mobilization of union and labor to transform US politics.


You're such a sad person, you know that. This faux intellectual persona you've been trying to carve out for yourself doesn't fool anybody. If you just spoke like a real human being and didn't try and shift your positions to squirrel away form looking silly all the time you'd be a much better poster.

Again, you're not really of any help to me here, just a shit sparring partner. Not interested.

 

[Gandhi]

If you look at his position as damning trade altogether rather than the consequences of the overarching trade agreements, then sure, but I think thats a gross distortion of his actual position.

But he, like the far left in general have a totally one sided view of the impacts of these agreements. Again I see zero nuance regarding the impacts on global poverty or the reduction in global relative inequality. Nor is there a discussion of the practical result of diminishing conflict. There is a lense that views all events as the simple hijacking of the political system for corporate ends in what amounts to a zero sum game. There is a lot of truth to that view, but it's an incomplete picture.

 

[Ruprecht]

He's always so accurate and measured in his language. Hardly surprising considering his background, but still; it's a terrific read, or listen, every single time.

Only when he's going into detail, he does his share of outrageous one liners to get media attention.