Choamsky on the Democratic party... is he right?

The Democrats plaintively retorted that they were not the party of the special interests: they served the national interest too. That was correct, but their problem has been that they lack the single-minded class consciousness of their Republican opponents. The latter are not confused about their role as representatives of the owners and managers of the society, who are fighting a bitter class war against the general population -- often adopting vulgar Marxist rhetoric and concepts, resorting to jingoist hysteria, fear and terror, awe of great leaders and the other standard devices of population control. The Democrats are less clear about their allegiances, hence less effective in the propaganda wars.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-3-3.html

The statement that rings very true for me is that democrats are less clear about their allegiances. Noam can be really depressing to read... i gotta get my pollyanna video out now and watch a bit. ;-)

he's campaigning on the issue of class.

http://www.johnedwards.com/page.asp?id=125

Other than DK it's the most radical of plans IMO.

The rhetoric knocking the concept of Socialism was unnecessary especially coming from mill country which was radically transformed by labor union Socialists that demanded fair wages and safe working conditions.

But I can forgive that oversight I suppose.

think Patriot Act and war!

Although, if you consider that Kucinich represents "the people" more than any other candidate (the heart of the "old" Dem. Party) and you look at the Dem leadership (DNC/DLC) then you see very clearly which side of that scale carries the most weight and which master the Dem party is currently serving.

:puke:

IranianDemocrat, it's very clear you are a CONSERVATIVE Democrat. So, for progressives (like me) we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

A) We can leave the Democratic party and vote Green. But IranianDemocrat says "NO"! In fact, it's animated vomit time.

B) We can stay in the Democratic party and change it from within to a more progressive world view. IranianDemocrat says, "NO! We need a new direction!"

So, what do you propose progressives do???? By reading your posts progressives are damned if we do - damned if we don't!

My view: progressives should stay and FIGHT to return the party to those who WORK for a living as opposed to the ruling, owning, class of capital.

I posted on it a few weeks back. Asking a direct question about what the centrist majority in the Democratic base wants from the progressives, and why they take it for granted that thier party can stray from the left and still expect to get the liberal votes.

My view: Electoral action isn't the route. The future will prove some right and most wrong, I imagine.

or he didn't read it properly or he can simply be a yellow dog...

take on the Republican Party, actually. Or he is at least explaining it. He's most definitely *not* saying, "vote Green", in this article.

He's pretty much just laying out some facts so that folks inside the Democratic Party understand it (and therefore how to use it) better.

Noam catches a lot of flack, but nobody can pack 'em in at any campus in America better than Noam Chomsky. His message is certainly clear: CLASS matters!

He tends to describe the world in terms of an utterly ruthless power elite grinding the rest of us into the mud. (With a surprising amount of SMBD imagery along the way -- the word "owners" in your quote is one fairly mild example of this. "Control" is another.)

To the extent that he's correct, reading him can have a bracing, astringent effect. He really seems to cut through the bullshit and get to the nitty-gritty.

But to the extent that he's wrong, his approach results in leaving out every possibility of idealism, mutual support, and higher vision. That's why he can be so depressing, and is best taken in small doses.

finding that he was right.

When GOP folks who are rich start to show some idealism, mutual support, and higher vision that includes the poor, or women, or minorities, we need to have that posted here.

But I suspect that all the rich that show some idealism, mutual support, and higher vision that includes the poor, or women, or minorities are in the Democratic Party (or Green)

btw thanks for posting..funny i do not find chomsky depressing..should i seek urgent medical attention..?

The date says 1990. I was just reading the link as posted on redeye's "academic" thread.

This particular page of the online book is lucid, as is most of his work... just reading about the litany of crimes american administrations have been perpatrating is more than dissolusioning... i don't like reading rap sheets... they depress me, as i have to believe that government is capable of goodwill, yet there seems no evidence of that.

I'm glad it does not affect you like it does me... i just feel gutted... i have several of his books, but on reading 2 of them... "I get it."... now what.

I've heard he's some sort of anarchist... but i'm pretty ignorant about him and about what his true politics are... do you know?

therefore he does not try to provide answers to all questions..he sees people organising their own society and let it develop from there..thanks for your reply..:)

Noam...hemmed and hawwed...and finally said he would label himself an anarchist of the syndicalist variety...

Great documentary and most of the stuff is quite timely still ...

Great footage of Chomper on Buckley's show in the late 60s...where Willy threatens to beat him up...

http://www.zeitgeistvideo.com/manufacturingconsent/mc.html

Quite a poignant portrayal of a rather sensitive guy

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

"Aside from the significant number of anarchist theorists such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and Alexander Berkman, some important contributors to libertarian socialist theory and philosophy would be Noam Chomsky, Daniel Guerin, and Murray Bookchin."

edit: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=chomsky%2C+libertarian+socialism

anarchist, etc. Same as me.

During the Q and A of a speech by him that I was listening to, someone brought up the question of getting depressed at the state of affairs.

To paraphrase his response: "There is no reason to get depressed, much to the contrary, we should be happy, because we are in a position to change things for the better."

Of course, he says this while advocating (from what I understand) Libertarian Socialism, because he believes that it is the natural tendency of government to be... bad, basically.

But in practice, I don't see much that the democrats or voters can really do about this. I mean, every election, it's either the corporations in charge or the people in charge, depending on which party wins?

Just democrats listen to the populous at times. It's never an election for the people.

long ago. Socialist rhetoric is a vote loser -- Americans aren't buying it unless they see a palpable threat to their economic foundation. Somebody else posted a thread talking about family members who lost their jobs to China or something -- those people will be a little more receptive to the rhetoric of class warfare, but the vast majority of Americans are conservative in outlook, as all countries that are on top lean towards conservatism.

Socialism is doomed in this country unless or until 1) There is an economic collapse, and people become desperate enough to try anything, or; 2) There is an ecological crisis that scares the shit out of the average American.


No country in history has, from a position of power and prosperity, moved radically leftwards: it doesn't happen.

but may I add another..

3.the threat of a never-ending war..motivates people for a change that would invariably impact on 1. and 2.

You write:

"No country in history has, from a position of power and prosperity, moved radically leftwards: it doesn't happen."

Well, I guess what you are saying is, good thing for radical leftward moves that the United States is now bankrupt and desperately blowing up large patches of the world so that no one notices its increasing powerlessness. That's now, not later.

Or why do you think we've got the ultra-plunderers in charge?

the Depression and the New Deal were a radical turn to the left -

In terms of job and stock market losses I'd say we are approaching Depression territory again - and given the radical nature of the present Gov't, the shakiness and criminality of Corporations now, and the consequences both econimically and socially of the Iraq occupation ...

I'd say we're in for quite a ride - No?

It is as if Chomsky has a telescope directly pointed at the pages of their playbook. I will read this later:)

He says we don't resort to the same tactics as Rethugs and that we serve the national interest. Of course, he means to imply that if we were clearer about our allegiances we would use the standard practices of population control, but even that's not to bad since to an uber conspiracy theorist like Chomsky just about everything is a standard practice of population control.

,

He'd tell you to make up your own mind. :)

He has however said he thinks a lot of Dennis K's positions "make sense" to him, and thinks he provides a real alternative to Bush.

I assume that in '04 he would favour tactical voting again - vote Green if your vote is not going to make a difference, vote the Dem if you're in Florida.

is unlikely to make any difference if the matter of fraud is not cleared up first, so good luck! After all, Gore only won by about 100,000 votes in the first place. What's another 100,000 to destroy? In this case, they'll be able to do it at the stroke of a key.

I have a quote at home

because I doubt it

re: the propaganda wars. republicans are more effective at winning these wars because they are clear about who they serve...and they communicate it effectively. i don't see why any honest observer would take issue with this claim. it most certainly explains the success of bush, inc.

Some Democrats (the DLC type) are pro-corporate and serve the interests of the wealthy. But unions, minority groups, and women's groups Democratic still have a lot of clout in the Democratic party, which is why we still get lip service now and again. The DLC was started specifically to undermine the influence of the union movement. The Democratic leadership decided they could gain support by being very left and very progressive on social issues, like women's issues, LGBT issues, affirmative action, and ignore the unions, which led directly to anti-worker policies like NAFTA and GATT.

He's right about the Republicans too, generally they don't even pretend to be anything more than the party for rich white people.

if i was a woman, i'd be making nightly withdrawals until pregno

the party supporting thier best interests is in a tough spot. And I dont think it is the democrats fault that people dont vote thier best interests.

The whole point of political leadership is to put people in touch with their interests and give them a rationale for voting them. Check out Sanders's or Kucinich's house sites. Contrast their sites with those of other congresscritters. Chalk and cheese.

in the movie "All the President's Men", Deep Throat said to Woodward: "Follow the money."

everything boils down to class warfare ... it's that simple ... the problem we have now, as Chomsky has stated, is that only one party has shown up for the war ...

the right continues to espouse "market capitalism" ... of course, this only holds as long as they own the markets ... they want less government ... that's because, government is the only force that can effectively restrain the abuses of market capitalism ... they want to "embed reporters" and control the press to ensure that disclosures unfavorable to their propaganda efforts suffer economic harm ...

and they just love to mock those on the left who raise the class warfare issue ... "oh, that tired old liberal argument" they bemoan ... well, the fact that it comes from the left or that it's an old argument doesn't make it any less valid ...

democrats and the democratic party have refused to step across the class warfare threshhold in a meaningful way ... since the days of reagan's effective pro-market propaganda campaign, democrats have feared political setbacks if they dare challenge the almighty god of "free and open" capitalistic competition ... "every citizen has the exact same opportunity to compete for america's riches" ... what a load of crap ...

it may be true that in the short run, raising this issue will "go against the tide" of popular thought ... all the usual accusations about "big government, throwing money at problems, tying the hands of business, going back to the days of welfare queens" etc etc will undoubtedly be made ... there's no denying it ... there will be risks ...

but that's what leadership is all about ... you cannot achieve your agenda if you're too afraid to put it up for a vote before the american people ... politics is about leadership ... and it's about educating the public ...

we live in a time where the gap between rich and poor is growing wider and wider ... and we see more and more corporate welfare ... and we see more and more money pouring into the political process ... for god's sake, we're even starting to see the "privatization" of the american military ...

until the democrats are willing to tackle the issue of class warfare, they can only solve problems on an issue by issue basis ... they can put out fires only one at a time ... but nothing is being done to remove the matches from the dangerous citizens on the right ... they sad truth is, it is not entirely clear to me that centrist democrats believe that class warfare even is a legitimate issue ... perhaps the democratic party really is hopelessly divided ... and this rift may go beyond foreign policy and issues like Iraq ... it may extend to core beliefs on domestic issues as well ...

if others follow Deep Throat's advice, is it possible that some democrats don't come to the same conclusions I do? Regardless, the best way to see the injustices of class warfare is to "follow the money" ...