Dave and I went through the following article
Failed Anarchist on "Failed States" where it seeks basically to discredit Chomsky and reveal why he doesn't fit the
Trotskyist vision. Tynan recommended us to read this as Dave brought up Chomsky in our talks. For the first half, most of it is hogwash. Both of us got tired from analyzing it towards the end, so pardon for our lack of consistent quality. I'm just going over what Dave and I talked about now and trying to find some links to back it up. So read on, it is a bit long.
Legend:
Blue text - stuff that was true but not
wholly relevant to the article
Red text - stuff that we thought was irrelevant or should be cut or was wrong altogether
Purple text - my thoughts
***********************************************************************
Workers Vanguard No. 874, 4 August 2006 Failed Anarchist on "Failed States"
Noam Chomsky: "Radical" Adviser to U.S. Imperialism
BOSTON—On June 6, members of the Spartacist League/Spartacus Youth Club attended a Harvard Book Store-sponsored forum in Cambridge, featuring Noam Chomsky as one of two panelists. Chomsky was there to promote his new book, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. Chomsky’s exposure of some of the crimes of U.S. imperialism can open students’ eyes to what the U.S. really does internationally, but the “esteemed professor” then feeds them the lie that this can be changed through the promotion of “pure” democracy with the help of the UN and international law. An SL/SYC speaker at the forum challenged Chomsky:
“Basically what I see that you’re doing, as the title of your book says, is basically—as you have done historically—build faith in this mythical bird called Pure Democracy…. The fact of the matter is that democracy has a class basis. This is what capitalist democracy looks like: It’s Lynndie England with a naked, tortured Iraqi on the end of a leash. It’s…the racist frame-up of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who faces the very real threat of execution now…. For all your criticisms of the Democrats whose hands are dripping in blood, you called people in the last election to vote for the Democratic Party.”
Now this speaker obviously has not seriously read Chomsky's works. I don't think Chomsky would ever equate any ideal of democracy to the the democratic system of the U.S. See:
"Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy."Business Today, May, 1973, pp. 13-15
Unlike Noam Chomsky (I'm quite sure Chomsky understands the following), we understand that under capitalism “democracy” serves as a mask for a system of exploitation, oppression and state repression. Under its facade of “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” the U.S. capitalist state is a violent terror machine for the defense of the capitalist class’s profit system—a system based on private ownership of the means of production and the concentration of vast amounts of the wealth created by the labor of the working-class masses in the hands of a tiny, exploiting minority. The capitalist state’s cops, courts and prisons exist to prevent working people and, in the U.S., particularly the specially oppressed black masses, from fundamentally challenging the racist, oppressive capitalist order. Capitalist “democracy” is in reality the dictatorship of the capitalist class over the working class and oppressed.
It is only through (I don't like the dogmatic sound of that) proletarian revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the working class that the basis can be laid for creating an egalitarian, socialist society where production is based on human need and not profit. Democracy for working people can only become a reality by ripping the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist exploiters and replacing their state with a state for the defense of the interests of workers and the oppressed, as a transition to a classless, stateless, communist society.
Far from wanting to smash capitalist states, armchair anarchist Chomsky wants to rescue these from failure! According to Chomsky’s book, the salient features of “failed states” such as the U.S. include what he calls the “democratic deficit” or “the sharp divide between public opinion and public policy.” Once again, Chomsky arrives with the earth-shattering news flash: the capitalist rulers don’t govern based on the interests of the working class and the oppressed! But that won’t stop him from promoting the virtues of U.S. capitalist democracy: “The United States was the first modern (more or less) democratic society, and has been a model for others ever since. And in many dimensions crucial for authentic democracy—protection of freedom of speech, for example—it has become a leader among the societies of the world.”
I don't think Chomsky wants to rescue these "states" from failure. One reason being is he is obviously anarchist and doesn't believe in states, lull. And there are some advantages, albeit few and not worth the rational of the system, to living in America. For one thing, free speech laws in the U.S. are better than in Canada or France. Another is that there aren't mass killings or arrests for criticizing the government, unlike Burma. I like how the author of this article The Empire of Liberty puts it as Chomsky often puts it: "At the same time, there are virtues of the US, as Chomsky agrees. One of the main virtues is evidenced simply by the existence of books like Failed States. Free speech really does exist. If feeling like one of the deluded is rare, having books that spell it out for you easily accessible from government-run libraries is nearly unheard of." Chomsky’s regard for U.S. capitalist democracy is superseded only by his regard for the UN Charter and the “sacred” international law that he makes impotent appeals for the U.S. to respect. Behind the anarchists’ purported rejection of all states, including the dictatorship of the working class, is a program that in practice upholds the capitalist state. Yet, Chomsky fails to even pretend he is for the destruction of capitalism, openly counseling the imperialist rulers to “democratize” their system. And his virulent anti-communism, typical of anarchists, places him squarely in the camp of the bloody imperialist powers that he purports to criticize. Thus it follows that Chomsky’s idea of “free speech” at his own events means telling the communists to shut up and ask their question, as he did at the Harvard forum on June 6. This prompted another SL/SYC member in the crowd to tell Chomsky to “stop manufacturing consent.”
It’s Canada’s Fault?
In response to a question from the floor regarding the recent immigration debate in the U.S., Chomsky gave the usual endless speech of a rambling, pompous professor: saying everything while saying nothing. But then, suddenly, we sat up in our seats as the spectre of South Park entered the hall: “We need to form a full assault. It’s Canada’s fault!” Chomsky said:
“There was a 9/11 Commission set up, a government commission to recommend a means to produce a threat barrier to the United States. It was set up over strong opposition by the Bush Administration, for which it carries a very low priority, and they didn’t want it.... As they pointed out that the greatest threat of terror, one of the greatest infiltrations across the border, namely the Canadian border. The long, unguarded border reaching across. And that they said, ‘You’ve got to do something about infiltration from the Canadian border.’ What has the Administration done? Well, first the Bush Administration since 9/11 reduced the border control altogether, reduced the growth of border patrol. The really long length of border…. But they don’t care…the Canadian border is left unguarded, the one that’s considered the most dangerous.” (Emphases his.)
This, imo, is the worst section in this article. It is a complete misinterpretation, maybe even a deliberate misinterpretation if I assume the author isn't a dimwit. Firstly, Chomsky has no regard for U.S. democracy, not in it's entirety as it is implying following from the previous assumption. Secondly, anarchists abhor all forms of oppression, this dictum in now way means it supports capitalism. If you mean indirectly by virtue of making a Revolutionary State or Red Bueacracy weaker, then say so.
On a side note, Trotskyists blame Anarchists for the failed revolution during the Spanish Revolution and will draw them out as counterrevolutionary. When I talked to Tynan and his comrade Sophia yesterday, they said it isn't the proletariats fault for the Capitalist oppression because the Capitalists are at a position of power and influence. Yet it is the Anarchists fault if the Fascists, with their deceit in promise of a cooperation and military power, destroyed the Spanish Revolution. (I'm paraphrasing what Tynan explained to me.) Maybe I'm making a simplification, but I still can't see how it was the Anarchists fault without Tynan consenting to the first case. Of course I think the issue of responsibility may ultimately be on some type of scale and apply because we understand cause-and-effect.
Thirdly, I would agree with Chomsky to be critical of any government which creates a "small party of professional revolutionaries" such as the Bolsheviks. Why? Because, to me, that is creating a second class and follows the idea of Philosopher Kings of Plato. The U.S. was founded on the same principles too (The Great American Election Fraud 1900-1965): that a minority should lead the masses. They probably used the same rational as the Bolsheviks of why they should have tight control. Just to say your way actually works is not a valid argument.
Now finally why this part is so wrong. Chomsky is clearly outlining in his quote about the 9-11 Comission that if the U.S. was clearly invested and sincere on the "war on terror" it would have considered the 9-11 Commission's findings and increased border patrols on the Canadian borders, not trying to build a giant fence between it and Mexico and create more hostility between the American people and immigrant workers as it is doing today. Just read the following from Wikiquotes:"The big debate in Washington is totally pointless. And the media, about whether Bush downgraded terror in order to invade Iraq. There's nothing to debate. He invaded Iraq. That proves beyond doubt that he downgraded the threat of terror in favor of invading Iraq. They anticipated, and their own intelligence agencies told them, and everyone else did too, that invasion of Iraq was likely to increase the threat of terror. It's not a high priority, so they invaded Iraq because that's much higher priority."
"The list of the states that have joined the coalition against terror is quite impressive. They have a characteristic in common. They are certainly among the leading terrorist states in the world. And they happen to be led by the world champion.""The list of the states that have joined the coalition against terror is quite impressive. They have a characteristic in common. They are certainly among the leading terrorist states in the world. And they happen to be led by the world champion."
How the author of this can get this so misconstrued is a miracle to me, or just blind because he/she's looking through the lens of his ideology. And you know what, I bet the creators of South Park understood this and was making satire out of it.Chomsky is now calling on the racist, rapacious American ruling class and its murderous state to save us from the evil clutches of…Canadians! That’s right, this “radical” imposter has joined the chorus of hysterical townspeople of South Park: “With all their beady little eyes and flapping heads so full of lies, Blame Canada! Blame Canada!” But unlike the creators of South Park, Noam Chomsky wasn’t joking. Chomsky’s comments about the Canadian border were made just a few days after Canadian police carried out “anti-terror” raids resulting in the arrests of 17 Muslim men. A central and recurring complaint in Chomsky’s latest book is that members of the Bush administration “do not consider terrorism a high priority.” Chomsky echoes the Democratic Party liberals who complain that Bush is giving low priority to fighting terrorism and who consider the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq as a distraction from the “war on terror.” Chomsky complains: “Preventing terrorist attacks is simply not a high priority in comparison with serious geopolitical and strategic objectives—specifically, controlling the world’s major energy resources.”
This part sort of ties in with what I was writing above.
It is it system. The racist atrocity that took place in New Orleans around Hurricane Katrina is proof on its grotesque that Chomsky posits that the biggest terrorists on the planet, the U.S. imperialist rulers, who also attack the livelihoods of working people at home, could be in the business of “protecting” anyone but themselves and their profwn of the murderous contempt the capitalist rulers have for black, working and poor people in this country. The so-called “war on terror” is in reality a cover for imperialist slaughter abroad and for a war on the rights of labor, immigrants, black people and leftists at home. For all of Chomsky’s concern about the “assault on democracy” in the U.S., his recent book doesn’t even reference the Patriot Act or comment on the wholesale shredding of the democratic rights of the U.S. population under the rubric of the “war on terror.”
While Chomsky complains about the “unguarded” Canadian border, the Canadian capitalist rulers have in fact followed the U.S.’s lead in using a purported “war on terror” to vastly restrict the rights of the population as a whole, as have other “democratic” capitalist governments around the world. These restrictions are aimed at repressing working-class and social struggle, which will always represent the biggest “threat” for the capitalist rulers.
Okay this is where I got very tired from responding to this article. You can read the rest of it below and in a future post I will get back to why it's more rubbish.
Disarming Iraq and Iran
Chomsky calls for relying on “diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror.” Indeed, it was such measures that the UN employed with its sanctions against Iraq that resulted in the deaths of over 1.5 million Iraqis, especially children, during the period of “peace” between America’s two shooting wars against Iraq. While Chomsky spends several pages in Failed States railing against the “murderous regime” of sanctions against Iraq, he fails to mention that he himself advocated these sanctions in 1991 (Z Magazine, February 1991). Chomsky’s beloved UN, which in his fantasy world is supposed to lead the way to “peace,” served as a “democratic” fig leaf for the sanctions and weapons inspections, which were aimed at disarming neocolonial Iraq and setting it up for a one-sided slaughter by U.S. imperialism.
As Marxists, we not only opposed the sanctions and the U.S. war, but stood for the military defense of Iraq against U.S. imperialism while giving no political support to the capitalist regime of Saddam Hussein. In the same way, today we oppose the U.S.’s nuclear blackmail against Iran, which it has threatened to attack. As we noted in “U.S. Hands Off Iran” (WV No. 863, 3 February):
“In the event of military attack against Iran by U.S. imperialism or by Israel, or by any other force operating on behalf of the imperialists, we Marxists declare: The international proletariat must stand for the military defense of Iran against imperialist attack. At the same time, we give not one iota of political support to the reactionary Tehran regime. Our defense of capitalist Iran is conditional: In military conflicts between an imperialist power and a dependent semicolonial country, our policy is revolutionary defensism. We defend the oppressed country against the oppressor country and promote class struggle in the imperialist centers, as well as in the oppressed country. Every victory for the imperialists in their military adventures encourages more predatory wars; every setback serves to assist the struggles of working people and the oppressed.”
We have also noted that in the context of threats by the nuclear-armed imperialists, Iran clearly needs nukes to defend itself and deter a U.S. attack. Not so Noam Chomsky, who penned an article titled “A Negotiated Solution to the Iranian Nuclear Crisis Is Within Reach” (London Guardian, 19 June). While acknowledging that the “very credible US and Israeli threats…virtually urge Iran to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent,” Chomsky’s response is to urge the U.S. and Israel to “call off” their threats! And just in case that wasn’t too much of a fantastical demand upon the U.S. imperialists, he also calls on them “to take ‘good-faith’ efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.”
The bottom line for Chomsky is expressed in his Failed States: “Of course, every sane person hopes that ways will be found to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program.” The U.S. imperialist madmen, who are unique in having actually carried out nuclear holocaust with their bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, push the same line. And Chomsky is far from alone among liberals and leftists in counseling the mass-murdering imperialists on how “best” to disarm Iran, with the International Socialist Organization and Revolutionary Communist Party’s World Can’t Wait signing a petition calling on Bush and Cheney to effectively disarm Iran and inaugurate world peace (see “ISO, RCP to Bush: Disarm Iran, ‘Lead the Way to Peace’,” WV No. 870, 12 May).
Anti-Communist Fighter for “Democratic” Counterrevolution
At the June 6 forum, a second SL/SYC speaker challenged Chomsky over his endorsement of a 2003 declaration which echoed the U.S. imperialist hue and cry over the arrests of 78 pro-imperialist “dissidents” in Cuba. Our speaker asked:
“Please explain why, in 2003, you signed on to an anti-Cuba declaration, penned by none other than Joanne Landy, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a lifelong advocate of the violent overthrow of the Cuban government. You endorsed this letter. Please tell us why you fought for the fall of the Soviet Union.”
Chomsky is typical of the petty-bourgeois liberals and “leftist” intellectuals who lend their “anti-imperialist” credentials to U.S. imperialism’s drive to overthrow the gains of the Cuban Revolution. For these types, the abstract notion of (bourgeois) “democracy,” and not the proletarian class character of the Cuban state, is the be-all and end-all. This was expressed clearly in the declaration Chomsky signed: “We support civil liberties and democratic rights everywhere, regardless of the country’s economic, political or social system….We support democracy in Cuba. The imprisonment of people for attempting to exercise their rights of free expression is outrageous and unacceptable.”
The Spartacist League understands Cuba to be a deformed workers state: a society in which capitalism has been overthrown and workers property forms established, but deformed by the rule of a parasitic, nationalist Stalinist bureaucracy. Following the 1959 Cuban Revolution, the petty-bourgeois Castro government expropriated the holdings of the U.S. imperialists and their domestic bourgeois lackeys. The nationalization of the means of production and the creation of a collectivized, planned economy led to enormous gains for the Cuban working masses and made it possible, with critical Soviet military and economic aid, to provide everyone a job, decent housing, food and education. Despite these achievements, which have been eroded since the destruction of the Soviet Union, the Cuban workers state has been bureaucratically deformed from its inception, with the working class excluded from political power. Cuba is run by a Stalinist bureaucratic caste that upholds the nationalist dogma of “socialism in one country,” which means renouncing the struggle for international socialist revolution and undermining the defense of the Cuban Revolution.
We call for the unconditional military defense of the Cuban deformed workers state—as well as the other remaining workers states of China, North Korea and Vietnam—against imperialism and capitalist counterrevolution. While opposing the barbaric institution of capital punishment and the Stalinist bureaucracy’s use of it, we support Cuba’s military defense against imperialism and all measures that are genuinely in defense of the Cuban Revolution, including the imprisonment of those “dissidents” who are actively collaborating with U.S. imperialism. At the same time, and as we noted in 2003:
“As Trotskyists, we know full well that the Castro regime metes out repression to those of its opponents, including socialist militants, who are not counterrevolutionaries….
“Workers democracy is completely alien to Stalinism, as it is to the crew of rad-libs and others who peddle the cause of the pro-imperialist ‘dissidents’ in the name of bourgeois democracy. But it is critical for us Marxists, who fight to defend and extend the gains of the Cuban Revolution by replacing the nationalist rule of the Stalinist bureaucracy that seeks to appease the imperialists with the rule of the workers soviets based on a program of proletarian revolutionary internationalism.”
—“Defend the Cuban Revolution!” WV No. 805, 6 June 2003
Our fight for proletarian political revolution to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy and institute a regime of workers democracy is premised on defense of the proletarian property forms in the deformed workers states. Chomsky postures as a defender of Cuba against U.S. imperialism, opposing the U.S. sanctions and the imprisonment of the Cuban Five. But far from defending the collectivized economy of Cuba against the imperialist drive toward the restoration of capitalism, Chomsky can’t even bring himself to mention its existence in his latest book, theorizing that U.S. hostility toward Cuba stems from “the fear of independent nationalism.” Thus, Chomsky’s statement that he’d like to see the Castro “regime overthrown by an internal libertarian revolution (and not that one alone)” (“Chomsky on Cuba,” 27 August 1994, posted on www.zmag.org) can only be a call for “democratic” capitalist counterrevolution.
Not surprisingly, Chomsky’s “models” of democracy are capitalist Bolivia, capitalist Venezuela and imperialist America! Chomsky deflected our question at the June 6 forum by telling us to go listen to his interview on Radio Havana for an answer. In this 28 August 2003 interview, Chomsky announces to the Cuban workers state that “the United States, to its credit, is a very free country, maybe the freest country in the world in many respects” (“Radio Havana Interviews Chomsky,” 4 September 2003, posted on www.zmag.org). One wonders if the news reached the ears of the bound and hooded prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.
For a Leninist-Trotskyist Revolutionary Vanguard!
For Chomsky, the blood-drenched “Democratic Party is far less objectionable than Bolshevism” (see WV No. 829, 9 July 2004). The Bolshevik-led workers revolution, which Chomsky spits on, liberated one-sixth of the planet from the clutches of capitalist exploitation. The destruction of the Soviet Union has been a world-historic defeat for working people internationally. We Trotskyists fought for the unconditional military defense of the degenerated Soviet workers state against imperialism and capitalist counterrevolution, and for political revolution to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy. We fight to build a workers party that will make a socialist revolution in the belly of the U.S. imperialist beast. In the final instance, this is Cuba’s and the other workers states’ best defense.
From our labor/black mobilizations to stop the Klan, to our fight against the forces of capitalist counterrevolution through our interventions in the former East Germany and Soviet Union, to our fight to free Mumia Abu-Jamal today, we have earned our reputation and proudly carry on the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky. Meanwhile, Chomsky continues to babble about how the “democratic” credentials of the bloodiest empire on the planet have lost their luster. As we stated about Chomsky at the June 6 forum, “You perpetuate that you can have a humane imperialist system, which actually disarms not only the working class but leftists.”
In “Noam Chomsky: Imperialism’s ‘Armchair Anarchist’” (WV No. 735, 5 May 2000) we wrote:
“Just as it took Lenin and Trotsky’s Bolshevik Party, a vanguard party leading the working class, to create the first revolutionary workers state in history out of the ruins of the autocratic Russian empire, so today it will take a revolutionary internationalist vanguard party to lead the fight for successful workers revolution against rotting American imperialism. That is the fight to which the Spartacist League, American section of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) and Spartacus Youth Clubs are dedicated. Those who set their sights higher than a comfortable academic career as an ideologist for the imperialist war machine should join us in our fight for a communist future for humanity.”
