One way to approach Noam Chomsky’s views on Israel, the power of the Lobby, and U.S. foreign policy would be to more carefully and specifically define him as a “materialist” in relation to both his linguistics and his politics. Yes, Chomsky is a materialist in the least vulgar and dogmatic, and most practical and scientific uses of the word. His groundbreaking exploration of the physical correlates of language development left no doubt that language (and much else) cannot be learned, but rather is acquired through an endowed maturational process.
And while Chomsky is (correctly) an epistemological rationalist rather than empiricist, he ultimately obliterates the mistakenly imagined boundaries between physical phenomena and human development, cognition, and behavior. Chomsky argues (convincingly I think) that the mind-body problem ("ghost in the machine") cannot even be stated because there is no coherent notion of body that will allow it. Quoting I. B. Cohen, he speaks of a science in which the goal is not to seek ultimate explanations but to find the best theoretical account we can of the phenomena of experience and experiment.
Nevertheless, this sort of “materialism” has not prevented Steven Pinker from saying that, in addition to being a rationalist, Chomsky is a romantic—emphasizing feeling and individuality—which I think is correct. That is, Chomsky’s work on language and human nature bends inexorably toward the fundamental fact of human freedom. It is a freedom generated and given meaning by the systematic and discrete limits which our capacity for language impose on our thoughts and actions. In historical/psychological context, Chomsky challenged the vulgar behaviorism of Skinner and the racial determinism of Herrnstein and Jensen, proposing a grounded view of free will that is again (meaningfully) shaped by the limits of biology, culture, society, and history.
None of these dimensions is without a hypothetical if poorly understood material aspect (poorly understood due—again—to severe physical limitations on human rational capabilities, an understanding of which makes Chomsky an extremely cautious scientist, especially among cognitive scientists). Nevertheless, none of these fields of inquiry can (or should) reduce voluntary actions to mere prediction, or social inquiry to the “control” of human behavior.
It is on this basis in human nature that we can begin to understand Chomsky’s political allegiance to 19th century European libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism, rather than authoritarian and statist interpretations of Marxism or socialism. Left and right are meant to describe a continuum from human freedom to authoritarianism, regardless of the practical size or function of governmental institutions.
Nevertheless, the vicissitudes of human political freedom under capitalism again beg for a rational material analysis, perhaps better called geopolitical and institutional. Chomsky clearly has an affinity for the critique of global neoliberalism of the Marxist anthropologist David Harvey, and for Thomas Ferguson’s “investment theory of (political) party competition.” To those must of course be added Chomsky’s (with Edward Herman) own theoretical elaboration of the “manufacture of consent” by the mainstream media.
All of these “material” (but ultimately not rigidly deterministic, as we can now see in the Arab world) contexts present severe challenges to human potentials that although “natural” are also dependent on favorable material conditions and freedom-nurturing forms of social solidarity. Chomsky does not, however, accept Marx's notion of "the materialist conception of history." Chomsky denies the existence of "scientific socialism" and says he doesn't even understand what "dialectical materialism" can be. Furthermore, while taking class struggle seriously, Chomsky wouldn't admit that the term capitalism can be more than descriptive, while suggesting that the current form is far from the form that existed in Marx's time.
At any rate, Chomsky surely does not define corporate and state actors as materialist in the sense of being “greedy.” Nor does he, in the case of Israel or elsewhere, take terribly seriously the notions of “identity” or “loyalty” as primary or determining factors in state-level policies. Chomsky simply does not view either corporations or states as “moral actors.” State policy is formed for the advantage or benefit (in wealth and power) of dominant social groups, however much interests are "... sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought," i.e., propaganda—even Lobby propaganda. Chomsky frequently quotes Thucydides, from the Melian dialogue: "The strong do as they can, while the weak suffer what they must." Neither individual nor collective greed is fundamental to the manner in which the government pursues the common interests of the corporate state, which can conflict with those of one sector or segment. Hence geopolitics.
It is in this analytical context that the more explicitly articulated “passions” of nationalism and other forms of group identity and loyalty—even if accorded sincerity or nobility—can be seen as subordinate to the calculated material interests of elites and resulting geopolitical strategies. But more to the point, these passions and affiliations (including and especially those of the institutional Israel Lobby) can also be placed in the material (geopolitical, institutional) contexts of global capitalism, the corporate state, and the military-industrial complex.
Capitalist class-based material interests dictate that social passions take any form other than the class solidarity that would illuminate and challenge those interests. Thus we have corporate political parties, and the current populist, inchoate anger directed at both parties, which Chomsky views empathically and in terms of organizational/movement opportunity—indeed, he does so much more honestly than many of those who call themselves “progressive,” who unwisely demonize those who call themselves libertarians.
Given Chomsky’s long-term “materialist” perspectives on these fundamental issues, from human nature to society, it is not at all surprising that he interprets the power of the Lobby within the framework of U.S. strategic geopolitical interests, namely the control of (to be distinguished from access to) Middle East oil. It is not a matter of individual/corporate greed and/or religious/group loyalty, but class interests and the institutional structures that perpetuate them, including the Lobby. It’s two sides of the same “material” coin, albeit the side of relatively long-term corporate profits clearly subordinates transient institutional expressions of loyalty—“pure” or otherwise—to strategic geopolitical interests. Thus the geopolitical adage that we have “not permanent allies, but permanent interests.”
As quoted on this website two years ago, Chomsky has stated: "As I've mentioned several times, if the thesis about lobby power were correct, it would be a great relief to me and others who have been actively engaged for years in trying organize popular pressure to lead to abandonment of US rejectionism. We could stop all of that, just go to the corporate headquarters of Lockheed Martin, Intel, Microsoft, and others and explain to them that their interests are harmed by US support for Israel, so they should terminate their investments in Israel and use their political and economic clout to put the lobby out of business. Anyone with a little familiarity with American society and political economy knows that they could do that in their sleep. That in fact is the sole activist-related conclusion that follows from the thesis. But none of the believers do it. Why?"
Marx pointed out (when he was a young man) that "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." And the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie–corporate class, if you prefer–may not be identical with the interests of any one corporation or industry. (The major oil companies, for example, seem to have had some trepidation about the invasion of Iraq.)
Thus Chomsky's analysis—again what Phil Weiss calls "materialist"—is in fact geopolitical and institutional. It describes what American planners have been doing at least since the "Grand Area Planning" of World War II. And those plans are less driven by passion–greed, chauvinism, or something else–than by a certain form of rationality. Since Weber, we've spoken of one form of rationality that is a matter of fitting means to ends, and of another that consists of choosing proper ends or goals.
American Mideast policy is thoroughly rational, and hardly swayed by passion at all in terms of either greed or loyalty. The end–control of energy—is clear, and it is to be accomplished (to borrow a phrase) by any means necessary. Planning is discovering what means are necessary.
But in another (moral) sense, American policy is deeply irrational, and Chomsky makes that the major theme—announced in the title—of Hegemony or Survival (2003). "America's Quest for Global Dominance" (the subtitle) threatens our very survival. Chomsky's analysis—convincing to me—is certainly not materialism in the sense of a reductionist economism. It's rather an institutional analysis, if we recall that the sociologists say that an institution is just a patterned way of doing things. And we can certainly make mistakes as we try to descry the pattern.
Alternately and radically (and morally and passionately), Chomsky has for decades articulated a view of human nature, freedom, and potential—and its political logic. In Government in the Future (1970) he concluded: "We have today the technical and material resources to meet man's animal needs. We have not developed the cultural and moral resources–or the democratic forms of social organization—that make possible the humane and rational use of our material wealth and power. Conceivably, the classical liberal ideals as expressed and developed in their libertarian socialist form are achievable. But if so, only by a popular revolutionary movement, rooted in wide strata of the population and committed to the elimination of repressive and authoritarian institutions, state and private. To create such a movement is a challenge we face and must meet if there is to be an escape from contemporary barbarism."
One must cautiously hope that these words describe something about current events in the Middle East and North Africa, and will sooner rather than later describe events on the ground in Palestine and Israel—regardless of votes and vetoes from on high at the United Nations. Indeed, a just settlement for the Palestinians ultimately cannot possibly depend on a hegemonic international body, but only on the regional winds of freedom that are shaking the foundations of that hegemony and its so-called national interests.
David Green (davegreen84@yahoo.com) lives in Urbana, IL. Carl and Leigh Estabrook of Champaign, IL provided editorial and material assistance in the writing of this article.
In the last few days Mondoweiss has posted several items referring to the “Israel lobby” view of the US-Israel relationship, as it does from time to time. None of them mentioned Noam Chomsky, and he is hardly the only advocate of the contrary “strategic asset” view. Now along comes David Green, offering a potted summary of Chomsky’s views on the US-Israel relationship and cognate matters. Green apparently can’t think for himself, so he tries to awe us with Chomsky’s authority. I’m not awed, by Green or by Chomsky, and will continue to think for myself, as will the posters and readers of MW I’m sure.
not true, i mentioned chomsky directly in a post on the un veto
Phil, where did you mention Chomsky in an item on the UN veto? I couldn’t find it here for instance.
link to mondoweiss.net
There are so many US companies that have R&D centers in Israel. Why isn’t the BDS movement going after them? Why a flash mob at a Best Buy and no mobs in front of Intel, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle etc.?
Why are you going after poor artists when it is the corporations that are most helping Israel?
I am indebted to Chomsky, one of the most influential thinkers in my intellectual development, such as it is, but he has made several regrettable errors.
Contrary to Pinker’s commentary, Chomsky’s ‘rationalism’ comes at a cost, Chomsky often ignoring the psychological or emotional dimensions of elite behavior. This shortcoming is apparent in his repeated insistence on the irrelevance of physical violence, even terror, in the subversion of mass movements, Central America being one example. I have heard him state, to paraphrase, that the mayhem is just a by-product of a larger plan. If such plan could succeed through less ‘risky’ non-violent means, the elite would just as soon resort to non-violent measures. This analysis ignores the underlying purpose of terror (on the group) and torture (on the individual), both methods being a means of transformation, not simply repression. (The religious-ecstatic potential of torture, I’d call it.) The analysis also overlooks another psychological component of repressive violence. Most of us would not, or could not, order the torture and murder of women and children for financial gain, and a compelling case can be made that those who willingly do so suffer some form of pathology (sadism, megalomania?). (A recent psychological study found that the ‘rich’ do not recognize emotional cues in others that would typically trigger empathic responses. An autism of sorts.)
This blindness to psychology works against his Israel Lobby analysis as well. The psychological and emotional impact of the Holocaust cannot be minimized, the tragedy both influencing policy in the irrational sense, and also being exploited for financial/political gain.
So much more to your article that I can’t address at the moment.
marc b.
You bring up a valid point in reference to the issue of violence.
I’m not sure to which particular Chomsky text or quote you are referring, but from your assessment I get the impression that professor Chomsky does not view economic sanctions/policies, military aid/training and political support of dictators as forms of violence per se.
Still, if you could remind me of the exact context to which you are referring, I would appreciate it could prove to be an important aspect of professor Chomsky’s methodology.
i’ll try to pull up some material over the weekend, avi. i have heard him make reference to the irrelevance of violence per se both in recorded talks and while i was in attendence, the basic gist being that the elite will always rely on some means of coercion to maintain control, but that coercion need not be by violence, and that in some instances the resort to violence was often more ‘costly’ and problematic, chomsky’s point being that the elite (the market), acts rationally as a collective. my response is that violence serves a unique role among methods of coercion, and that there are independent, psychology factors that may drive elite behavior as well.
“I get the impression that professor Chomsky does not view economic sanctions/policies, military aid/training and political support of dictators as forms of violence per se.”
That’s almost exactly the opposite of what he thinks, as best I can tell. One of his early books, coauthored with Herman, is “The Political Economy of Human Rights”, where he links torture and massive human rights violations around the world with the military aid/training supplied by the US. And he was a harsh critic of the Iraqi sanctions.
His point about violence, to the extent that he makes it, is that the American elite would prefer to dominate the world in quiet unnoticed ways if possible, but he would hardly say that they won’t use extreme violence if necessary and he would include the more subtle forms of structural violence in their toolbox of oppression. He’s been writing about this for over 40 years.
I agree with those who say that Chomsky understates the power of the Israel lobby. I think that’s mainly due to emotional factors on his part–he still has a residual attachment to what he imagines Zionism could have been and also, I think, he’s old enough to remember casual anti-semitism as being normal in the US and I suspect (without proof, of course) that this makes him a little paranoid about any talk of American Jews having undue influence on the Israel issue. The fact remains he’s been a pretty harsh critic of Dershowitz and people like him for decades and in “The Fateful Triangle” he is quite scathing about progressives like Fonda and Tom Hayden who defended Israel’s war in Lebanon in 1982. He’s the one who introduced me to the concept of “Progressive except for Palestine”, though without using that phrase.
There’s a tendency with some at Mondoweiss (though not you Avi) to demonize Chomsky. He makes mistakes, but I’ve read thousands of pages by him and I don’t recognize the person some people here imagine him to be.
Going further down the thread I see that many here (including you Avi) are nuanced in their criticism of Chomsky. That’s fine. He is wrong on some issues (and not just the Lobby).
I do disagree with anyone who imagines that the US would have supported democracy in the Middle East if Israel hadn’t existed. We’d have still supported Arab dictators as we supported dictators elsewhere. We just wouldn’t be saddled with the added guilt of supporting Israeli apartheid.
That’s my point about violence, it’s that it comes in many forms. People tend to think of violence as the physical assault on one’s self or on another, but the reality is that economic policies are a form of violence, too. It is so due to the inherent inequalities that such policies may — and often do — impose.
“A recent psychological study found that the ‘rich’ do not recognize emotional cues in others that would typically trigger empathic responses. An autism of sorts.”
A pretty shaky and obtuse foundation on which to hang one’s hat.
i’m not hanging any bit of laundry on that comment. it was a parenthetical aside, hence the parentheses. my point is that there are psychological/emotional impulses underlying the resort to violence that don’t fit neatly into a materialist framework.
The NC reference was in Phil’s post on “Obama’s Dred Scott decision” on Feb 20.
link to mondoweiss.net
That was the only ref in perhaps a dozen posts of the last few days mentioning the IL view of the US-I relationship.
ok but i went after ANC hard in that post and then told David if he wanted to respond, great. he has
Yes you did, and David was responding to that.
To cite another authority, Chas Freeman, the “strategic asset” thesis fails at the outset, when Israel was created against the opposition of the US military and diplomatic establishments, when the nascent IL overwhelmed the federal govt and US society 1944-48.
Another authority, James Petras, has accused Chomsky, quite correctly, of lawyering, spinning arguments and writing briefs. Chomsky dismisses the postwar events and subsequent history on various spurious grounds, like Truman’s Christian Zionism, or most generally, by claiming that “the corporations” who allegedly run everything didn’t complain, and haven’t since, or they would have put an end to it, tautologically.
Chomsky sets up “the corporations” as an axiom from which he can “prove” that the IL is of no consequence. Chomsky uses his definition of “interests” and “influence” to trivialize and make invisible the actual history, the daily construction of “US interests” in Washington. The representatives of “the corporations” who run foreign policy were overwhelmed in the mid 1940s by the extraordinary Zionist mobilization, which has imposed Israel as a US “interest” ever since.
Israel does interact with “US interests” in important ways, in radicalizing and destabilizing them. Thus 9/11 was mainly an attack on the US-Israel relationship, which was exploited to create a neo-fascist climate at home, and to invade Iraq in 2003, by a coalition of gentile radical nationalists and Jewish neoconservatives, against the “realists” who would otherwise have prevailed.
The 2-state/strategic asset/anti-occupation orthodoxy of the Chomskyites is an attempt, largely successful until recently, to conceal Jewish agency and Zionism itself, while acknowledging Israel’s war crimes and the atrocities of “the occupation”. Missing is a critique, using the Jewish anti-Zionist traditions as a point of departure, to analyze and oppose the ideas and institutions and impact of the Zionocracy.
The Chomskyite school contribute importantly to the powerful current that Mearsheimer and Walt have to swim against, and even today they continue to limit critique to “the occupation” as with BDS. Considering what’s at stake, this failure is in my view comparable to the “treason of the intellectuals” that Julian Benda excoriated in his 1927 book about the role of intellectuals in the climate that preceded WWI.
isn’t permanent revolution
computor enabled
peaceful
the ultimate answer?
Gene Sharp has had an enormous impact on what’s going on in the Arab world thanks to his writings on non-violent methods to overthrow tyrannical dictators.
Here’s last night’s Canadian radio’s “As It Happens” interview with Gene Sharp
link to cbc.ca
And here’s Gene Sharp’s book:
From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation
Fourth edition, May 2010
link to aeinstein.org
Notwithstanding being the possessor of two degrees and having the belief that I am able to understand sophisticated arguments, this article and the following posts leave me in a state of total confusion.
As I understand it, Prof. Chomsky posits essentially that US support for Israel is to enhance US strategic interests and is not due to pressure from the pro-Israel Lobby.
The resolution, whose wording mirrored stated US policy, was reluctantly vetoed by Pres. Obama thereby exposing American hypocrisy and increasing anti-American resentment throughout the world – in that no strategic benefit whatever accrued to the US and that the use of the veto was clearly to appease AIPAC for its support (or lessening of opposition) for the 2012 presidential campaign, how can Prof. Chomsky’s thesis be supported in these circumstances?
“As I understand it, Prof. Chomsky posits essentially that US support for Israel is to enhance US strategic interests and is not due to pressure from the pro-Israel Lobby.”
You don’t understand it. He argues that what the Lobby promotes is by and large consistent with what are deemed “strategic interests” as promoted by economic elites.
I’d think that a thoroughly materialist view of politics would imply, not call into question, the importance of lobbies. Materialism implies the predominance of interest, the material element, over morality, the spiritual element. Government and opposition groups have, as they emerge, conflicting interests – in enacting policies and securing the outcome of the next election. This will imply that both/all factions seek lobbies, representing yet other factional interests, who will help them on the basis of mutual service or back-scratching. The lobbyists and the people they represent form another circle of interest, an industry enriching its lobbyists and the lobbyists enriching ‘their’ industry.
In all this it’s difficult to see how the overall national interest, going beyond faction, can even be defined in strictly materialist terms.
“I’d think that a thoroughly materialist view of politics would imply, not call into question, the importance of lobbies.”
It would imply the material importance of lobbies, which is obvious. M/W argue that the Israel Lobby undermined material interests, rather than promoting them.
PHILLIP WIESS- Well, here you go again! How long has it been since your “Unfair to Chomsky” post where you precipitated an anti-Chomsky fusillade under the guise of an apology? Now this. Supposedly this post by David Green is to make amends for anti-Chomsky comments you made on your “Dred Scott” post. Comments, I might add, that seem to have made little impression judging by the comments section. Well that won’t do, will it? What is the point of embedded criticism of “ANC” if nobody responds? Time to make amends. And who better to invite to respond than David Green who has in the past received such a warm response to his previous posts? How long before JB and his gang ride into town to shoot things up?
Phil, I’ve got a great idea. If you really want to get into this subject, why not solicit a post from a well respected Middle East commentator who essentially agrees with Chomsky? Why not entice Norman Finkelstein to contribute a post on the lobby and the ME? Of course, that won’t do, will it? Norman is popular with many of your fans on Mondoweiss, and attacking him the way you do Chomsky might cause you some flack. Also, Norman sticks to the Middle East, therefore, is no threat to the imperial status quo per se, another reason to ignore Norman and go after Chomsky.
Final comment. Much criticism is heaped upon those who are progressive except on Palestine (PEP). How about a new category? Progressive only on Palestine (POP)? I see too much reverence being paid to imperial apologists whose only progressive stance concerns Israel/Palestine, and only now when it is politically opportune to do so.
What’s to debate?
The Chomsky thesis is preposterously contradictory internally.
Corporate interests are obviously harmed by a host of US foreign policies which are plainly Zionist. ILSA being an irrefutable example.
You simply have to be in denial to go along with Chomsky’s nonsense.
No one that looks at the evidence could honestly believe the US is using Israel and not the other way around unless there was something blinding them altogether.
Of course this reality exposes the taboo subject of Jewish power within western systems, but this does not explain Chomsky’s and Green’s vehement argumentation. Rather, their intentional aim is obfuscation and re-direction. This makes Chomsky, and the entire MRZine/South End Press claque highly suspect on various levels.
“Corporate interests are obviously harmed by a host of US foreign policies which are plainly Zionist. ILSA being an irrefutable example.”
I’m not sure what ILSA means. In any event, corporate interests are one thing, and must be defined specifically. Geopolitical strategy to secure those interests is something else.
Apparently the site cannot get enough of this nonsense, it is always get the lobby and not the systemic issue which creates the lobby. “I don’t care about that shell that the yoke came in! I am only interested in the yoke.” Well, the yoke is on you, and all over your truncated arguments. I have never seen such staunch plain stupidity in argumentation in my entire life, and obvious gross ignorance regarding the history of this country and the working activity of this capitalist/imperialist (the two go hand in glove) country since its inception to the present day, and the workings in tandem of every dominant capitalist participant all over the world.
I do not need to elaborate on what I have said numerous times on this site, and none of these contributions have been excuses for the IL.
All that meandering to say….US policy towards Israel has been driven by oil?
“…..namely the control of (to be distinguished from access to) Middle East oil.”
and
“American Mideast policy is thoroughly rational, and hardly swayed by passion at all in terms of either greed or loyalty. The end–control of energy—is clear, and it is to be accomplished (to borrow a phrase) by any means necessary.”
What do you base that on?
Where is the evidence for that?
Supporting Israel sure seems like a roundabout way to control ME oil…no? Nor does it seem to have worked out too well…See the nationalization of Aramco, the oil embargo, Iraq, Iran, terrorism, etc.
If American Mideast policy were rational and the one goal was controlling ME energy, then you would expect to see US politician proclaiming a special and eternal relationship with oil producing states, not Israel.
The Israel Lobby and the flaws of the American political system are the best explanation for why American policy is what it is. Much of that has been documented by Mearsheimer and Walt …whereas the theory that its ‘other lobbies’ (oil, military) that have driven our ME policy are so vague on evidence you might call it a conspiracy theory.
Except that the “war for oil” nonsense does not even rise to the level of a theory.
Those that espouse this dribble are the ones that truly practice willful ignorance of history as well as politics. Neo-colonialism simply never operated that way. Direct military occupation to “control” a resource? Idiotic. Any potential profit can readily be extracted at the trading bourses. Corporations are only too happy to earn their cut from the risk free activities such as transport, refining and marketing. None of that requires any physical presence at the field of production.
“War for oil” is as inane as “peak oil”. Neither have any basis in reality whatsoever.
Gimme a break –
WHO MAKES MONEY OFF OF 100.00 OIL?
Why don’t you read?
“The Israel Lobby and the flaws of the American political system are the best explanation for why American policy is what it is. Much of that has been documented by Mearsheimer and Walt…”
Tell me what M&W say about the “American political system” in their tome, I have the book open. It is like a walk through Alice in Wonderland when it comes to America, and why is that? That is because M&W are merely interested being allies of power and they do not care if a two-state prison is erected for the Palestinians. If you want to get in bed with imperial power you will lose, and so will the Palestinians. Imperialism will continue with or without Israel. So when you wake up in the morning after a night with the Imperialists, which is where M&W are a mere shower will not wash the filth off. All you argue for is a more efficient empire with M&W, democracy has been long dead anyhow, you just don’t know it. So pontificate about “national interests” as if they are yours, and when you wake up in the morning and have you first cup of java, the nightmare will just have begun.
Very well VR. The American political system is flawed, American society is designed to allow money to trump democracy at every turn…Sure. Sure. Yes, one day when the Israel lobby isn’t writing American ME policy it will be someone else, whose interest have nothing do with the majority of people. Fine. Is that what you’re saying? I don’t disagree with any of that.
That doesn’t negate that it is the IL that has influenced American ME policy. To say that there are greater lobbies (oil, military) that are behind it, as Chomsky has implied, without piles of evidence, seems to me just deflect focus on the obvious elephant in the room.
The other point, that its the design of the American system itself that is the root of the problem. that allows a lobby to have so much influence… while I would agree, thats it so large a problem, I can’t imagine any change happening in I/P if people focused soley on that.
Perhaps I should go back to my egg analogy, I do not want to argue about the shell and the yoke – I want to kill the chicken that laid the egg. Apparently the imperialist chicken keeps laying these eggs and you folks don’t mind the chicken surviving, you feel related to it – or, it is just something that is related to the Israeli yoke and bears no resemblance to reality, whatever.
How would you suggest killing the chicken?
What should people do that will rid the world of US Imperialism so that Palestenians are given basic Human rights?
Sincerly, I’d like to know.
You sincerely would eh? What to do, what to do…of course, we are not just talking about US Imperialism, as a start, but an entire global system fed upon by all capitalistic dominants. I guess the first step, as the last post on my site says, is your mind –
I am going to elaborate on the basic building blocks in the previous post, once again this is not an exhaustive piece, it is just a beginning. If we never flesh out what is needed in the current global condition, that is where the people begin and develop from that point forward with a global vision, we will never accomplish what is necessary for global freedom. You could consider this the first stepping stones on a new path for humanity.
The absolute minimum is to break away from the mindset that has been created for us in order to make us literally slaves, and it has many variations but all reduces to the same bottom line. As I said previously, it does not matter if you live under a dictator or some sort of democracy in name, whether it is some “strong man” that dictates what you should be and do or a system which stratifies you with high sounding words like “law and order” (which should really be reversed, because the law is meant to perpetuate the order of society and class divisions, and the order – not as opposed to chaos, but what your place is supposed to be – creates the law to constrict us and benefit the few), if it is menial labor for a few cents an hour (if that) or a corporate structure, it is meant to enslave you – control you – it is the SAME SYSTEM. One might have golden chains or rusty iron chains, but both keep you bound so you can be exploited by the few. This is why I started quotes in the previous post that leveled the playing field. We need to understand that for those who have more it can and does become worse, and those who are worse off can be seemingly advanced in a surface manner, but the heart of the system never changes and we are all being colonized, globally.
If you cannot put on this mindset there is no use continuing on, because change in any substantive form has to begin with the mind, being able to clear away the fabricated cobwebs, the illusions, and the myriad mechanization’s of the system to keep you from recognizing what is really transpiring. Humanity is really in this scientific petrie dish as it were, and even our very desires and goals are formulated to what we are supposed to want and desire, by those who understand that even the very triggers which are inherent in genes can be stimulated by environment in regard to trauma or neglect, encouragement and reward – and all this is skewed by the design and desires of the few.
Even the very warp and woof of what you think the world consists of is skewed, or how things function and operate –
The very basis and structure of society is molded by a divide and conquer territoriality, and artificial boundaries are drawn so that one “nation” might thrive right next to one that might starve (the same can be seen in the makeup of areas within a nation, one neighborhood is a series of million dollar homes while right next door it is perpetual slum). This is why I posted the “nations” as a divide and conquer design made by the colonial few in the previous post. What is amazing to me is that people can recognize Apartheid within nations and condemn it, but they cannot recognize global class Apartheid.
The idea of nations is to isolate, to make territories divided as nations to look as though they are responsible for their own condition, when all the while the nations are set upon and exploited by a man made system set up to benefit the few, globally. Nations are purposefully underdeveloped so that their both natural and human resources might be stolen to the benefit of the few who make the lions share (while those who participate get crumbs from their masters table).
The ones which have the greatest concentration of elite are called the developed nations, while all the while they prey upon the other nations which are underdeveloped. People in the host nation of the elite are told that individuals in these purposefully exploited nations are not capable of self-development, they are either marginalized or demonized , and they either have to be “helped and rescued” or destroyed because of whatever reason – they are inferior, culturally challenged, or even mentally deficient. When in reality they are exploited from the inside out and the outside in, in a colonial or neocolonial fashion (and they are instigated by the “developed nations” duped minions, and an internal elite which exploits their own people). The illusion of division when all people should be united is the foundational means by which the world can be exploited, division leads ultimately to weakness. True solidarity is the only way in which substantive, globally synchronistic activity can take place to return the world to the will of the people.
You can start with that, while you are at it read the last three or four posts I have written on my site. Granted the entire site and all the posts are not sufficient, they are actually a rough draft at best.
RENEGADES
In the past, I have asked for evidence to support the claim that the US maintains close ties with Israel due to the alleged bond between the two countries’ military industries.
My question was not answered, much in the same way J. Slater refuses to answer tough questions on the ‘Jewish, but equal’ claim.
At this point, I’m afraid all one will get in response is a rough outline, a thesis if you will, from the aforementioned persons.
They have yet to develop their theses or provide supporting and convincing evidence.
“American Mideast policy is thoroughly rational, and hardly swayed by passion at all in terms of either greed or loyalty. The end–control of energy—is clear, and it is to be accomplished (to borrow a phrase) by any means necessary.”
“What do you base that on?
Where is the evidence for that?”
I would recommend Gabriel Kolko, “Main Currents,” for a comprehensive answer. Or Zinn. Policy has been consistent for 200 years–promote the interests of capital–through violence if necessary. Rational doesn’t mean moral, as I tried to point out, and as Chomsky does.
All due respect David, but you aren’t saying much.
Zooming out and making a generalization like
‘Policy has been consistent for 200 years–promote the interests of capital–through violence if necessary’
Doesn’t address American policy in the ME.
The interest of capital wasn’t served by making an ally of an unpopular resource poor state while alienating the larger resource rich Muslim neighbors.
That seems self evident to me, and I imagine it is to almost anyone. Whereas you seem intent on shoe horning the entire history of American Foreign Policy into some tidy “general principle”.
Any road, why dont we agree to disagree. I feel like I’m banging my head against the wall.
“‘Policy has been consistent for 200 years–promote the interests of capital–through violence if necessary’
Doesn’t address American policy in the ME. ”
No, your retort is absolute nonsense. What reading of history do you take? It is an extension of the process, that is, policy in the ME. Anyone with a modicum of understanding in regard to what has transpired since this nations inception and how that translated to a repetition of the same all over the world. You must be banging your head against a wall out of ignorance, that is the kindest way I can attribute such baseless intransigence (perhaps this is why the authors of this site get such play with their posts) –
Imperialism, capitalism, and empire are essentially one. There are some people who try to split up the unholy triumvirate, but it should not be done. I suppose it can be done as an academic exercise, but in real life it is impossible to split. Some have isolated one from the other as a finely honed deception, as if capitalism can be kept pure from atrocities – but they are just fooling others or are self-deceived.
It does not serve any purpose for progressive elements to make jokes about how “stupid” this administration is supposed to be. Whether you are talking about this administration, or the entire length of them since the founding of this nation – there is a design taking place. It is vicious, and tears at the fabric of the world, causing death and destruction in it’s wake. Imperialism is an intelligent, rational, but morally corrupt form of the accumulation of wealth for the few, no matter what the cost to humanity.
The history of US policy, even before WW2, is a history of violent and bloody intervention. It has not been a force for good, virtue, and democracy in the world. You have been propagandized – you have been fooled – you have been taken for the proverbial ride, there is not a more brainwashed and disconnected people in history than the American public.
Truly democratic governments have been replaced with pro-capitalist military regimes, that open up their resources, markets and cheap labor (unorganized and underpaid, intimidated by death squads), and have been forced open to US corporate investors on terms that are totally agreeable to them.
The US government has been involved in covert actions, in proxy mercenary wars (run by proteges of the School Of The America’s in some instances) – training, equipping, paying, advising, via the Pentagon, the CIA, and the US National Security State against popular revolutionary governments in Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Portugal, South Yemen, Nicaragua, Cambodia, East Timur, Western Sahara, Egypt, Lebanon, Peru, Iran, Zaire, Figi Islands, Afghanistan ( which is another woefully lacking list). Us forces with direct aggression and invasion have attacked in recent years Viet Nam, the Dominican Republic, North Korea, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, with invasion or aerial assault – once again a short list. (Notice some of the ME in this list?)
Millions of people killed by both direct and indirect aggressive actions.
Of course, you never hear a word about this from the US corporate media, the whores and liars for the state. They become mute when they are told, and are infested by psyop’s military spokespersons – even their ranks are filled with ex-CIA and FBI cronies.
All through the Middle East, popular movements, workers movements, unions, student movements, farmer collectives – all of them destroyed and shattered by US aggression in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon. In Saudi Arabia that filthy rich, corrupt family would not be able to survive if they did not have US support.
Twenty one countries in Africa have had enormous amounts of US arms, and bribes, to put in the most oppressive, retrograde, and corrupt rulers in to destroy every popular and democratic movement. Those in Africa are perfectly capable (contrary to racist propaganda, taught in US schools and spread by corporate media) of democracy, viable production, and have the ability to organize their own markets and labor – they are not allowed to do it. Because of the destruction of the economic infrastructure, the impoverishment of the people, and the destruction of their future – they have killed the future of these nations. Drowning them in debt, tying their viability to foreign capital, and spiriting the wealth away from the people.
Anyone who dares to question these atrocious actions is called a rogue state. There is no rogue state, no terrorist movement, no communist threat, that has this kind of record. This record of murder, destruction and violation of international law solely belongs to the US leadership. This is a matter of public record, it’s just that it does not get voiced in the corrupt media in the US.
It is not good enough to just say that this is happening, we have to ask WHY is this happening. People have to know why these atrocities are going on – as long as they believe the lies that they are being protected nothing will happen. They do not care what their leaders are doing as long as they think they are protecting them. The leadership drums it into their heads that people are out to get them, the communists – someone in south/central America – someone from the moon – the terrorists, etc. I mean every year it is something else, it is really sickening.
The US government has given hundreds of billions of dollars away for foreign military aid – imagine what that could have done at home, enough to solve all the budgetary concerns in the states right now. It was aid given away to subsidize millions of foreign troops and internal security forces in more than eighty countries.
Not to defend those nations from outside invasion – but to protect ruling oligarchs and corporate investors from the dangers of domestic anti-capitalistic insurgency. There has been no evidence that they have been threatened by neighboring countries, so why build up the military forces? IT IS TO MAKE WAR ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE, THEIR OWN WORKING PEOPLE. TO PROTECT THOSE COUNTRIES AND MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR THE FORTUNE 500. THESE COUNTRIES ARE OPENED ON A GLOBAL SCALE FOR EXPLOITATION FROM TRANS-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND INVESTORS. THESE FORCES THAT WE SUPPORT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN USED TO OPPRESS PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT SOME FORM OF EGALITARIAN FAIR PLAY.
The struggle has always been between those who think the land, the labor, the resources, the markets, the technology, and the capital of the world are there for the capital accumulation and enrichment process of the few, as opposed to those who think those things are there for the needs and the social betterment of the many. That is the struggle that goes on to this day.
If you think what I am talking about is a recent development you are sadly mistaken, in 1907 listen to what Woodrow Wilson said: “Since trade ignores national boundaries, and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market – the flag of the nation must follow him, and the doors which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions gained by finance must be safeguarded by ministers of state. Even if the sovereignty of the nations are outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained and planted in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or unused.”
I think it is high time for people grow up and wake up, this is just a cursory and woeful list that bypassed all the filthy details of what has transpired over the centuries. Why don’t you stop banging your head against the wall and start using it constructively? Anything previously done in the ME, that is, before heavy US involvement was just passed on from This same imperial onslaught to the US, and it has upheld the same goals as the predecessors – has made it worse.
“The Israel Lobby and the flaws of the American political system are the best explanation for why American policy is what it is. Much of that has been documented by Mearsheimer and Walt …whereas the theory that its ‘other lobbies’ (oil, military) that have driven our ME policy are so vague on evidence you might call it a conspiracy theory.”
We have consistently supported authoritarian/corporate regimes in our own hemisphere, Southeast Asia, Africa, etc. One needs a general principle to explain this consistency. It’s not any individual resource, corporation, or ethnic group. It’s the ability to dictate the rules of the game of global commerce. Countries that set out to benefit from there own resources, or even to establish a “level playing field” for development and trade (Venezuela), or demonized. What lobby explains this?
“It’s not any individual resource, corporation, or ethnic group. ”
Why can it not?
I see America as a country where wealth is distributed unequally and where power can be bought. American FP is mostly aligns with the interest that have bought/have the power. Its not always rationally or consistent as few things are…but generally this explains the US ME policy.
There was a diary from a State Department official writing in 1947 that was published on this site not long ago…that said and I paraphrase…Truman was under immense domestic pressure to reconize Israel from influential Jewish Americans, threats to cut campgain donations and political support were thrown around…of course Truman eventually did reconize them. I imagine scenes like that have played out plenty in the past 60 years. That seems like a practically common sense explanation of Americas I/P policy…
Frankly I dont see what the argument is in ‘the US has supported other ‘authoritarian/corporate regimes’ so it can’t be the Israel lobby that explains I/P. I don’t think anyone is arguing that America was some peace loving nation before IL lead them astray.
james v forrestal post, i believe
What makes me laugh is the notion that somehow Chomsky represents the problem on Israeli/Palestinan relations, or on the average person’s view of the conflict. Yes, right. Chomsky is in the pocket of the Lobby, a secret agent. The Lobby just loves what Chomsky has to say about Israel.
Come on, people! So you think he is wrong about the Lobby. I do, too. But I can’t accuse him of bad faith and I can’t demand everyone agree with me on everything.
Chomsky is a great defender of Palestinian rights and dignity. And I am sure he is Public Enemy #1 to the State of Israel.
i agree
chris o,
The argument that you present does not change the fact that professor Chomsky is wrong — or presents a false argument — on the issue at hand.
It is unfair to make such generalizations about the people who posted in response to the article.
Finally, I would like to remind you that we are all human. As such, even the most professional and objective researchers/thinkers out there do have their own personal biases. In this case, all evidence points to the fact that professor Chomsky is ashamed (or embarrassed by) his ideology.
There are two topics that he refuses to discuss at length; those are the Israel lobby and the events of September 11, 2001. I can understand his reluctance to discuss the latter, but there is no reason for his refusal to discuss the former; this despite his frequent mention of CIA operations and US-backed military coups on matters related to US foreign policy. So he is no stranger to unpopular topics or to matters that are taboo in mainstream media.
two excellent points by avi.
1. the lie that academics, physicians, pick your demi-god, are capable of crystalline objectivity.
2. chomsky does periodically dissemble on the matter of what are often pejoratively called ‘conspiracy theories’ (9/11). for example, he summarily dismisses questions around the assassination of president kennedy, but on theoretical grounds, e.g. that he was a member of the ruling class with no real interest in reform, etc. i could appreciate this refusal to discuss such matters if he simply stated that he has no interest in diving down that rabbit hole as the trip would distract him from more important issues, but the forensic work of a police investigation, one would hope, is not structured around class analysis.
“In this case, all evidence points to the fact that professor Chomsky is ashamed (or embarrassed by) his ideology. ”
That’s why he spends so much time criticizing Israel?
Yes. He is conflicted between his emotional desire for there to be a Jewish state and his professional and moral values.
You’ve never experienced such conflict?
No. It’s pretty clear that he’s concerned about both the Palestinians and Jews who suffer from U.S.-Israeli policy. He’s made that very clear, but he also places the Palestinians first. I don’t see much of a “conflict,” except that others don’t agree with him.
“somehow Chomsky represents the problem on Israeli/Palestinan relations”
I know I didn’t say that. or that he’s a ‘secret agent’. I’m in awe of Chomsky. I imagine he’s opened more peoples eyes to I/P than most. I admire him plenty, but even idols aren’t perfect or totally objective. IMO its okay to point that out.
helpful. Chomsky has been a great great leader and by his example shown many young Jews that it is ok to criticize Israel. Americans too.
Also he produced in my friend Nancy, now a prof at MIT, an epiphany that altered the course of her life, in a speech he gave outside at MIT some years ago. The power of ideas
could someone explain to me why the two theses are mutually exclusive? sure, some big corporations must be profitting from the military aid, but at the same time, the Lobby is very clearly involved in pressuring politicians. Their interests go hand in hand.
yet another problem with the chomskian analysis. he believes in the ‘rational’ motivation of the elite, yet argues, essentially, that elite donors to AIPAC are flushing millions down the toilet by donating to israeli-centric causes. the point of military expenditures is important as well, the military being part of a multi-billion dollar industry that may have interests that diverge from other elite enterprises, such as oil production and distribution. others (baudrillard for example) argues convincingly that hegemony is a distinct enterprise from ‘simple’ domination (a master/slave dichotomy), ‘hegemonic’ (?) forces driving decisions that may appear rationale in the short term, but are ultimately destructive and irrational.
ugh. that’s a muddle, but i hope you get my point(s).
great point, marc. i have always thought, when, say, gergen said the lobby doesnt affect congress, Well I know a lot of really smart Jews who must be wasting their money then… and the fact is that that money has served a real end
Actually, he is arguing exactly the opposite – that donors to AIPAC are indirectly benefiting the elite by supporting AIPAC. That’s the whole point. AIPAC is to be inserted into a larger system of elite culture. This seems obvious to me. The motivations of those who donate to it may be ideological or cynical, but the real beneficiaries are the elite, and NOT the majority. This not the only instance in which Americans are hoodwinked into supporting policies which actually go against their interests – it’s quite common. Look at the “Tea Party”. Look at health care. Look at the illegal wars. Look at how much of the US yearly budget is eaten up by Military / National Security (Discretionary!) spending
link to deathandtaxesposter.com
It will be $964.8 billion in 2012 according to this :
link to usgovernmentspending.com
Yes, the US and Israeli militaries have had very close ties (as do the Egyptian). Looking at this pie chart, do you really think the DoD has no influence over US foreign policy? Does the DoDs interest coincide with yours, or mine? Answer : no.
Do you think that the CEO of BoA and the head of the Chamber of Commerce are interested in what you think is the best way to steer US policy? Answer : no.
Those planning policy are doing it in the interests of the rich and powerful, and not to benefit the general welfare of the citizens of any given country. Any concessions given are not given, but WON by struggle, for the most part – and are enacted to keep the population more or less from revolting. A more materialist analysis would help understand the recent intifadas in the MENA, and why they are happening, as the tyrants and their entourages enabled neoliberal economic policies which created a widening wealth disparity in those countries. Yes, it’s about freedom from violence and civil liberties and oppression, but it is also about increasingly difficult material conditions for the vast majority and its resentment toward the kleptocrats in power. In the US, it is not so different.
link to theatlantic.com
No, the institutional, class-based analysis and the irrational, tribalist analyses are not mutually exclusive. Yes, it’s about both of them.
Yes, those who take money from the Rubes – (in the name of a Jewish state, or the mythical “shining city” to end all Apocalypses before the second coming of the third temple of the Mayan calendar complete with UFOs and dancing angels with trumpets) – are more than happy to use it for their own purposes, just like those who suckle at the budget for “Homeland Security” and every other military intelligence agency and corporation do, laughing all the way to the bank while telling people it’s in their interests (whatever that means). Yes, it is in the interests of members of Congress to continue their careers instead of seeking justice for the oppressed. No, it was not in the interests of most of us to invade Vietnam, or Cambodia, or Korea, or any other place – or support Israel blindly.
And the Lobby is not separate from corporate interests.
Look at how illogical and circular Chomsky’s argument is:
Chomsky begins with an assumption, that corporations wield more power than the Lobby does over our Middle East policy. He uses this assumption to ‘prove’ that the the Lobby is not a major factor in policy formation compared to corporate interests.
If anything, the exact opposite can be logically concluded. Walt and Mearsheimer’s thesis is that the Israel Lobby wields more power than corporate interests, thus it would do no good to tell Microsoft, Intel, and Lockheed Martin that their interests are being harmed, because the Lobby is too powerful.
Chomsky has to resort to this sort of manipulative casuistry because he cannot logically and persuasively establish his conclusions.
yes, and he assumes that supporters of israel and corporate headquarters are necessarily distinct groups. moreover, instability in the ME caused by israeli-arab tensions (e.g. zionist israel’s need for military superiority) benefits certain corporate entities.
i don’t meant to pile on, though. chomsky taught me how to read the newspaper critically, not an unimportant skill to have.
“he assumes that supporters of israel and corporate headquarters are necessarily distinct groups.”
He constantly mentions high-tech U.S. investment in Israel. Therefore he can’t possibly “assume that supporters of israel and corporate headquarters are necessarily distinct groups.” This is an assumption made by M/W and others.
That’s part of the point of my article. It’s all mostly material. It’s all mostly corporate. The Lobby reflects “interests.” They overlap with lots of other interests, especially MIC and high-tech (which ovelap with each other, obviously.)
We could stop all of that, just go to the corporate headquarters of Lockheed Martin, Intel, Microsoft, and others and explain to them that their interests are harmed by US support for Israel, so they should terminate their investments in Israel and use their political and economic clout to put the lobby out of business. Anyone with a little familiarity with American society and political economy knows that they could do that in their sleep.
and
This is an assumption made by M/W and others.
no, it’s also an argument chomsky makes on different grounds. when he says that AIPAC’s influence is inconsequential, chomsky distinguishes the lobby from the corporate elite. and if the influence of the lobby is of such insigificance, why the need for the lobby at all? there must be a divergence of interests, interests served by AIPAC that are distinct from those of ‘corporate headquarters’ otherwise the investment in AIPAC serves no purpose, even given the ‘facts’ as stated by chomsky. except, of course, if you were to argue that AIPAC exists solely to serve the interests of AIPAC.
I just have to assume at this point that you’re engaged in some sort of Talmudic exercise, and aren’t really interested in taking seriously the substance of what Chomsky says, or what I’ve repeatedly said on this thread.
no, dave, i’m not engaged in ‘some sort of talmudic exercise’, whatever that means. it appears that you aren’t really interested in addressing the numerous inconsistencies and errors in chomsky’s logic repeatedly noted on this thread. as i’ve said, chomsky’s contributions have been many, but he is not without fault, and the fact that he is seen as the greatest american intellectual of the left is both a deserved honor and an indication of the poverty of the intellectual in america.
“the fact that he is seen as the greatest american intellectual of the left is both a deserved honor and an indication of the poverty of the intellectual in america.”
Seriously, what on earth do you mean by this?
i mean that the pool of candidates for ‘the greatest american intellectual of the left’ is pretty shallow. geddit?
“Walt and Mearsheimer’s thesis is that the Israel Lobby wields more power than corporate interests, thus it would do no good to tell Microsoft, Intel, and Lockheed Martin that their interests are being harmed, because the Lobby is too powerful.”
These corporations have profitable investments in Israel. Some people identified with them might be disturbed by the occupation, settlements, and religious fanaticism. But clearly they don’t think that any of these affect their interests, are effect them enough to say anything. Instead, you have Bernard Avishai pontificating about a fantasized settlement.
M/W don’t know how to formulate the issues at all, because if they did they wouldn’t be teaching at the University of Chicago or writing for Foreign Policy. They’d have to be poor and write for Z of Mondoweiss.