Press Action

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

A Question of Intent: The Chomsky Interview

By Reza Fiyouzat

Read full article...

Posted 12/29 |

Add a Comment

Comments:

You must register to comment.

I don’t know many people, either deeply or peripherally involved in the activist and radical left who don’t have extreme respect for Chomsky, and couldn’t give a rat’s ass what he says about electoral issues. In fact - and I am often critical of Chomsky’s anti-Leninism but he is - in terms of action as opposed to worldview, actualy involved in political and social activism, unlike many if not most self proclaimed radicals - and he’s my grandmother’s age!

If we’re gonna get pissed at Noam for anything its for writing something nice about Achmed Chalabi in his 1999 book Rogue States - but his - as Tanweer put it here - “very public activism” far outweighs the already dead-in-the-water blame syndrome post-electorally, from the purity crowd.

You are correct that Chomsky is opposed to Leninism. While I myself am very influenced by Lenin, there is a dark side of the Bolshevik variant of Marxism (first shown by Rosa Luxembourg) - and you are engaging in it right here- by thinking a few statements one way or the other would have tipped the balance against the war/for revolution etc.

Chomsky did what someone who both has enormous audiences from mainstream liberals to radicals to socialists to even conservatives would do, he tried to present a position of compromise. Guess what. I agreed with it (i.e. at the very least there would be no Alberto Gonzales if Kerry had won, despite my reservations about him - I supported the safe state campaign - but for Nader - much like Chomsky, and not at all critiqued by Greg Bates in his excellent book on the topic.) A united left has to be able to cope with differences over our goal towards We can argue all we want about that or we can try to end the war in Iraq.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/29 at 12:23 PM

It should be noted as well that the concept of “Excommunication” as referred to in regards to Petras’s piece (much as I respect Petras and agree with him on the logistics of the issue vis-a-vis FARC) is very problematic and indicates a mistrust of free thought and a very cynical, anti-humanist view of the general public. Catholic Churches, Jewish Synagogues, excommunicate people, not political movements.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/29 at 12:32 PM

1) I can’t account for some other people’s “silence” on the matter of C’s and Z’s ABB stance during the most recent election, but I can account for mine. Perceptional prowess is not perfect. So while I am happy to acknowledge and respect the particularly potent perceptional prowess of C and Z, I do not hold them to a standard of perfection. They are heads and shoulders above today’s prevailing standard; and, for that, I am deeply appreciative of them.

2) As for C’s and/or Z’s positions vis-a-vis certain manifestations of socialism, statist authoritarianism can thrive in noncapitalist soil as much as it can thrive in a capitalist one. In this regard, I share some of their misgivings about cetain manifestations of socialism which give rise to statist authoritarianim.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/29 at 12:48 PM

I disagreed with Chomsky’s support of Kerry. 2004 was an eye-opening experience for all supporters-of-real-change in the United States, stunned by the willingness of so many left-libertarian luminaries to jump on the ABB bandwagon. As you know, Reza, I posted several articles on Press Action, criticizing Chomsky and other lefty all-stars for their support of Kerry. Check out this one by Michael K. Smith and this one by Kim Petersen and this one by Richard Oxman and this one by Mickey Z. and this one by me and this one by Stephen Gowans.

Yep, in this post-election period, it should not be forgotten by people-who-really-care that Chomsky supported Kerry. And I fully back people taking Chomsky to task for his position on Kerry (and any other point of contention) and never letting him off the hook for his 2004 electoral position. But he’s still got a lot of good ideas on world affairs, including those included in Junaid’s interview with him. And I hope his heart doesn’t give out anytime soon so that we can continue to benefit from his analysis.

Posted by Mark Hand from on 12/29 at 12:51 PM

Quick comment on the following:

“I am writing to address a puzzling silence taken on by, it seems, just about everybody in the U.S. who writes on behalf of the downtrodden and the meek: the Left, that is. “

Hmmm...The left speaks on behalf of the meek? The 1 million plus people killed by Saddam were, if anything, meek and downtrodden. Did the Left speak for them over the last 20 years? No. Women and gays oppressed in Saudi Arabia—who speaks for them? Certainly not the left? Is this because they only support gay and women’s rights on a case by case basis—when it supports their political strategy? How about the Sudan? Where is the voice of the Left? Certainly, the meek and downtrodden in China and Cuba have recieved little comfort from the voice of the Left. Indeed, the only folks who inspire the “brave” voice of the Left appear to be totalitarians and those who support a totalitarian ideology. If you are a gay man scheduled to be executed in Saudi Arabia—don’t count on the Left to stage protests outside the Kingdom’s embassy or to even acknowledge your plight. However, if you are a terrorist from Saudi Arabia who finds himself in Gitmo—the Left is there for you. Sure, if the terrorists ideology were to achieve victory those on the Left would be the first one’s imprisoned, executed and oppressed—but it is more important for the Left to feed their political identity than it is to have any core values—or to even secure their own existence.

This sums up why the Left was defeated in the last election and why it is becoming irrelevant. The Left simply has no moral authority or convictions that are valued more than than the political identity it has created for itself. The Left does not value the lives of those killed by conflict unless it serves their narrow arguements. The same indifference is alloted by the Left in regards to millions who are oppressed, murdered and tortured. The Left views human tragedy merely as a tool exploited to score rhetorical points.

In short, those who speak for the meek and downtrodden having nothing to do with the Left. Those who speak for these people are those who share an understanding between right and wrong, who possess courage and who are unwilling to allow a political identity to corrupt their intellectual and moral integrity. These people are liberals and conservatives but rarely sychophants of a political identity.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 12/29 at 02:07 PM

I find it hard to understand why is it that so many people continue to be angry at (to a non American observor) such insignificant things as who someone endorsed in a very unimportant presidential election, especially given that Chomsky - unlike Michael Albert, Norman Solomon and others - endorsed Nader. It would be one thing if Chomsky and Zinn et. al joined the attack on Nader and attempted to delegitimize him, but, as Greg Bates noted, they endorsed him in safe states. All the while, if one looks at his output over the last year, you’ll find maybe a paragraph on electoral issues, and perhaps thousands of hours on far more important issues.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/29 at 02:22 PM

What do you expect from a trash pile of uncritical left worship like Left Hook?

Posted by Ludwig von Gergen from on 12/29 at 05:01 PM

Are you a travelling man?

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/29 at 06:59 PM

I stand corrected on the ‘total’ silence part; thank you Mark for the reminder.
The silence IS something important, if we want to learn something from the elections that were had. The point of bringin up Chomsky’s and Zinn’s stance is to draw some conclusions. Most importantly, the conclusion that if there exists no independent organizations of the left connected to communities and work places, INEVITABLY we start turning to establishment’s ‘milder’ figuers of power, and we start deceiving ourselves as we continue down the path of making ourselves even less relevant. We need a serious party of the left that should be organizing around social issues, and not SINGLE issues.
Thanks to Mark for posting this, even though it was meant as letter to him, and not meant for posting. Love to all, reza

Posted by reza from Japan on 12/29 at 10:36 PM

“Hmmm...The left speaks on behalf of the meek? The 1 million plus people killed by Saddam were, if anything, meek and downtrodden. Did the Left speak for them over the last 20 years? No. Women and gays oppressed in Saudi Arabia - who speaks for them? Certainly not the left? Is this because they only support gay and women’s rights on a case by case basis - when it supports their political strategy? How about the Sudan? Where is the voice of the Left?”

I for one on the left don’t feel the need to speak up for these oppressed because the market fundamentalist right is doing such a good job. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 12/29 at 11:15 PM

“Is this because they only support… on a case by case basis - when it supports their political strategy?” (Tracey)

Yep. Exactly so. Advocacy which is premised on ideaology… is not the same thing as advocacy which is premised on humanitarianism. Idealogues advocate to serve their ideologies. Humanitarians, on the other hand, advocate to serve the human condition. And the cool thing about humanitarianism is… it neither tilts leftward or rightward.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/29 at 11:46 PM

Bravo again to Cannon Yonts. Rock on brutha… I am glad I am not the only voice of reason to frequent this parsec of the blogosphere…

Posted by Al Kilya from Sri Lanka, surfing huge waves baby on 12/29 at 11:46 PM

I admire your character, Cannon. While some leftists might consider your comments tedious cut and paste jobs from Hitchens articles and Andrew Sullivan’s blog, I see a moral exemplar standing up for oppressed.

It takes courage to beard them on this socialist blog. For far too long the left, steeped as it is in hypocrisy and moral relativism, has condoned and profited from the sale of weapons to tyrants. Their approval of torture and the expedient abrogation of civil liberties is known to anyone who cares to read their journals.

It is time someone finally told them that the liberation of the Middle East depends on our willingness to put aside sophomoric quibbles about means and ends. It is time to get down to meaningful task of teaching the oppressed the joys of adult democracy.

Some of us will fight for this with our keyboards, thereby boosting the morale of the men—and women!—who make selfless sacrifices in the Great Rebuilding. Others will take to the field themselves and inspire future generations with their moral courage. For you, it is the noble keyboard and confronting the maoist apologists for stalinism that haunt the internet.

Rock on, proud soldier! Let none of the defeatist liberals keep you down.

Posted by Harry from on 12/30 at 12:44 AM

Thank you Harry for that great satire! In Farsi, we simply say: A fool’s answer is silence!

As for things that should not be treated silently ... I have to say it clearly that the point of this letter was NOT to put down anybody’s character, definitely not Junaid Alam’s nor Chomsky’s. Nothing personal is meant here, and everything said is political.

The point, again, is that as long as there are no independent parties of the left, even the GIANTS of the left are likely to fall into the trap called Democratic Party USA, and forget to advocate and work for BUILDING a party.

Posted by reza from Japan on 12/30 at 01:36 AM

“...as long as there are no independent parties of the left, even the GIANTS of the left are likely to fall into the trap called Democratic Party USA, and for”...get to advocate and work for BUILDING a party.” (Reza)

On this issue, I couldn’t disagree more. The fact of the matter is, you have a buy-partisan duopoly that has rigged the electoral process to their benefit. And you have several non-duopoly (ergo, independent) parties that are vying for the electorate’s support. I don’t care how many nonduopoly/independent parties you have; as long as the electoral process is rigged to benefit the buy-partisan duopoly, another new party to the mix will not make a hill-of-beans difference to the farsical theater which is currently at play. Enough with this old-paradigm-centered talk of another new party. We need to educate the electorate about how they are being f*cked by the electoral process currently in place, and align popular support for some significant electoral reforms… before any nonduopoly political party can have a level playing field to have more than a marginal impact.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/30 at 02:08 AM

Reza, I couldn’t agree more with you. I just don’t get why people expect people to “apologize” for either faulty or misguided judgement in this context. Surely Chomsky is not leading people into the Democratic abyss. And the US needs a socialist/labor party.

At the same time, sometimes a few answers to a few leading questions from Democrats will lead to assumptions that Chomsky was out there on the campaign trail for Kerry or such...more like it was perfunctory - it is not above radicals to claim they may want the Yankees to beat the Red Sox, so to speak, in my opinion - so long as one acknowledges that they are both owned by the same folks. The trick is to take over the league.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/30 at 02:15 AM

Dear Nader Rider: A political party, fundamentally is a place for channelling and organizing people’s political demands. Such a party, much like a lot of underground parties and organizations throughout the world and throughout history, need not automatically be assumed to be legitimating the electoral system as it stands. Indeed, it can demand that the electoral process be CHANGED, for example, and work for that change. A political party can be as timid as the Deomcratic Party machinery, or as radical as the Bolsheviks.

Posted by reza from Japan on 12/30 at 02:50 AM

Dear Reza: Forgive me if I use a metaphor that I am familiar with from the days that I did some volunteer work in coaching underprivileged young boxers. If your fight game or ring rules are rigged to only permit two boxers into the ring, another boxer will not change the rules of the fight game. It will be seen as a self-serving initiative that is being created to benefit the outside boxer. Fat chance in hell. No, before another fighter can have a fair shot to get into the ring, the rules of the ring must be changed first. Electoral reform must not be seen as a third party initiative; it will fail, if it is seen as such. It must, instead, be seen within a much larger context; and, not as a proprietary interest to a certain party, albeit an nonduopoly one.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/30 at 03:07 AM

Thanks Mark, for mentioning my article again (#4). Actually, the point of it was not to criticize Chomsky for “supporting” Kerry, but to highlight the inconsistency of his position vis-a-vis his longstanding view of the insignificance of presidential elections.

The petition Chomsky signed calling for progressives to vote for Kerry in battleground states stated that it had to be the #1 priority of progressives in 2004 to dump Bush. But Chomsky has said time and again that presidential elections are unworthy of serious attention, i.e. that they should be a very low priority. This is a contradictory stance.

Appearing with Michael Klare and James Carroll at Boston’s Trinity Church a couple of months ago, then again in a subsequent interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Chomsky claimed that he had taken the same stance in 2000 and 2004 as far as the presidential elections. I don’t think this is true. In 2000, I don’t recall Chomsky stating that it was the #1 priority of progressives to make sure Bush did not take office.

Posted by Michael Smith from San Francisco on 12/30 at 10:30 AM

What is amazing is that the Left has even a remote illusion that the US will embrace a Socialist/Marxist political movement? Part of this illusion is based on the fact that the Left --Chomsky, Nader, etc—still view the economic and social context of human existence through the lense of 18th century industrialism, which no longer exists (at least in the US). Individuals in this context cannot be distinguished from the herd and the systems that flow from this are simply new ways to manage a herd. In fact, the concept of the individual is completely lacking within the intellectual constructs of the Left. All that is seen is the abstraction of a proletariate that follows the instinctive march of a capitalist herd. By negating the idea of the individual, the Left finds itself in a position where it cannot possibly serve the desire of individuals to experience accounatbility, self-actualization or freedom. Freedom is not possible if the individual is negated in exchange for a collective abstraction. For the Left, resistance and self-destruction afford the only means of individual freedom. Therefore, it is little surprise that most Americans would find the ideology of collective abstractions and individual nihlism to be repulsive.

A new political movement, however, is possible...but it will not come from the Left. Just as Marxism emerged from the birth of Industrialism, new systems will emerge from the birth of the Information Age. Today, for example, 40% of American workers are “Knowledge Workers” who are not being represented by the Left or the Right in the US. These workers are entreprenuerial, creative, educated, highly independent—and vital to the success of the US economy. They aren’t likely to adopt the ideology of the Left, nor do they subscribe to unbridled corporate capitalism. It is merely their belief in free market economics and individual accountability that forces them to empower the conservative political forces in the US.

For the Left to acquire power or influence or even relevance given social and economic realities in the US would require use of force, since the ideas of the Left only add value to an identity rather than individuals. Of course, such an action would result in the annihilation of the Left in the US were it attempted.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 12/30 at 11:23 AM

Are you trolling, Cannon? Your movement is known for its bizarre style of engagement.

Posted by Harry from on 12/30 at 01:05 PM

Harry,

I don’t have a movement or a political identity. To have one would require I abdicate intellectual integrity and become a sychophant of some pop philosopher-- like Chomsky. Anyhow, let me know the “style of engagement” that conforms to your standards and I will try to follow it from now on...I didn’t realize I violated protocol.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 12/30 at 01:32 PM

The concept of knowledge worker as “cyberproletariat” is used by both Peter Dreier and Hardt/Negri.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/30 at 02:57 PM

j cummings,

Personally, I find it a great idea to read scholars who actually have an understanding of economics and societal trends rather than mere peddlers of a political ideology. Moreover, scholars that actually have practical solutions and ideas are a welcome distraction from the “serious” philosophers who attempt to morph every reality into their version of Marxism. At any rate, I’ll have to check into the writings of these great thinkers, as it relates to Knowledge Workers. The term “cyberproletariat” was actually first coined by Ingersoll in 95 (along with the less-than-flattering term “lumpentrash” for non-knowledge workers). Also, Peter Drucker (who’s intellect is far superior to Chomsky and those other Leftists on his worst day) first coined the term Knowledge Worker.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ifactory/ksgpress/www/ksg_news/transcripts/drucklec.htm

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 12/30 at 03:46 PM

And Peter Drucker has claimed that many of his theories are derived from Marx. He is an admitted anti-capitalist as well a management theorist. His book “post capitalist society” was directly in response to Seymour Melman.

One has to remember that Marx was a theorist of capitalism, and many great capitalists hold him in the highest authority, as opposed to theorists of (non-existant) “rational choice” markets.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/30 at 05:46 PM

Cannon Yonts,

Having read your comments here, I thought to ask some questions. I want to begin with your statement that ‘The Left was defeated in the last election and ... is becoming irrelevant’. This serves as a nice introduction to your political orientation. Thanks. How would you respond to the proposition that the American left does not have a political party and was not really running, let alone defeated in the 2004 election? Second, your classification of Chomsky as a pop-philosopher is interesting. Are you referring to his political criticisms? If so, we may agree that he’s made his analysis a poular one. Or do you consider his work about linguistic innatenesses pop-philosophy? Third, it’s incumbent on you to delineate exactly how you read Leftism as fostering ‘herdism’ and the ‘negation of the individual’. Now, onto the grit ... you link to an article by Drucker. His concept of a ‘knowledge worker’ seems to be a celebration of technical specialization. How does this substantially differ from social division of labor? Furthermore, Drucker claims that the knowledge society is, in essence, an ‘employee society’. Why could I not simply state this conversely and say that it is an employers’ society, as those employers must certainly exist, given that there are clearly employees? What then of exploitation? Mehrwert? Drucker’s claim is that accumulated knowledge functions as a means of production (he uses the example of a surgeon) ... why is this not simply labor power? Is this surgeon productive without a hospital to work in? Also, who will own these hospitals or the companies that will dole out wages to this class of knowledge workers? Will everyone become a knowledge worker and will machines perform all the drudgery for the 6+ billion Terran inhabitants then? How is this ecologically viable, given the fact that machine work tends to burn energy and give off heat? I think it’s important to note that Drucker seems to advocate a managerial society: ‘The most successful executive in all history was surely that Egyptian who, 4,000 years or more ago, first conceived the pyramid without any precedent designed and built it, and did so in record time.’ Is it not true that this managerial success was accomplished by directing slaves? Was this an instance of his superior intellect’s worst day or do you have more?

Posted by Theo from Greece on 12/30 at 06:08 PM

I think you may be reading Drucker wrong - even if that is what he intended, the concepts are clearly informed by Marxism, specifically Book 1 of Capital. His view is that pension funds will be the future de-centralized social managers, as opposed to the state, and that workers through these funds own their means of production. While me may or may not have been aware (I think he was - see his book Post Capitalism) that there are radical implication for his theory - the fact that he (from the limited amount I have read) seems to be coming from egalitarian position begs, like Fukuyama, a reading from those who wouldn’t normally read capitalists or neocons. Like Fukuyama, I think he personally is opposed to the “system” he serves, and gives hints on dismantling it. Surely the knowledge worker concept helped to update Marxian analysis for the service and white collar sector - see Dreier in particular. One can see a dialectic between him and Seymour Melman, who was very much in favor of re-industrialization through public works, and Drucker, who in the service of capital, helped propose a “capitalist socialism” as it were so as to defray the reasoning behind Melman.

Regardless of what position one takes on whether re-industrialization is a means to bring mass employment and higher wages, the concepts of Drucker are neutral, and I firmly believe have radical implications. And re-indusrialization while from what I have read seems economically sound in terms of feeding and building postcapitalism, it seems unnecessary. Drucker shows how pension funds can wrest more control - it is not for nothing that here in Toronto they tried to block the teacher’s pension fund from aqquiring so many shares in various markets, because as shareholders, they sit on boards and not only ask for returns, but actually wrest control of how the industry is being directed. They even pulled funding from non-union projects. This is not yet perfect, but is an improvement that is often overlooked. Public Employees are well paid because of pension fund geniuses and hurrah for that.

Even under communism (which has not existed - I mean complete communism, or complete “anarchy") - there will be those who manage. They may not be renumerated any more than those who create. But management is not neccesarily a capitalist concept - or else why did Ed Herman teach it?

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/30 at 07:20 PM

Hi Jordy,

I’m not imputing any social morality to Drucker here, merely pointing out the obvious line of questioning.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 12/30 at 07:44 PM

That is realized...I was using the overall idea not so much to get across the idea to you but to Yoonts etc.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/30 at 11:58 PM

Regardless if the era involved is an industrial or an informational one, I strongly empathize with Eugene Debs when he said:

“Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life. We were taught under the old ethic that man’s business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands of years ago the question was asked; ‘ Am I my brother’s keeper?’ That question has never yet been answered in a way that is satisfactory to civilized society.

Yes, I am my brother’s keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality but by the higher duty I owe myself. What would you think me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death.”

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/31 at 03:36 AM

For whatever it’s worth, the number of information workers as a percentage of the total USA work force is lower now than it was in 1954, approximately 5.5%, and at the height of the tech bubble it was never higher than 3.3%. It’s been in decline since then. The knowledge economy job growth is primarily in support personnel for financial services. The total number of goods producing jobs has been in decline thoughout the neolberal era.

There’s dwindling incentive for people to get degrees in hard science as it’s cheaper to outsource innovation. We’re not making enough things people want to continue to service our debt. This is what Nader Rider calls the buy-partisan consensus on where the economy should go. Even post-ideological, non-movement, ex-Democrats who resoundingly reject sycophancy can find cause for concern.

Posted by Harry from on 12/31 at 05:29 AM

Thanks Jordy. After a sleep and my morning musings, I have to agree with you that there is some real progressive substance to Drucker’s ideas about pension funds.

Nader Rider, I too am with Debs there, regardless economy’s technical rooting. Nice citation.

Harry, is the ‘cheap outsourcing of innovation’ your wording? If so, congrats. That’s catchy.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 12/31 at 06:53 AM

Happy New Year Press Action crew!

Posted by Theo from Greece on 12/31 at 07:56 AM

Happy New to all!

Theo, one of my friends got all of us using “outsource” as a way of saying “destroy beyond hope of repair”. I can’t claim credit for it.

Posted by Harry from on 12/31 at 09:45 AM

Harry, tech/IT workers are merely a category of knowledge workers. Knowledge worker are anyone who create, distribute, manage, analyze or consume knowledge in the performance of their work. Knowledge workers are not a new phenomenon and exist in any system. Your boy Chomsky,in fact, is a knowledge worker-- clocking in for self-loathing rich kids at MIT. Some estimates are the knowledge workers comprise a majority of western workforces (depends on how you categorize certain work, which is something scholars love to debate). The BLS has the data at http://www.bls.gov/emp/empmajorindustry.htm and you can decide who is and is not a knowledge worker. The total numer of goods producing jobs has declined but the number of those working in knowledge based work have increased. The current unemployment rate in the US is below what economist once thought was frictional unemployment in the Industrial Age.

“There’s dwindling incentive for people to get degrees in hard science as it’s cheaper to outsource innovation. “

This statement is based on what data? If people are more innovative they are cheaper. That’s why the US has created the most dominant economy in the history of the world. This betrays an obvious lack of understand for economics. As for consumer and government debt, that’s a broader area of economics than employment alone.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 12/31 at 10:24 AM

“What Marxism was to the society of Economic Man, Calvinism was to that of Intellectual Man: the final, messianic exaggeration of its creed. In both, the belief in the attainment of freedom and equality could only be maintained by sacrificing actual freedom. The doctrine of determination through predestination in Calvinism is parallel to that of determination through the class situation in Marxism. Both abolished actual freedom in existing society to maintain the belief in the reality and imminence of freedom in the coming society. And both collapsed as orders when it was proved that the only society which they could realize was an unfree society.”

Drucker, “The End of Economic Man: A Study of the New Totalitarianism”

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 12/31 at 10:31 AM

It seems that Drucker is there referring to Soviet Communism, not Marx’s philosophy. Be that as it may, his work inspired Robin Blackburn’s excellent pension-fund socialist book Banking On Death. And you can’t deny that Drucker has a series of books (yes, I used to study business before I switche to journalism) that involve post-capitalist society, as he calls it. So he agrees that capitalism is not the fairest, most equal way to feed the population, unlike m. Yoonts who talks of “people” being cheaper, bullshit neoclassical inhumanistic economics. “Those who claim not to hold a position on capitalism are usually slaves of some defunct economist” I think was what Keynes said.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/31 at 10:45 AM

“Be that as it may, his work inspired Robin Blackburn’s excellent pension-fund socialist book Banking On Death.”

He’s inspired tens of thousand including Churchill in the 30’s through every major intellectual movement since.

“And you can’t deny that Drucker has a series of books (yes, I used to study business before I switche to journalism) that involve post-capitalist society, as he calls it.”

Yes, but he envisions post-capitalism as the empowerment of the individual—an era where the individual is able to reach his or her potentiality across multiple systems. He denies the collective construct of Marxism but not individual responsibility, compassion and freedom. He also inspired thoughts on business co-operatives and hundreds of other systems that meet the needs of particular individuals (rather social, ethical, humanitarian, economic, psychological). He certainly didn’t believe any single system was capable of being dynamic enough to suit the splendid uniqueness and necessary soveriegnty of the individual (although he realized that the soveriegnty of the individual was by force of reality finite).

“So he agrees that capitalism is not the fairest, most equal way to feed the population”

Perhaps, but he feels the same for Marxism. The problem he sees with capitalism involves the lack of empowerment of the individual-- not the lack of empowerment of a collective entity that serves as an abstraction of the individual.

“Yoonts who talks of “people” being cheaper, bullshit neoclassical inhumanistic economics. “

I said that its cheaper to have innovative people than uninnovative people. That’s a fact that is proven by countless examples of innovative companies. Of course, if people are equally innovative then the cheaper price prevails—until demand for innovation exceeds the supply in those lower cost areas. Fortunately, the demand for innovation is quite high. In fact, you could argue that the demand is so high that we struggle to restrain the consequences of this demand. Also, in the US, the employment issue that will be of most concern over the next 30 years will likely be labor shortages (due to demographic shifts and Baby Boomers leaving the workforce).

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 12/31 at 11:32 AM

Happy New Year to one and all indeed. And may it be new not only in chronological time, but in the answers hat we create to the same problems which have vexed us for many “new” years.

“To the indefinite, uncertain mind of the American radical, the most contradictory ideas and methods are possible. The result is a sad chaos in the radical movement, a sort of intellectual hash, which has neither taste nor character.” -Emma Goldman

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/31 at 11:36 AM

“He denies the collective construct of Marxism but not individual responsibility, compassion and freedom.” (CY)

The problem is, so many of us construe the historical examples of statist authoritarianism/totalitarianism, in Marxist garb, as examples of socialistic collectivism. They are not one and the same. As another Peter (Kropotkin) would contend.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/31 at 11:57 AM

That’s a neat way of putting it, handling and consuming knowledge. It blurs the distinction between those who create and innovate and those who simply process. Telemarketing gurus, investment bankers and public relations copy writers become the equivalent of engineers. Have you wondered why there is a correlation between decline of good producing jobs and jobs in stretching the limits of science? It’s been of concern across the ideological spectrum. Patenting ways of doing business and running up debt to use as blackmail is a sorry substitute.

Empires and hegemonies that shift their focus to financial services tend to crash, spend decades in economic doldrums and become client states of more powerful countries.

Posted by Harry from on 12/31 at 02:30 PM

Yoonts, if innovation and automation mean more underemployed people, how do you propose the population is fed? I realize you would probably say the service sector and leave it at that, so I’d ask if you have a problem with the service sector becoming increasingly unionized, so workers can afford to buy products in the first place? Forget Drucker, Marx, etc. - the current system of laissez-faire in terms of wages and finance may be bringing a lot of innovation and neat new jobs for people who were born in a certain few years between 68 and 74, and then bottomed out (see Doug Henwood’s After the New Economy,) but is also, along with the end of manufacturing - which unlike some leftists, I won’t say is the sole cause of unemployment (global trends being what they are, it should be noted that the Indian left welcomes outsourcing,) rather it is the lack of organization and re-training for other industry, including public works, and the general low pay in the service sector that has created the disapearance of the middle class and the largest gap between rich and poor in decades. So, with all of these things in mind, I would let Yoonts off the hook if he supported a living wage, as law, and the right of workers to organize everywhere - including the under-utilized tactic of white collar unionization...where does he stand on this? The standard elitist answer that janitors do not deserve as much as barristas do not deserve as much as teachers do not deserve as much as etc. - is laid on its head, both from a level of egalitarianism and on the level of economic pragmatism. There will not be as much of a stigma to working in service industries if they are well paid. Will this mean less profits for large multinationals? Yes. It may also lead to more competition among chains to better serve workers and the public, as took place after grocers were unionized in many cities.

My point is that to be an anti-capitalist, in my view is to believe in equality of accumulation and abolition of poverty and classes, not (neccesarily) how that accumulation takes place. I think one of tune under utilized methods took place under Tito, but was frankly killed by a mixture of state-bureaucrats like a young Milosevic in the early 80s, and the IMF. In Yugoslavia, all the semblances that we are used to - of consumer diversity, of independent firms and competition existed, but all (but heavy industry) was directly worker owned. One of the problems with this was much like the problem under capitalism of decreaed revenue but this can be allayed by what Gorz proposes a similar reform along with dual wages (to offset losses due to competition - a social wage will be guaranteed to all citizens, etc.)

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/31 at 02:32 PM

Yonts,

You still have questions to answer.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 12/31 at 03:31 PM

j,

A short answer is that your economic theory is not compatible with human nature, assumes a particular nature to what is equality and negates the individual’s right to choose.

Here are some longer questions...Who are the one’s that do the planning for what industries are built or created (someone has to decide to create the next _____ industry and assume the risks for making that decision? How many people should work in a particular industry (resources,even in the fantastical world Marxism/Communism, are still scarce and human resources need to be allocated efficiently as well) and who decides? What is a “fair living wage”? 3 bowls of rice and a hut? A house with a 2 car garage and the all-you-can-eat government buffet? Do workers need to add value in their labor or does labor become symbolic? Is there a such thing as value? In a capitalist and/or post-capitalist (not the same as anti-capitalist) society, value is inferred upon one’s labor by consumers using capital (something accepted to have value) acquired through labor-- how would the concept of value be redefined if it exists? Does your system allot for the 9 million self-employed and small business owners who employ an overwhelming majority of American workers—directly and indirectly? What is the incentive to take risks to build a market for new products, services and ideas? Can new markets be created once your system is in place? Remember, resources are scarce no matter what the system. What happens when I require a certain reward in order to do one task that best serves humanity, but choose another task, like writing haiku’s about the brief lives of butterflies? Although I may be good at programming systems that enhance the operations of a hospital, a university, etc—I’d really much rather dedicate my labor to a career providing scholarly research on the Redsox and Yankee rivalry. If the reward is the same and I am entitled to a share of what other people produce, why should I choose something that is lesser valued in terms of my own subjective criteria? In other words, in order for your system to exist it must negate the individual’s right to determenine what value is or force the individual to add specific value that best serves societal interests—at the same time not assuring any levels of efficiency will be created to eliminate povery and other human tragedy.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 12/31 at 05:22 PM

Who decides the things that you mention? In the field of organizational development (OD), there is a cutting edge approach to management called self-directed, or self-managing, teamwork. Taken to its farthest application, it is the self-directing/-managing work team that addresses, and decides on, the organizationally equivalent issues that you raise. I submit that the same principles and mechanics, which are intrinsic to effective self-directing/-managing work teams, can be employed in the arena of self-governance. There is a whole body of OD research which illustrates the paradigm-changing benefits that are accruable through this approach. I will be happy to point your way to some, if you’d like.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 01/01 at 03:43 AM

“In the field of organizational development (OD), there is a cutting edge approach to management called self-directed, or self-managing, teamwork. Taken to its farthest application, it is the self-directing/-managing work team that addresses, and decides on, the organizationally equivalent issues that you raise.”

OD is something studied by every MBA student—and many undergrad Business students for the past 25 years. OD is used extensively through-out the corporate world in the West. It does not decide which business areas/markets are pursued-- nor does it answer the question of what happens if I refuse to participate in activities that serve the collective but serves my own subject interests/desires. Its a tactic not a comprehensive solution. What’s more it does not answer any of the fundamental questions posed.

“ I submit that the same principles and mechanics, which are intrinsic to effective self-directing/-managing work teams, can be employed in the arena of self-governance. “

Yes, that would work fine assuming there is a cookie-cutter collective where all individuals work best in a group and under group principles. Capitalists employ whatever system that is more efficient and as I’ve said, OD is used extensively (in real life not just in theory) and the results are mixed. If you could eliminate the variables of change and human nature, I submit your system may have a chance...We’d just have to create a static environment.

Still, the questions of what becomes of the entreprenuer, the risk-takers? What becomes of the concept of value and who determines value? Is what the individual considers as value negated? What if self-governing groups reject Marxism and the value/equality ideas you espouse? These questions must be answered better...unless your only goal is to put forth a pop economy that is vulnerable to countless variables you’ve not considered (in other words, classic Leftism).

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 01/01 at 10:12 AM

It is not uncommon… in a system where so few have so much at the expense of so many having so little… for someone who has so much to be concerned about his or her continued ability to hold on to what (s)he already has, if not the ability to acquire more. To be perfectly frank with you, and while this concern is also a perfectly understandable one to me, I’m more concerned about balancing the scales than I am about keeping the currently disproportionate opportunity condition intact. To give economic slaves a greater opportunity for self-determination, some slave owners must be inconvenienced.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 01/01 at 11:25 AM

Ever go to a bus stop? People just get into line. No attendant tells them to wait in line...thy just wait.

On a more serious level, human nature is defined by co-operation and incentives, an dif the two are matched, there is (less) reason for corruption - certainly less opportunity than under the laissez faire model. I think Americans are so used to a sort of puritanical-slash-tabula-rasa model of human nature, that they don’t understand the human capacity for co-operation. Look at any guerrilla movement, to be blunt, and you will see that with the right incentive (kicking out occupiers) - or even among striking workers - and you will see a pluraliry co-operating. I am not suggesting the Soviet model in which one can only attain influence through meetings. I am suggesting that people are more co-operative than most Americans are trained to think.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/01 at 11:39 AM

“I am suggesting that people are more co-operative than most Americans are trained to think.”

Exactly so. Collaborative action, in fact, is an inate ability and prociliviy of the human race… as discussed here (thanks to Harry):

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

Posted by Nader Rider from on 01/01 at 12:01 PM

If it helps, as a Consultant, I am a big fan of collaboration. Consultants like myself are hired to help businesses and organizations to increase cooperation within its workforce, its suppliers, customers,partners,community and investors. The reason American companies have created the most innovative products and services and industries over the past 60 years is because of advanced abilities to collaborate to create efficiencies and other opportunities. The question isn’t whether collaboration is valued in capitalism or post-Capitalism or Marxism. The question is who determines the rules of decision-making, who engages in decision-making and who determines value. You can’t answer those questions without suppressing individual freedom as a Marxist. What’s more, you can’t gaurantee an outcome that eliminates poverty, starvation and any other human tragedy. You start with a premise that ignores the sociological,economic and psychological underpinnings of human life-- with snap-shot in time economic theories that no longer apply. Not only can’t you see that your theory has been tested and failed for the reasons mentioned above—you can’t even see how the context in which your theory was built no longer exists. Perhaps, you offer hope to the poor...but if your system lacks the organic ability to change with a thousand changing variables, it will cost the lives of millions and the suffering of millions more. A system without an organic connection with human nature cannot succeed, nor is it certain that a completely connected system (if one ever exists) will ultimately succeed.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 01/01 at 03:02 PM

Five questions

1) Cite a passage in Marx (as opposed to Stalinist/Maoist governments that perverted his heritage) that denies indiviual rights.

2) What is your conception of human nature, and from what school of thought do you derive your views? Even if you argue that humans are naturally competitive, many argue that our competitive singularities can only be truly brought to the surface in a zone of equality. Or perhaps the competitive notion that American sociologists just love is simply a symptom of capitalism, which has only existed for around four hundredyears.)

3) Why don’t you support a living wage, unless of course you believe that some humans are more deserving of others - with the amount of money made by Fortune 500 execs, and the new popularity of spending tax cuts on Ferraris, I will overlook your opinion that it is impossible to create a living wage. A small redistribution would not even affect anyone but the top one percent, and in turn, a living wage can be created without even affecting multi-millionaires’ pocketbooks.... Are you so against your bosses paying you better? Why is your work more socially (as opposed to economically) valuable than a nurse or a service worker?

4) If you agree that your work is equally socially valuable to people like nurses, than why would you have a problem making the same income that you do now, while some get a raise, and your boss makes less?

5) If this all comes down to your belief that capitalists will not give up these rights voluntarily (and you are not a capitalist, you are a worker,) then why are you resigned to no change? Just because your position seems secure doesn’t mean that dollar hegemony will fall quite rapidly - as reported by much of the business press.

If your answers pretty much come down to realizing your own powerlessness, then you are actually empowering yourself to change that.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/01 at 03:27 PM

“Even if all of Marx’s views are proved wrong to me, I will still be an orthodox marxist” George Lukacs. What Lukacs meant is that even if the method espoused by Marx (related to nineteenth century political economy) is insufficient today, the means in which you disagree - including the concept of “Value” (which is how, as Keynes puts it, how capitalist economists adopted Marx’s notion of surplus) are quite Marxist. Marx changed political economy on every level. Some even say that he popularized the phrase capitalism.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/01 at 03:35 PM

“It is not uncommon… in a system where so few have so much at the expense of so many having so little… for someone who has so much to be concerned about his or her continued ability to hold on to what (s)he already has, if not the ability to acquire more.”

Nor is uncommon for those who are not willing to take risks, work hard, develop skills and find way to add value to begrudge those who do for what they acquire.

“I’m more concerned about balancing the scales than I am about keeping the currently disproportionate opportunity condition intact. “

Each indvidual in a free society has the ability to balance their own scales and to define what the scale is. It is unlikely they will give up that right to you. Who appointed the Left as those who determine what is fair and what is not fair, right and wrong? Certainly, not American voters.

“ To give economic slaves a greater opportunity for self-determination,”

By taking away their ability to innovative, create their own organizations, strive to make a better life for their kids and community? Perhaps, they feel they could make alot of money and help people more efficiently than you and your fellow ideologues.

“ some slave owners must be inconvenienced. “

Funny, the Left refers to those who provide others with an economic value and create economic value as slaves—although they have far more choices in a free market society than are possible in a Marxist society. It also assumes it can create equality by eliminating risk-takers, entreprenuers, managers and philantropists. Interesting. I suppose that is why the Left will never manage to achieve relevance in the US.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 01/01 at 03:36 PM

j,

(1). I’m not saying Marx isn’t profound thinker. He has had a tremendous impact on the last century, along with others (like Drucker). Marxism negates individual rights by denying the individual the ability to choose outside of the context of a collective entity. Unless Marxism allows for the ability to choose Capitalism as an economic actor—the individual is negated. Unless the individual can make determinations on what he or she produces, the individual is negated. At it’s most basic level, Marxism is a negation of the individual.

2. My view on human nature is flawed by my own perceptions and experiences with human nature...so in order to maintain intellectual honesty I have to admit human nature is too subjective and complex to define. It is also to subjective and complex for Marxists to define.

3. First, define a living wage? Is a living wage enough to keep me alive from day to day? Or is the living wage more complex and subject? Is it the wage at which I would find comfort with life? Is it the wage that enables me as an individual to deal with all sorts of uncertainty? Personally, I’d like everyone to have a life where the basics are provided for and everyone has an opportunity to strive towards their own model of a good, fulfilling life. I think those who have all sorts of resources (knowledge, humor, wealth) should feel an accountability to others who are without. I do and many people I know do-- but I must respect the choices that other free people make if I am to expect my own to be respect. Shame, hoever, would benefit the poor much greater than Marxism.

No. I’m also not against going somewhere else (which I’ve done) to make more money. I can’t say my work is more socially valuable than anyone elses. I only know the supply of people needed to do what I do is less than the demand. That is not the case in other jobs. Because of supply and demand, I am provided greater incentives to work for particular employers. Supply and demand doesn’t change with Marxism—nor do necessary incentives.

4. I may want to make less is it meant I could get by with less work or have extra time off or do more interesting work, etc. Why should what I want necessarily negate another individual’s freedom.

5) I’m a worker, entreprenuer (I just love thinking of new business concepts) and am comfortable taking risks - but not on Marxism. Allot of folks share my position, liberal and conservative. I feel strongly about the need for change and there are ways to effect change other than by promoting an ideology that is incompatible with American life. Also, I do not believe in the term “secure”—I hold it to be an illusion. I’m always working to prepare for the next project, job or business. If the dollar falls, the rest of the world’s economy would fall as well-- while making…

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 01/01 at 04:32 PM

I still think you are conflating Marxism and Stalinism, elipses are never good in points that you may interpret one way, and another another. The point of Marx, like the entire German idealist tradition, until Naziism, is to change the definition of philosopher from “describer” to “agent.’ Your lack or response to other queries speaks volumes, but readers should notice that this is a way to engage non-leftists and prove that the difference isn’t as large as it seems, and squarely comes to (what seems to me) profound pessimism from M. Yoonts and his ilk.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/01 at 06:54 PM

Do you prefer extensive torture, a likely draft and eventual “Argentinization” of your econonomy to the unknown? I think we really scare you...and I hope very much that some American capitalists realize that their country may bankrupt itself, and thus restrain the very economically unsound Imperialist policies…

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/01 at 07:00 PM

Jordy,

I’m just reading along now. Is it just me or was that a Communist Manifesto flashback moment or what?

‘From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by ‘individual’ you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.’

Posted by Theo from Greece on 01/01 at 08:25 PM

Theo,

Fortunately, your ideology is an impossibility in the US. This fact alone, leaves me no need to be fearful of your ideology or even aware of it. That’s not what troubles me. Obviously, that which makes itself irrelevant is by its nature untreatening. No. What troubles me is that you would waste your own potentiality on a political identity-- projecting a mere shadow of existence. Are you seeking truth or validation? They are not the same.

To answer your former question about how the Left lost in the US election when it fielded no candidates. Simply, even the mildest form of the socialist ideology was rejected-- which assumes an even larger rejection of the Left. Had you fielded a candidate, they would have provided a footnote on the election results. The Left cannot connect to a free people-- only those who live under intellectual, religious or economic totalitarianism. It was rejected because it is not valued. In fact, Marxism is so obscure from American life-- it can’t even inspire disdain or contempt. The only thing the Left can inspire is indifference and possibly nausea. For those who claim to be intellectuals of the Left, there is no plan to compete in the marketplace of ideas not already rejected by history 20 years earlier.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 01/01 at 10:06 PM

Cannon Yonts,

Please don’t be alarmed by my ‘Manifesto’ aside there to Jordy (of course the term ‘middle class’ means something different to a 19th century Marx than to early 21st century First Worlders and today would perhaps be better emended with phrasing dealing with contemporary corporate realities). I admit I’m a bit miffed you never replied to any of my questions. Call me doltish but I imagine if you could have dispatched them easily and directly, as they were asked, you would have, thus winning some dialectical glory for yourself. You did not. If you are reading this I ask for your indulgence in resuming here (if you are so inclined) to clarify whether you are or are not the same Cannon Yonts I’ve just Googled as having said that:

‘The UN is not simply irrelevant. It is a tool of totalitarian regimes. It said nothing as Saddam murdered over 1 million Iraqis—as well as hundreds of thousands of its neighbors. Instead, its members exploited Saddam’s corruption and sought to prop up his regime—which by any standard of decency would be viewed as illegal, genocidal and in violation of international law.’

If so, if you are the same individual, I ask you (or, who knows, both of you) this: if the UN were indeed the tool of Saddam Hussein, if he were, as you say, being ‘propped up’ (although my understanding of the historical record that the US acted as far more as Hussein’s proper ‘propper’ before his Kuwait misadventure that the UN has been since), would he not, authoritarian and dictatorial as he was, been able to machinate the lifting of the economic sanctions so as to properly fill his national coffers, thus facilitating the expansion of Iraq’s oil producing ability and gain even more power as he rewarded those nations and companies eager to do business with such a rich nation? Would not this increase of economic legitimacy (let’s say Saddam’s version of ‘#### you’ money) perhaps eventually enable him to finally, and legally, acquire real WMD capabilities?

Let’s say yes and make your argument pretty strong.

Were you, or are you, a supporter of the US led war in Iraq?

p.s.: If you are not this person, let us know.

http://kalgoorlie.yourguide.com.au/detailops.asp?class=your say&opinion_id=83033

Posted by Theo from Greece on 01/01 at 10:21 PM

Yes, I supported the war-- but felt the WMD’s were a distraction from the real need for war. Thanks for pointing out that comment. I didn’t know they had published it.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 01/01 at 10:36 PM

Theo - my intent was to use vernacular, but I am not in disagreement with Marx’s sentiments. The concept of individual I was getting at had more to do with the notion of singularity, to use theoretical language. What most people think of as individual rights are not “bourgeois rights” but singular norms. This language of “rights” is taken advantage of by the Right, but what mot people percieve when it is connotated is the toothbrush and pyjama issues.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/02 at 12:51 AM

Jordy,

I apologize. I am being unclear (we are not connecting all that well noetically in this exchange. Blame me, I miss my space academy glory days). I am really referring to Cannon’s off-the-cuff interpretation of the Marxian understanding of individualism (and by extension the Feuerbachian concept of species developed in Marx’s early philosophical essays) throughout this exchange. For example,

‘Marxism negates individual rights by denying the individual the ability to choose outside of the context of a collective entity. Unless Marxism allows for the ability to choose Capitalism as an economic actor� the individual is negated. Unless the individual can make determinations on what he or she produces, the individual is negated. At its most basic level, Marxism is a negation of the individual.’

Posted by Theo from Greece on 01/02 at 08:21 AM

Cannon,

Just to assure you about my ‘wasting my own potentiality on a political identity’. Relax, political discourse is one of many things I excel in. Obviously, you have yet to make the leap to diffentiating Marxism as philosophy in action and as an bastardized ideology. (see Jordy’s comment 55.)

We can see our difference in a nutshell by looking to Drucker’s paper you linked. D uses specialization to help define his idea of the knowledge worker. An necessary part of becoming a specialist is focused education. D points out that Allgemeine Bildung (what he properly refers to in the Anglophone academy as liberal arts, but would be translated better as ‘general education’) impedes that on a macro-societal level. There is an appropriate German word here. Fachidiot. A Fachidiot is someone competent in only one discipline (Fach), but generally incompetent. I am unopposed to the pursuit of specialized excellence, mastery. For example, I see the need for masterful surgeons, kung fu practitioners, engineers, gardeners, etc. I am opposed to an intellectual society where the actors lack complete, general and basic critical skills. I am opposed to a discursive sphere dominated by Fachidioten. If it’s one’s choice, one ought to improve intellectual training, but everyone should have a right to a decent, comprehensive education; it’s propadeutic to developing an agile mind. Reading your interpretation of D, if things were to be as you describe them, we would live in a world where everyone is free to work as a specialist or free to starve. Furthermore, everyone would oddly believe that this was individual freedom itself.

We can project this ethical difference onto your dilettante foray into political economy and Jordy’s questions about a living wage. I am unopposed to individuals increasing their individual property, but believe that everyone, worldwide, deserves the necessities provided them; because they are alive. I further think modern productive powers could produce social surpluses up to that task if they were not directed to profiteering, but provision.

Also, you see the intellective sphere as a ‘market place of ideas’; indicative of some market fundamentalism on your part. Apparently, you’re stuck in a capitalist moment of world Geistesgeschichte. You see an idea valorized by its ability to be bought or sold. That cheapens intellection itself. If true, then the ideas best validated by that process (sales) are those promoted by capitalist forces themselves (due to distribution, marketing, etc.) Are you aware that the kernel of anti-capitalism is that its theory necessarily functions outside market parameters? That free thinking is necessarily free of charge? (See Socrates)

Your comments on the war help me understand your Weltanschauung better than all the above textual gamesmanship. I hope to talk about the war with you here on Press Action at a later date, when appropriate.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 01/02 at 09:17 AM

Theo -

Very good point about young Karl and the type of views that permeated early Marx.

As a sidetrack, (I really like the early writings myself....) what is your conception of Althusser, others who claim that the “humanist” young Marx is not “Marx” who changed his position on agency, etc. I always thought it was simply an intellectual cheat in order to justify the French CPs support of the repression in Prague, and later to be able to claim, like Geras, that there is nothing in Marx having to do with abstract concepts of jutice and equality.

But still Althusser makes a very interesting point on the seemingly “two Marxes.” what are your thoughts...(even amongst Marxists this topic is obscure, most people I know, even in the sel-proclaimed Marxist organizations have read the Manifesto and not much else, so this contention is decidedly outside of the ‘market’ or ‘consumer bazaar’ as they used to say in the SU ;) of ideas.

Good point as well on how theory operates...Said called the concept “travelling theory”

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/02 at 12:08 PM

Thanks for the great discussion. I have to move on to building my own site/software (http://www.BlueMeetsRed.com). I check in from time to time.

Best wishes.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 01/02 at 05:04 PM

Jordy,

Althusser is always a touchy figure.

Insofar as his distinction between an early and later Marx, textually, he was well supported. I also remember his making an interesting distinction between historical and dialectical materialisms and the need to better understand Marx as a thinker by seeing those materialisms as intertwined dialectical moments. There was something to what Louis was saying. I am sure he was brilliant. A brilliant, demented wife killer.

I understand Geras also as very textual. His reading of Marx and especially ‘Capital’ as avoiding normative judgements is not really my cup of choco-chai soy latte either.

I know it’s not glamorous, but I always preferred an essentialist reading of Marx. Something like Meikle or maybe de Ste Croix’s remarks in ‘The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World’.

Regarding activities of some Communist parties worldwide (not just the French) because of old allegiances to Moscow. No argument there.

Posted by Theo from on 01/02 at 09:10 PM

Yeah, and Burroughs was almost the same. Somehow I see Althuser and Burroughs as similar figures, somewhat tragic. And Althuser’s book on Machiavelli, the one complete work of his I’ve read, aside from essays, is excellent. At the same time, what I meant by Althuser making a very pedantic effort to extricate the humanist “early writings” from the Marxist corpus - is that apparently these early writings were an inspiration to Kruschev and later “revisionists,” including Dubcek...more a historical thought than anthing else. Some Euro-Communist parties were not as celebratory of Breznev’s Imperialism as the French, and Althuser, like Wolfowitz seems to lend a sort of patina…

And on Geras, he’s now a wild eyed Zionist.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/03 at 03:08 AM

Hi Jordy,
It has been inspirational to read your back and forth. Thank you for keeping up the verbal/logical/theoretical battle. Must say, also, that your patience is exceptional.
I haven’t followed Geras closely, so please inform as to his turning into a Zionist. Any references?
Once again, much obliged,
And a Happy New Year (of rooster*) to All,
reza
*will WE come to roost this year?

Posted by reza from Japan on 01/03 at 04:04 AM

Jordy,

As I said, I think Althusser’s reading was textually justified. Especially the passages he drew from Der Deutschen Ideologie. I originally bothered to read Althusser to inform my reading of Foucault. I also still think overdetermination is a useful concept. No offense intended (I know you are very textually engaged), but after many years, I found that wading through so many theoretical battles in academic Marxism --the attempts to reconcile philosophy with Cold War stupidities—distracted me from getting to the heart of, shall we say, the philosophy of real dialectical materialism. And that was less about reading Althusser, Resnick and Wolff, or whomever and all about reading not just Marx, but also what Marx read; the classics.

Again, as far as the early/late Marx differences, I am comfortable with de Ste Croix’s reading of Marx as an Aristotelian and found that understanding provided a good exegetical point of departure to reconcile the issue. That is to say (not that de Ste Croix went deep in this), when I actually bothered to read a lot of Marx, I began to see how that philosophical consciousness is maintained throughout his work, early and mature.

Yes, I echo Reza on Geras. What’s up?

Posted by Theo from Greece on 01/03 at 09:22 AM

I too want give you a hand Jordy for putting a lot into this exchange here. Always a blast.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 01/03 at 09:32 AM

google Geras...he has written extensively recently on behalf of Israel, or “The existance of Israel” or some such. I could be mistaken but he seems to have taken the Hitchens position on the Iraq war - a piece of his was even featured at David Horowitz’s Frontpage Magazine, and he conspicuously links such radicals as Andrew Sullivan on his weblog.

http://www.frontpagemag.org/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9192

his blog is still interesting - especially his ruminations on Earthquake theology...but he seems to want to butter his bread…

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/03 at 03:05 PM

I was always under the impresion that the dialectic and materialism as such - was re-introduced to Germany by Jakob Bohme and other mystics, hence Marx’s letter to Engels about making such available to common human intelligence, etc. Having studied mysticism extensively, specifically Jewish msticism - the Kabballah (which itself was written in Spain by those in touch with the “Assassins” and Islamic mystics, Platonists, etc.... (not the Madonna version of the Kabballah which is to Kabballah what evangelical Christianity is to Liberation Theology)....see Mark Lilla’s “Jewish Liberation Theology”... I see dialectical materialism as a secularized (in language, not in praxis) version of said mysticism - not to be confused with “new age” or “occult” thinking.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/03 at 03:14 PM

Did someone mention supporting a war?

“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”

Hermann Goering, Nazi Air Force (Luftwaffe) Commander… at the Nuremberg Trials.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 01/04 at 04:00 AM

Jordy,

Your ideas about Bohme, Kaballah, etc. are interesting as hell.

I read that Frontpage article just now. Very Hitchens.

To preface his torching Hussein, G mentioned how he was ‘educated in the movement against the war in Vietnam, the protests against Pinochet’s murderous coup in Chile and against the role of the US in both episodes and in more of the same kind.’

How that background logically leads to support of yet more militaristic American interventionism is beyond me.

I also do not, considering his work, understand why G would tackle what he perceives to be leftist normative prejudices regarding the war instead of leftist analysis; most pointedly, that concerning contemporary imperialism.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 01/04 at 09:12 AM

As I said, buttering his bread. Knowledge can be perverted. Unlike Hitchens, Geras is overdoing his “past” the more to allow people to give another thought to feeling that some kind of materialism can lead them to support a war.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/04 at 12:31 PM

Just read the Geras piece on frontpage; and yes it sounds very much like Hitchens. Their logical ‘trick’ is actually very sophomoric. It’s all about decontextualization, really. Geras tries to draw a universally applicable principle from the Vietnmanese intervention in Cambodia, but no such universal principle can be drawn. Especially since he forgets that the Vietnamese NEVER armed or supplied the Khmer Rouge with shit loads of high-tech weaponry, nor did they militarily, fincancially and logistically support the Khmer Rouge while Cambodia started an agressive war against another neighbor. All of which are things the US DID for Saddam. Geras also conveneintly forgets that it was largely thanks to US support that Saddam STAYED in power. He forgets too that this is the same US that supported Khmer Rouge even after it was ousted by the Vietnamese army, and was the key player in making sure the Khmer Rouge remained seated at any table negotaiting the final fate of the Cambodian state. Geras is really shameful in this article, and not even very intelligent, really.

Posted by reza from Japan on 01/04 at 09:54 PM

My “unlike” defense of Hitchens is that while he is entirely wrongheaded, his arguments are coherent “imperialism is better than feudalism,” and very neo-con type American exceptionalism. Geras is all over the place and is far more transparent...this makes Hitchens, today’s Carl Schmitt, more dangerous.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/04 at 10:48 PM

Yes, Jordy, must agree with your comparison.
Thank you very much for the link to Geras’s article. Very eye-opening.

Posted by reza from Japan on 01/05 at 08:02 AM

The interesting thing - beyond what Reza mentioned - about Geras’s citing of Vietnam (or he could have cited India against Pakistan over East Pakistan/Bangladesh, Cuba in Angola etc.) is that of course there is such thing as “humanitarian intervention,” but he fails to move on to the point that even from a limited standard, there has never been anything humanitarian about any of the interventions that the US has led. I would not have been opposed to a UN effort to stop the genocide in Rwanda, for example - as long as it is not led by American generals who simply don’t know what they’re doing and have ingrained racism. There is going to NEED to be a (probably EU) intervention in the next year or so to separate the sides in Israel/Palestine, as settlers revolt against Sharon, thus creating a perfect situation for peace to be settled from the outside. So it is not like the concept is non-existant. It is simply been perverted by its use by the dominant power.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 01/05 at 02:24 PM

Although the criticisms of Chomsky are very much on target, it makes no sense to point to his degeneration in the last few years without mentioning 911 and the fact that it was an inside-job where pre-planted bombs leveled the buildings in 10 seconds or less. Anyone who refuses to recognize this fact can be expected to become steadily more paralyzed over time.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/controlled.htm

http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/close.htm

http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/closeup.htm

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Flashes/flashes.htm

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/gallery/Explosions.htm

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

http://www.wtc7.net/verticalcollapse.html

Posted by Patrick McNally from FL on 02/03 at 11:53 AM

Next entry: A Wave of Questions: Putting a Disaster in Context

Previous entry: New Bill To Wipe Out Land Treaties with Virginia Tribes

[ads]

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

A Question of Intent: The Chomsky Interview

Comments:

Support Press Action

Support Press Action

Search

Editor's Picks

Most Recent Entries

Archives

Best of the Web

Syndicate