Thursday, March 25, 2004

Chomsky, Anarchism and a Military Draft

By Mark Hand

Read full article...

Posted 03/25 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Honest question.  Doesn’t Capitalism preclude “a more enlightened state” and less “interventionist foreign policy”?  Thanks for the thought-provoking piece, The Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  03/25  at  07:34 PM

  2. It requires a nimble form of logic to posit the military draft as something “every anarchist” would agree on. It’s ironic, to say the least, that at the Chomsky blog Mark points us to, Noam chastises those who “ignore the real world.” Well, how ideal of a world is Chomsky proposing where anarchists willingly submit to a government-imposed military draft in order to defend the country they love? Impossible? I hope not. Realistic? Not any time soon.

    Interestingly, at the blog, Chomsky writes this about those who are not choosing Kerry over Bush: “Those who prefer to ignore the real world are also undermining any hope of reaching any popular constituency. Few are likely to pay attention to someone who approaches them by saying, loud and clear: “I don’t care whether you have a slightly better chance to receive health care or to support your elderly mother; or whether there will be a physical environment in which your children might have a decent life; or a world in which children may escape destruction as a result of the violence that is inspired by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney-etc. crowd, which could become extreme; and on, and on.”

    This is an excellent example of how the Anyone-But-Bush crowd (which now includes Chomsky, Parenti, and other surprises) has talked themselves into believing that Kerry offers something “slightly better.” Chomsky has been an amazing teacher for all of us but when he states an opinion that Kerry offers us “a slightly better chance to receive health care,” remember: it is only an opinion. Personally, I fail to see the evidence that supports it. For another opinion, I recommend this:

    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Gowans0325.htm

    2004 can be a watershed year in which a new wave of thinkers can impose a new perspective and some new approaches. Stay tuned…

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  03/25  at  07:58 PM

  3. didn’t John Conyers and Charles Rangel introduce a bill shortly before the war that would have created just such a “citizen’s army”? if i remember correctly they got zero press on that one. zero support from the white antiwar movement. i mean, i think Amy Goodman asked them a few shocked questions and dropped it and nobody else would even touch it. Conyers and Rangel’s logic was very similar to Hand’s if i remember correctly and i’m glad to hear these ideas come up again. as a non-white person i have always felt that most of the white antiwar movement’s sensitivity about the draft is repellent in it’s privileged perspective and melodrama.

    truly mandatory military service for everyone would have many good effects and could potentially have many more. starting with us, the antiwar movement would be forced to confront and overcome much of it’s racism as many non-white folks will refuse to rally around opposition to the draft as a central issue. an entire generation would suddenly bother to acquaint themselves with a study of international affairs. an entire generation would also suddenly experience true racial integration in circumstances that could potentially have immeasurably positive effects. the structure and process of the military itself and its policies would become matters of universal concern and political activity - to a degree never seen in the USA. ultimately a truly egalitarian draft could contribute substantially to re-directing the whole function of the massive defense infrastructure to constructive rather than destructive ends. that last one has traditionally been and continues to be a large part of the ultimate goal of many revolutionary antiwar activists. many elements of the antiwar movement are unable to understand such concrete and far-reaching goals. my own opinion is that most of the population already does understand these things.

    as far as recent third party efforts and most of the visible “progressive” movements go, i think in general they also suffer from their own active ignorance of non-white and working class perspectives. i recognize that this is partly inevitable in the USA because of how racist our history is…

    when it comes to electoral politics i think activists who reject the two major parties should listen carefully to the single largest electoral constituency - non-voters. of course every third party claims to represent us non-voters but that is mostly public relations borrowed from the major parties. listening to non-voters means actually finding out where people are at in their thinking - and working with that, not our own predetermined (and often white) fantasy.

    solutions to white privilege and dominance are not simple - the extreme tokenism often employed by authoritarian elements within top-down organizations like Pacifica and Int’l ANSWER, for example, does more harm than good i think. there is some progress but it’s pretty glacial.

    but i digress....

    i only meant to say that whether one agrees with Chomsky or not, opposition to the draft is a poor focus for the antiwar movement. so is third party…

    Posted by the noticer from  on  03/25  at  10:58 PM

  4. Whether one is a person of color or not, let’s deal with the most fundamental of issues respecting the military.  To wit, the military...whether it’s drafting people or not, whether it’s invading other countries or not...it is killing us all with its toxic waste.  27,000 toxic hot spots on 8,500 military properties. Not only are they emitting toxic material directly into the air and water...they are poisoning the land in nearby communities...destroying everything...other species...us...Mother Earth.  In the continental U.S. alone they have made uninhabitable an area the size of Florida.  I could go on, but, yes...I’m glad stuff is getting on the table...inlcuding the truth about the racism...BUT...PLEASE let’s get with the most basic of problems.  Our military...as presently constituted...must be dismantled.  It would go a long way toward dismantling the country...as it now stands.  Praise to The Noticer, praise to Mickey, praise to Mark.  Best, The Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  03/26  at  12:34 AM

  5. My head hurts from trying to figure out if the draft idea is practical or utopian, but I think it fails on both counts.

    Solutions to the problems of this world can only, I believe and would argue, be solved on the international level. While local autonomy should not be lost, I don’t see how China, India, the U.S. or any other country is going to achieve Liberation on its own. So, in that sense, once the World We Want (and I understand that notion is not a given, if only because someone like myself is not sure what that would be) is achieved militaries would outdated.

    On the practical tip, yes a draft might force the issue of U.S. interventionism. That certainly happened during the 1960s and 1970s, even with the draft being as unfair as it was then. And yet that example documents one problem with “a tactical demand for strictly enforced mandatory military service.” Once the draft dynamic begins to shake things up, it will be removed. Assuming we support draft resistance, what are we to say then? People should have the right to refuse to serve in the military but the government should still try to compel them? And what happens if the hawks are advocating a draft? Are we to agree with them? That would be a huge mistake since a lack of humans could hamper their ambitions.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  03/27  at  07:51 AM

  6. We really have to get off of this sinking boat of discussing the pros and cons of the draft.  In a DOLLARS AND SENSE piece in March/April 2003 Bob Feldman addressed our military’s WAR ON EARTH. In September/October 2002, Mann and Milner wrote a relevant piece titled “Disobeying Orders” in the Washington Free Press.  And in WILD MATTERS (Oct. 2002), Joe Passacantando’s “Military Dumping” laid out the bottomline for all of the above:  WE CANNOT TOLERATE THE U.S. MILITARY ANY LONGER AS IT IS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED.  DRAFT OR NO DRAFT...THEY ARE KILLING US.  NO ONE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO ENTER THE MILITARY, AND THE TROOPS SHOULD NO LONGER BE APPLAUDED.  Please, readers, get with the fundamental issues here.  If you cannot respond to the fact that there are 27,000 toxic hot spots on 8,500 military properties...we’re all doomed...along with the various precious species that are endangered already in great part because of the callous way the military acts.  On top of immunity from prosecution for WAR CRIMES, the military wants exemption from anti-pollution laws and related acts.  YOU CAN STOP THIS MACHINE. However, the first step is to acknowledge that we do NOT need The Machine to protect us.  In fact, its very presence increases our insecurity, threatens our survival in a way that “enemies” could not possibly do.  Love, The Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  03/27  at  10:37 AM

  7. This is a little late, but just in case anyone is still checking this thread, I wrote a modest paper entitled: US Militarism, Global Instability and Environmental Destruction, and it is posted at http://www.wisehat.com (scroll down). Basically I just assembled a lot of data from websites that many of us know (Counterpunch etc.), but I was pleased to hear Ox mention how we need to get back to priorities, and how irrelevent most of what we are concerning ourselves with today in the modern world, is. Without a viable environment, we are all dead in the long (if not short run). The radioactivity released from the last four US wars has been estimated to equal 400,000 Nagasaki sized atomic bombs in atomicity. This fact alone is so horrifying it is beyond comment. The radioactivity stays on the planet forever, swirling in the various ecosystems, killing what it can and may. See the interview by Leuren Moret, a geoscientist from UC Berkeley (she was interviewed on a Canadian radio station, no not on NPR! or even Democracy Now! as far as I know!).

    Re; Chomsky, it’s time for the great one to hang up his boots. I love the man and he has been a great teacher, but why isn’t he backing Nader instead of backing who may be an even bigger war machine president than Bush, Kerry? Also, Chomsky often answers the same questions in his lectures, “Noam, is the world getting better or worse?” “Well, the world has drastically improved due to the work of social movements, there is no doubt about this.” Half true, but he leaves out a crucial conditioner, “in some ways” the world has improved. In others, as with DU contaminating the planet, it is immeasurably worse. By ignoring this aspect, the environmental aspect (he does on some occasions talk about the extinction of humanity etc.), Chomsky is endorsing his approach to social change. But one can question whether voting for Kerry is a good strategy for social change! I think not. We need new approaches…

    Thanks, Rhino Rick

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  04/08  at  02:21 AM

  8. I live in a World of Color not black and white. ++++>>

    HR 2206-1979, called for maintaining the volunteer army, but challenging each new generation of voting-age citizens to consider volunteering for active military service, reserve duty, community service, (on hundreds of different social-environmental needs) or just say no thanks.  AmeriCorps is today’s example.  ++++>>

    Registration would start at 17 for both males and females, an indicated decision would occur at 18, such a decision could be differed until 23.  ++++>>

    Only, as is the case now, in the event of a national emergency (whatever that means) would the draft be returned, or sever personnel shortage in the army; but this would take another act of Congress to restart.  ++++>>

    I worked h rd at getting political support from liberals and conservatives, from the Carter White House staff and the Reagan White House staff, from the House and Senate, towards a national debate on the merits of such a program, and the establishment of an Energy Conservation Corps, as a national imperative, in order to prevent a future U.S. war in the Persian Gulf.  ++++>>

    All said thank you, keep up the good work, go away, or wrong, wrong, wrong, but nobody wanted to add fuel (money-publc comments) to my comments or efforts. ++++>>

    HR 2206-1979 would have replaced the Selective Service System with a National Service System, which I have for the last 2 years called a Participatory Citizenship System.  ++++>>

    Over the last two years I have gotten written letters of reply from the Bush Administration, saying thank you we will think about it, to hell no go away.  ++++>>

    The common but contradictory reply is that mandatory registration at 17, challenging the next generation of voting-age citizens, to think about, reflect on, debate, seek counsel, explore their future roles as citizens, and at 18 indicate any desire to participate, to volunteer for service to their community, the needs of the nation, is wrong, but male only postcard registration the current law is okay.  ++++>>

    Over the last six months I have shared this with Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards, Gov. Dean, retired General Wesley Clark, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Elizabeth Edwards by placing it in their hands, and to Senator Lieberman staff as he stood a few feet away.  ++++>>

    I have also spoken to General Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, and gave detailed material on my struggles in political debate to his staff.  So far I have gotten no replies from the above officials other a follow up reply from Elizabeth Edwards to my further e-mail communication.  ++++>>
    My motto is “Life is strange, but people are stranger”, and those in power be it politicians, academics, or representatives of the media, it seems would prefer that I stop pestering them with my concerns.  ++++>>
    I hope you the reader can see some value in this debate, of what is participatory citizenship in a positive constructive manor, rather than just complaining about how wrong things are,…

    Posted by Peter Jesella from  on  04/11  at  02:44 PM

    9. Next entry: Scary, Scary John Kerry

    Previous entry: Crunch Time for Bush and Opportunity for Kerry

    [ads]

    Support Press Action