Noam Chomsky and Rich People’s Leftism

One of the themes of this blog is that most of leftism is really leftism by and primarily for rich people. This can be seen in a column in the Guardian by Noam Chomsky (here). Chomsky believes he has discovered a pattern in American foreign policy which is that “democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless properly tamed.” Though he doesn’t say so in this column, we know what he means when he talks about economic objectives; he means that it must support American corporations, that American corporations are more important than democracy in foreign countries. What this boils down to as far as the Middle East is concerned is that it’s all about oil.

Leftists are always whining about how this policy or that war is all about oil. But they say it like it’s a bad thing. What’s wrong with fighting a war for oil? Sure, this would help Corporate America, but it would also help poor people here in America. Look at it this way. Our economy went into a tailspin back in the late summer of 2008 when the price of gas went over four dollars per gallon. Lots of people living on the edge simply couldn’t manage, and since many of them had been allowed to buy homes as a result of a push by liberals and leftists, they couldn’t handle the mortgages, and even the banks are now overwhelmed dealing with the number of foreclosures. We still haven’t really recovered from this, so why is fighting a war for oil a bad thing? We are doing it for the poor people here in America, and if we don’t invade Libya, say, then we are going to have to be much more aggressive about getting our own oil or else tolerating extreme levels of unemployment.

In other words: refusing to support vicious regimes in any way and never having a war for the sake of oil; keeping our environmental regulations; or helping poor people in America. Pick any two.

Meanwhile, Chomsky observes that pundits who claim to be worried about the rise of Islamism are really worried about independence. But once again this gets back to oil and to the plight of poor people here in the U.S. Any “independent” Egyptian regime that would delight Chomsky would really be an anti-American one hellbent on trying to restrict the amount of oil we get. He's rich and he doesn't have to worry, but that doesn't mean that poorer people won't be affected.

Finally, Chomsky claims that we supported Ceausescu in Romania, though the support was surely mild. (Interestingly, in other places on the Internet, he writes that we “strongly” supported him.) And it is only to be assumed that he will say that we have supported Gadhafi. But the real support comes from leftists like Hugo Chavez, a subject I will take up in my next post.

Comments

[Xtab]

It's an interesting thought experiment. Well, I think the left is basically wrong when they say that the U.S. goes to war to support its economic interests. Countries typically put a lot more costs into going to war than what they get out of it, and economic interests are rarely calculated in comparison to moral interests: matters of prestige, honor, unity, etc. War is expensive!

A good example are those conservatives who want to gear up for a future confrontation with China. Any actual war with the PRC would be disastrous, both in human lives and in the economic costs; it'd wreck the global economy. From a cost-benefit point-of-view, we'd have more to gain from working with the Chinese and cooperating with them. It's non-zero sum. But we feel that it's zero sum, and that we must build up our armed forces because our position as the sole superpower is threatened, that China's gain is necessarily our loss.

[Coach Factory Outlet]

We can believe we are being self-reliant and independent, and yet there is still clearly an overarching destiny, a Great Maker.

[TGGP]

You should check out Michael Neumann's "Victory and Recruitment", which has perhaps the most sensible take on the causes of the Iraq war I've heard:
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann06242005.html

[John Pepple]

TGGP: Neumann agrees with me that a war for oil can be seen as something good, so naturally I’m disposed to think highly of him. Plus, he usefully attacks a lot of shallow thinking on the left, such as the insistence that oil companies wanted the war, and I’m all for that.

On the other hand, I don’t think there was a single reason for going into Iraq. He is probably right about the reason he gives, or if he’s wrong it was good strategy anyway. Osama bin Laden knows the area better than any of us, and his talk of the strong horse showed us what we needed to do, which was to show that part of the world that we and not him are the strong horse.

However, there were probably other reasons, which I’m not going to bother going into at this point.

The real point that stuck in my craw was his insistence on reducing American military strength, and in this he is just as shallow as the other leftists. If we reduce American military strength, who will rush in to fill that vacuum? Not the EU, because they don’t like the idea of using military force. And not Canada or New Zealand, for the same reason. Plus, only in an ideal world will it remain unfilled. So, we are left with Iran or China or Russia or someone else equally horrible. I don’t think people like Neumann have really thought about any of this. They just talk as though once we reduce American power, the world will be wonderful, but we don’t know that. It very likely will be much worse.

[R.]

That's clearly not the choice, I don't understand why someone of your obvious caliber (you certainly seem far more intelligent than I) would assert such a statement.

Worse case scenario: America has to pay a fairer price for oil, or a premium due to their policies.

That's it. I mean, Europe already pays a (sometimes much) higher price for gasoline, etc, etc. and it hasn't crucified them, at-least not to the extent you seem to be implying.

Seriously, America is the current superpower, aside from being a natural market for said oil, it can also exert incredible pressure on nations which sell it. Plus, if oil prices went up then America would probably invest in alternative energy sources.

Seriously. It's not a choice between aiding the poor OR a just foreign policy. The only genuine problem I see is that if America curtails it's imperialism, and other countries continue/increase theirs, then it puts the USA at a comparative disadvantage. But then, maybe the US could become more interested in protecting national sovereignty for everybody (perhaps in return for diminished oil prices ;P).

[John Pepple]

I’ve been traveling and have only just gotten around to dealing with your post.

1. If the price of gas goes up, the poor will be hurt. You never really deal with this problem. Also, you misrepresent what I said. I didn’t present a dilemma, but a trilemma.

2. Maybe in the circles you run in, talk of a “fairer” price for oil means something. But for most people a price is fair if neither side used force against the other, and so the price we pay for oil is fair. Maybe it wasn’t fair before the 1970s, but that was quite a while ago. As for your claim that we can use “incredible” pressure on oil-producing countries, be specific. Are you talking about military threats? If not, then the pressure is the pressure of any large entity. The New York Times exerts incredible pressure on the rest of the nation’s media. Harvard and other elite schools exert incredible pressure on my alma mater (the University of Minnesota) and other similar institutions. So what?

Anyway, what pressure do we use on Iran?

3. If the price of oil goes up, then investing in alternative energy sources won’t happen quickly enough to help the poor.

4. As for America’s “imperialism,” please explain what you mean by this. Again, in the circles you run in, maybe it’s acceptable to throw around this idea without any proof, but not here. Do we exact tribute from the nations we have invaded? Do we rule them? In Iraq, we gave them elections. Is that really the action of an imperialist? If so, then name the other imperialists in history that have done this.

What you need to do is to specify degrees of imperialism, just as there are degrees of murder. Is America an imperialist of the first degree? Obviously not. We aren’t like those imperialists that exact tribute or that kill the men and enslave the women. We aren’t like imperialists that rule on our own, or if we do, we turn things over to the native population as soon as seems feasible. As I said, in Iraq we didn’t even pick out one of their own to be a ruler, but gave them elections so they could elect their own ruler. If that’s imperialism, it’s imperialism of the third degree.

You’re using the fallacy of equivocation here. For example, there’s a big difference between homicide by neglect and first-degree murder. To say that someone who committed homicide by neglect is a murderer conjures up images of someone who planned and deliberately took actions to kill someone, but that isn’t the case with someone who committed homicide by neglect. Likewise, calling America an imperialist nation conjures up images of us exacting tribute or maybe enslaving the population, which isn’t at all true.

So start speaking accurately. Accuse us of third-degree imperialism if you like, but accusing us of plain imperialism is just wrong.

5. As for violating another nation’s sovereignty, what do you say about our current actions against Libya?

Rwanda showed the limitations of your type of thinking. Sure, we can respect everyone else’s sovereignty, but only at the price of watching other people butcher each other. Is that what you want? It’s the same with Libya. Whether it’s right or wrong to do what we are now doing, it was done because we couldn’t just stand by and watch as Gadhafi butchers his own people.

[R.]

No worries. I hope your trip went well, how was it?

"1. If the price of gas goes up, the poor will be hurt. You never really deal with this problem. Also, you misrepresent what I said. I didn’t present a dilemma, but a trilemma."

1. Sorry, I think we may be working at cross purposes: I agreed with you. I just thought that the effect was inflated. I mean, introducing a 0.00000001% rise in State-wide VAT would, by it's very nature, result in a situation where "the poor will be hurt.", and hurt to a comparatively more impacting extent than the wealthy.

It was a claim to which I attributed little meaning. Because,

A) As I pointed out, Europe pays (sometimes much higher) prices for gasoline. Europe also has the poor, or the impoverished (working classes - whatever you wish to designate them) and they are not crucified as a result. It's spurious to claim that this measure will result in any really substantial living adjustment. I mean, when placed in the context of, say, the Bush-era tax cut extension, etc.

B) I'm not against the government mitigating this, or some other agency. IMHO keeping the prices of food low, etc., is more important to the poor's well-being. And every $ devoted to keeping oil stable is a dollar that could be spent on aiding the poor with keeping their families fed. Etc.

C) It just takes account of the American poor. I mean, we back Saudi Arabia, an oppressive regime, for a number of reasons. Predominantly, in my view, because of the stability it brings and the flow of oil. In Saudi Arabia, there is great inequality between the rich "oil princes" and the common man. However, to keep oil stable we deprive these poor people of the potential harvest (in the forms of social programs, etc.) that having authority over their lucrative oil would bring and centralize it with the few ultra-wealthy.

Also, I apologize and correct myself. "Trilemma", awesome. 'Kinda like a Triforce conundrum.

"2. Maybe in the circles you run in, talk of a “fairer” price for oil means something. But for most people a price is fair if neither side used force against the other, and so the price we pay for oil is fair. Maybe it wasn’t fair before the 1970s, but that was quite a while ago. As for your claim that we can use “incredible” pressure on oil-producing countries, be specific. Are you talking about military threats? If not, then the pressure is the pressure of any large entity. The New York Times exerts incredible pressure on the rest of the nation’s media. Harvard and other elite schools exert incredible pressure on my alma mater (the University of Minnesota) and other similar institutions. So what?"

OK, there are two parts here I take issue with.

A) Accepting your definition, we clearly do use force. We support regimes, eg: Saudi Arabia, and we invade countries, eg: Iraq, which are oil-rich. Even if you don't believe in that motive, or somesuch, still, cheap(er) oil is the result, and it was still maintained by coercion, sometimes of a very extreme type. So, the oil we get is, by your own criteria, "unfair" and (presumably) therefore illegitimate.

B) Onto the point about exerting pressure. Well, you've just listed a bunch of ways in which more powerful institutions effect less potent ones. You've kind of proved my point for me that the United States, as a more powerful entity, can influence weaker ones.

The US has damaged Cuba seriously without resorting (recently) to wholesale military interventionism. I mean, unless your argument is, "the only way to influence anything is with the military," and the natural corollary "and with physical force or threats thereof" then I don't understand your protestation, I guess.

I mean, is violence the only way to get anything done, ever?

"3. If the price of oil goes up, then investing in alternative energy sources won’t happen quickly enough to help the poor."

Sure it will. Say America pays Europe-level prices for oil, it'll be fine. I mean, unless you think that the EU's economy has collapsed or something? Or that their poor are starving (specifically for reasons pertaining to oil)?

"As for America’s “imperialism,” please explain what you mean by this. Again, in the circles you run in, maybe it’s acceptable to throw around this idea without any proof, but not here. Do we exact tribute from the nations we have invaded? Do we rule them? In Iraq, we gave them elections. Is that really the action of an imperialist? If so, then name the other imperialists in history that have done this."

No, we just got really sweet deals vis-a-vis their oil reserves. "Imperialism" isn't this really extreme, crooked thing. I mean, IMO it's unjust, but imperialism doesn't necessarily = Soviet-style rule.

We have a-lot of control over strategic areas in the Middle-East, that we gained by force. We have access to precious resources in that region, which we gained by force (or the threat thereof). We control the structure of the governments which constitute these nations, both the form (ie: democracy, in other countries we support monarchy or dictatorship) and sometimes the contents.

I never claimed the USA was some pseudo-fascist totalitarian regime, I suggested that America has imperialist foreign policy, which being the main power, it largely does.

"What you need to do is to specify degrees of imperialism, just as there are degrees of murder. Is America an imperialist of the first degree? Obviously not. We aren’t like those imperialists that exact tribute or that kill the men and enslave the women. We aren’t like imperialists that rule on our own, or if we do, we turn things over to the native population as soon as seems feasible. As I said, in Iraq we didn’t even pick out one of their own to be a ruler, but gave them elections so they could elect their own ruler. If that’s imperialism, it’s imperialism of the third degree."

I'm going to refuse those definitions, but not out of pettiness, but instead due to ill-ease and ignorance of their full connotations. I'll concede to you the point, which I think you may be making, that some forms of imperialism are worse than others.

Your argument seems to be, "but at-least we don't rape and pillage", which is a non-argument. I can't murder someone and then opine, "but I'm no genocidal maniac". If something's immoral, it's immoral. It would be an extreme context that made it the most ethical choice of action.

"You’re using the fallacy of equivocation here. For example, there’s a big difference between homicide by neglect and first-degree murder. To say that someone who committed homicide by neglect is a murderer conjures up images of someone who planned and deliberately took actions to kill someone, but that isn’t the case with someone who committed homicide by neglect. Likewise, calling America an imperialist nation conjures up images of us exacting tribute or maybe enslaving the population, which isn’t at all true."

America has imperialist foreign policy. You're right, it's not the worst "Empire/hegemony" (whatever) to have existed, and it's a lot less brutal than it could be. That doesn't change the definition of "imperialist" or that which qualifies.

I mean, can you point to anything in my original post that asserted that America was even close to what you're presenting my view as being?

"So start speaking accurately. Accuse us of third-degree imperialism if you like, but accusing us of plain imperialism is just wrong."

You're accusing me of something of which I am not guilty: misrepresenting America in my original post. I'm using the word "imperialism" in a non-controversial manner.

"5. As for violating another nation’s sovereignty, what do you say about our current actions against Libya?

Rwanda showed the limitations of your type of thinking. Sure, we can respect everyone else’s sovereignty, but only at the price of watching other people butcher each other. Is that what you want? It’s the same with Libya. Whether it’s right or wrong to do what we are now doing, it was done because we couldn’t just stand by and watch as Gadhafi butchers his own people."

Rwanda. Classic example of colonialism and the law of unintended consequences. It was the elevation of the "purer" (ie: whiter) people by colonists that sowed the seeds of their terrible crisis.

However, the situation is radically different from Libya. Rwanda was a genocide, and countries are duty-bound (and by international law too, I think) to act when that occurs.

Plus, Rwanda actually WOULD have had an intervention if we followed an ethical foreign policy (as opposed to the one we adhere to now). If we had a foreign policy that cared about moral outcomes, it's impossible to imagine that we wouldn't have intervened, given the situation. It's concern with the realpolitik, it's the "success" of imperialist doctrine, and the rejection of genuine ethics in foreign policy, that allows things like Rwanda to occur, because people are so busy caring about oil, and it's stability, that they don't give a damn about genocide, or the things that actually matter.

Turning to Libya. Libya has happened for many reasons. Partly because, I think, the French and British governments are going through an unpopular period (you'll notice they're heavily involved in this) and wanted the bounce in approval this might bring.

Additionally, Libya has oil (natural gas too?) which is threatened by turmoil (notice how we're not so forthcoming with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia with regard to revolution?).

This was not about being unable to watch people butchering each other. I forget, but didn't we support Gadaffi previously?

He's becoming reasonably untenable, so we're getting involved.

If I may say so, you're equivocating the sympathies of common Western people who are seeing the events unfold and that of the elite whose concern is power and approval.

[John Pepple]

Our trip didn't start so well since it snowed the first three days.

I'm not going to be able to respond to this right away because I'm working on the Arabic classes I'm subbing in. It'll be at least two weeks. Sorry.

[R.]

No worries: take your time.

I'm guessing it wasn't the, "Oh look how magical everything looks" 'kinda snow? More Stalingrad, less Disney?

I noticed in your "About Me" section that you study Arabic - I'm very impressed, unfortunately I can never get the hang of languages, but my multi-lingual friends assure me that it's amongst the harder tongues.

Anyway, I hope the class goes well. Talk later.

[John Pepple]

I’m finally able, after my stint teaching Arabic and then dealing with the death of a friend, to respond to your post.

First, it’s no good comparing the poor in Europe to the poor in America. Europe has great mass transit that the poor can use, while we have mass transit only in our cities. Let me compare Ely, England, with the town I live in. They are about the same size, but Ely is connected by rail to the rest of the country, whereas my town isn’t connected to anything either by rail or by bus. Ely has several bus routes, while my town has no buses at all. Moreover, I’m guessing that Ely is a more compact town than my town is, so that it would be easier to walk to places than it is here in my town.

The result is that the poor in Europe can live with higher gas prices than the poor here in America. They are less likely to need a car than poor people here are. In my town, poor people need to have cars to be able to do anything. The people next door to us are poor, and they have three cars, one for each driver. They are old cars, but they are cars nevertheless. And this is why our economy went into a tailspin when gas went up above $4/gallon back in 2008.

Obviously, we made a mistake in eliminating mass transit from our infrastructure, but that can’t be changed overnight. The poor will suffer if the price of gas goes up. By the way, I don’t understand your comment at all about “a 0.00000001% rise in State-wide VAT.”

Now as for a fair price for oil, you say we support Saudi Arabia, though I don’t see how that means we are using force or some illegitimate means to push down the price of oil. Sure, you could make a case for our use of force in Iraq being about oil, though I can’t help but notice that most of the people saying this also had no problems with Saddam Hussein’s attempt at imperialism over Kuwait, even though his stated purpose was to get at their oil. That was definitely a war for oil, but no one who criticizes us for waging wars for oil bothers to criticize that war for oil.

Plus, the fact that cheaper oil is a result of our war in Iraq doesn’t mean much to me, since we could make oil cheaper for ourselves simply by doing a lot more drilling for our own oil, if only the environmentalists would let us. Then we wouldn’t need to bother with wars in the Middle East.

As for the examples I brought up of large entities exerting pressure, I’m glad you agree with me that the ones I mentioned do exert pressure, because lots of people with your views never want to acknowledge those examples or if they do acknowledge them, they think that it’s benign pressure. And that’s the way most of us think of America’s pressure: it’s benign.

Still, even assuming it’s not benign and is unfair, keep in mind that America itself had to deal with the same unfair situation two hundred years ago when Britain was the dominant power. Even a century ago, we were still dominated by them. There was a lot of resentment against the British (which, as I noted in my book about soccer, led us to go our own way in sports and to ignore soccer). But even so, I would much rather we simply drilled for our own oil rather than go over to the Middle East, but the environmentalists won’t let us. For that matter, we could have had a lot more nuclear power by now, if the environmentalists hadn’t stopped us, and then we’d have much cheaper electricity, which could be used for electric cars. Instead, we have to rely on the oil-producing countries for help with our energy needs.

As for you claim that we have damaged Cuba, the fact is that Cuba has damaged itself. There’s really not much we can do to hurt them. In Israel I saw an entire store devoted to Cuban cigars, and if Israel, one of our best allies, can trade with Cuba, then everyone else can, too.

You say that “We have access to precious resources in that region, which we gained by force (or the threat thereof).” Aside from the questionable example of Iraq, which countries are you thinking of? The Wikipedia article on Saudi Arabia, for example, says that oil was discovered there in 1938. It says nothing about any outsiders using force to get it. Give some specific examples.

“We control the structure of the governments which constitute these nations, both the form (ie: democracy, in other countries we support monarchy or dictatorship) and sometimes the contents.” Again, which countries are you thinking of? We supported some of the governments in the region, but not others. The country where we interfered the most, Iran, is now under the control of a hostile government. It’s true that we could have put more pressure on the rulers of that region to have more democracy, but people like Mubarak would always respond by saying that if they were to do that, the country would end up in a mess with horrible radicals taking over like they did in Iran. It may still happen.

You write, “America has imperialist foreign policy. You're right, it's not the worst ‘Empire/hegemony’ (whatever) to have existed, and it's a lot less brutal than it could be. That doesn't change the definition of ‘imperialist’ or that which qualifies. I mean, can you point to anything in my original post that asserted that America was even close to what you're presenting my view as being?” You say that doesn’t change the definition of “imperialism.” How about defining it, then. People today who use the word imperialism allow it to stand for all sorts of relationships that people like me reject. The British ruled India, but not Brazil. Nevertheless, for those who complain about imperialism, the British were imperialists over Brazil. Sure, they dominated Brazil, but they didn’t rule it. And let me point out that when Brazil was founded, the Spanish and Portuguese had more power than the British.

“I'm using the word "imperialism" in a non-controversial manner.” Maybe in the circles you run in, you are using it in a non-controversial manner, but to me it’s just a lot of equivocation, or else is based on facts that don’t exist.

“It was the elevation [in Rwanda] of the ‘purer’ (ie: whiter) people by colonists that sowed the seeds of their terrible crisis.” It was the immoral behavior of one group over the other that sowed the seeds. People are responsible for their own actions, and it is useless to blame the colonialists, who had left thirty years earlier. Do you blame the Peloponnesian War on the would-be imperialism of the Persians?

“Rwanda was a genocide, and countries are duty-bound (and by international law too, I think) to act when that occurs.” So, it’s ok then to violate another country’s sovereignty under some circumstances. And if we are duty-bound to act when it occurs, what about before it occurs? Isn’t that just what we are doing in Libya?

“Plus, Rwanda actually WOULD have had an intervention if we followed an ethical foreign policy (as opposed to the one we adhere to now). If we had a foreign policy that cared about moral outcomes, it's impossible to imagine that we wouldn't have intervened, given the situation.” It’s easy enough to imagine that even with an ethical foreign policy, we wouldn’t have intervened. There was no pressure to intervene in Darfur from those who want an ethical foreign policy.

“Notice how we're not so forthcoming with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia with regard to revolution?” Nor are those who hate America’s imperialism very forthcoming with Iran and Syria with regard to their revolutions.

“This [the intervention in Libya] was not about being unable to watch people butchering each other. I forget, but didn't we support Gadaffi previously?” We barely supported Gadhafi. The people who strongly supported him are on the left, such as Castro, Chavez, Louis Farrakhan, the London School of Economics, and so on.

“If I may say so, you're equivocating the sympathies of common Western people who are seeing the events unfold and that of the elite whose concern is power and approval.” I think you mean “confusing” rather than “equivocating,” but in any case, which elites are you talking about? Ignore France and Britain for the moment. We ourselves are involved, so which elites got us in there? Well, Obama is president, so he must be whom you’re talking about, unless you think he’s a sort of puppet for the real power, which is hidden.