Noam Chomsky: America hates its poor
Linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky on our country's brutal class war -- and why it's ultimately so one-sided
CHRIS STEELE, ZUCCOTTI PARK PRESS
This is an excerpt from the just released second edition of Noam ChomskyÂs ÂOccupy: Class War, Rebellion and Solidarity, edited by Greg Ruggiero and published by Zuccotti Park Press.
An article that recently came out in Rolling Stone, titled ÂGangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail, by Matt Taibbi, asserts that the government is afraid to prosecute powerful bankers, such as those running HSBC. Taibbi says that thereÂs Âan arrestable class and an unarrestable class. What is your view on the current state of class war in the U.S.?
Well, thereÂs always a class war going on. The United States, to an unusual extent, is a business-run society, more so than others. The business classes are very class-consciousÂtheyÂre constantly fighting a bitter class war to improve their power and diminish opposition. Occasionally this is recognized.
We donÂt use the term Âworking class here because itÂs a taboo term. YouÂre supposed to say Âmiddle class, because it helps diminish the understanding that thereÂs a class war going on.
ItÂs true that there was a one-sided class war, and thatÂs because the other side hadnÂt chosen to participate, so the union leadership had for years pursued a policy of making a compact with the corporations, in which their workers, say the autoworkersÂwould get certain benefits like fairly decent wages, health benefits and so on. But it wouldnÂt engage the general class structure. In fact, thatÂs one of the reasons why Canada has a national health program and the United States doesnÂt. The same unions on the other side of the border were calling for health care for everybody. Here they were calling for health care for themselves and they got it. Of course, itÂs a compact with corporations that the corporations can break anytime they want, and by the 1970s they were planning to break it and weÂve seen what has happened since.
This is just one part of a long and continuing class war against working people and the poor. ItÂs a war that is conducted by a highly class-conscious business leadership, and itÂs one of the reasons for the unusual history of the U.S. labor movement. In the U.S., organized labor has been repeatedly and extensively crushed, and has endured a very violent history as compared with other countries.
[. . .]
He goes on to expand "the tragedy of the commons", in perspective..
This is his 2nd Edition of Occupy: Class War, Rebellion and Solidarity. His views of the probability of Muricans acting on (material such as he presents) is hardly sanguine) [h.t.f. Could it be?]
But he is consistent in searching for the historical roots of most of our current national Insanities:
Now, how does that relate to the environmental problem? Very significantly: the commons are the environment. When theyÂre a common possessionÂnot owned, but everybody holds them together in a communityÂtheyÂre preserved, sustained and cultivated for the next generation. If theyÂre privately owned, theyÂre going to be destroyed for profit; thatÂs what private owner- ship is, and thatÂs exactly whatÂs happening today.
What you say about the indigenous population is very striking. ThereÂs a major problem that the whole species is facing. A likelihood of serious disaster may be not far off. We are approaching a kind of tipping point, where climate change becomes irreversible. It could be a couple of decades, maybe less, but the predictions are constantly being shown to be too conservative. It is a very serious danger; no sane person can doubt it. The whole species is facing a real threat for the first time in its history of serious disaster, and there are some people trying to do some- thing about it and there are others trying to make it worse. Who are they? Well, the ones who are trying to make it better are the pre-industrial societies, the pre-technological societies, the indigenous societies, the First Nations. All around the world, these are the communities that are trying to preserve the rights of nature.
The rich societies, like the United States and Canada, are acting in ways to bring about disaster as quickly as possible. ThatÂs what it means, for example, when both political parties and the press talk enthusiastically about Âa century of energy independence. ÂEnergy independence doesnÂt mean a damn thing, but put that aside. A century of Âenergy independence means that we make sure that every bit of EarthÂs fossil fuels comes out of the ground and we burn it. In societies that have large indigenous populations, like, for example, Ecuador, an oil producer, people are trying to get support for keeping the oil in the ground. They want funding so as to keep the oil where it ought to be. We, however, have to get everything out of the ground, including tar sands, then burn it, which makes things as bad as possible as quickly as possible. So you have this odd situation where the educated, Âadvanced civilized people are trying to cut everyoneÂs throats as quickly as possible and the indigenous, less educated, poorer populations are trying to prevent the disaster. If somebody was watching this from Mars, theyÂd think this species was insane.
[. . .]
(Added bold--last sentence.)
I'll second that summary. Credentialed-shrinks rarely come very close to fixing the looniest--even in studied, individual cases; 'fix' Millions?
(Perhaps we should not even talk about matters which only a handful have the slightest interest in actively repairing.) Ruins all the fun-distractions as we wait for the-other-shoe-to-drop.