Noam On Cue

A few posts below I stated how long-favored "leftists" and "former high-level exspurts" are merely on stage to give the appeance of "dissent" and/or a "voice" to the left. This morning I see Noam Chomsky is on cue in this "interview" at Counterpunch. Or "Noam Chomsky on the Hopeful Signs Across Latin America."

To clarify Chomsky's position on other issues important to the left: He does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, nor that the government had prior knowledge. He states such groups as the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations are "nothing organizations." (Meaning harmless.) Chomsky is too erudite (to sniff the air) for conspiracy theories. Regarding the JFK assassination " … the claim that it was a high-level conspiracy with policy significance is implausible to a quite extraordinary degree."

Chomsky is an adherent of Adam Smith's "free market" economy. He is described as "taking the long view." Long view, according to definition, is planning prudently for the future; large goals that required farsighted policies. Smith's theory briefly, is that the consumers would decide and no government intervention in the economy is needed. Smith saw man's innate selfishness to promote his own security as beneficial to society; unbridled selfishness is good for us all in the long run. Just ask Grandma Millie how the "free market" and unbridled works in the long run. Smith wrote the best known and most followed rationales for capitalism. Personally, I think all the experts and economists from the 1700s (as Smith), and today's, are full of shit. However, a linguistic expert such as Chomsky would never use the word "shit" while advocating modern free-market capitalism.

But back to Chomsky's "hopeful signs" across Latin America. Chomsky states: " What's happening is something completely new in the history of the hemisphere." No it's not Noam. He says "they are beginning to integrate." He then names Cuba and Venezuela as an example. This is not new – Fidel's Cuba consistently has come to the aid of all Latin leftists. Cubans were crawling all over Nicaragua 25 years ago when the leftists threw out the US dictator Somoza. (I'm certain as I was arrested by Sandinistas and questioned by Cubans in Esteli on suspicion of being CIA.) Russia too, via Cuba, always stood by to help "integrate" Latin American nations turning left.

Chomsky then cites "MERCOSUR, [the trading association now including many Latin American countries] which is still not functioning very much …" Not functioning very much – but it means something important. He says for the first time the "Indian population is becoming quite active." I guess all the indigenous over the last 500 years who fought against Anglo imperialism and/or colonialism were inactive? He discounts all the Indian members of FARC, Sendero Luminoso, the Indian political heads of thousands of villages, the occasional revolt of Peru's Tupac Amaru Indians, etc.

The US labeled such groups terrorists, leftwing rebels controlled by communists, pawns of evil-doers. Only when their revolts are successful, as with the Sandinistas, do high level American leftists call them "rebel activists" and praise their advent to office. This may be what Noam points to; the Indians are participating actively in politics. Still not new. What is new is the Latin ruling elites failed to prevent Chavez and Morales, from holding office, but the elite fat lady hasn't finished singing either. Besides, one Amerindian, African, and Spanish mixed Chavez calling for Latin America integration and one Morales Indian president does not make a hemisphere. It's been tried before, Bolivar, Sandino, Jacobo Arbenz, Guevara, Ortega, hundreds of others.

Chomsky claims "… they are beginning to throw out the International Monetary Fund (IMF). No, most South American countries have renegotiated and made new payment arrangements with the IMF. The World Bank and IMF will simply morph or regroup if need be, or as currently for some countries they adjust sovereign debt as necessitated by national policies - but don't believe for a moment these monetary branches of the global elite are going out of business in Latin America or anywhere else. Only Argentine is "ridding itself of" the IMF (by simply paying off their loan). And who knows whether the country will borrow again or not – my bet is they will. Likely only one election away from the next loan cycle. Like credit card debtors – they'll feel they can handle it better next time, next president, after this card is paid off. As for Central Latin America - and Mexico - the US has them by their AFTAs.

He cites such things as "popular movements … international popular organizations … powerful mass movements …" He tells us "China's interactions with Latin America are frightening the United States" (economics, but remember who owns controlling interests in corporations setting up businesses in China and controlling companies in SA who China does business with).

Chomsky gives, particularly the American left, the idea that hope abounds, the march of the little people has begun, huge and global, and the US is frightened of all these worldwide changes. I do wish Noam had expounded on these powerful mass international popular organizations and movements. Sounds as if we could awake tomorrow in utopia with all this moving and organ-ing.

The interview ends with Chomsky stating "That accounts for the vibrancy and vitality of democracy in much of Latin America today -- denounced in the West as "populism," a term that translates as "threat to elite rule …." Populism - populist is "one who is perceived to craft their rhetoric as appeals to the economic, social, and common sense concerns of average people," which is what Chomsky does, therefore a "populist." However, his 4 decades of rhetoric have never been a threat to elite rule.

But Noam isn't really speaking to the "common sense concerns of average people." He's further up the food chain since average folks don't attend MIT or his lectures. Guys like Morales and Chavez speak to the "average people" (or in elitespeak - useless feeders). But Noamites feel above average, and he does say plenty for the left to agree with; and then there's the intellectual snob appeal to quoting and communing on the same level as a famous egghead.

What's happening in Latin America is denounced as "socialism" by rightwingers. And there is not as much "vibrancy and vitality" as Chomsky indicates in Latin America today. The majority of movements there, at the moment, are tenuous with very little "average people" power. But Chomsky assures us a leftist vision (just like the 60's, '70s, and '80s) is taking hold in Latin America – can the US "left" be far behind?

And what or who exactly represents the American "left?" Chomsky, liberal think tanks funded by the elite? The democrats? Greens? The lonely voice of Dennis Kucinich crying in the wilderness of congress? The American ruling elite give us "leftist" voices (such as Noam) and there's not even a valid left. In lighter moments I find that quite funny.

Most of Latin America offers a dozen or more political parties to choose from – that's mainly how Chavez and Morales came to power. The US has how many parties per presidential election? One?

America's "left" will thrill at Chomsky's words of hope and expectations of change, find encouragement and validation for their thinking … and sit back on their haunches waiting for the revolution – to be accomplished by those chomsky-esque powerful popular mass movements, locally and worldwide, which they will join as soon as they finish all the chores on their to-do list, or if they can - a donation for the .org membership and newsletter - so's they know when that revolution be coming their way.