Chomsky on the media & the difference between the parties (1989)

From the book "Neccesary Illusions."

============================

"...The model of media as corporate oligopoly is the natural system for capitalist democracy. It has, accordingly, reached its highest form in the most advanced of these societies, particularly the United States, where media concentration is high, public radio and television are limited in scope, and elements of the radical democratic model exist only at the margins, in such phenomena as listener-supported community radio and the alternative or local press, often with a noteworthy effect on the social and political culture and the sense of empowerment in the communities that benefit from these options. In this respect, the United States represents the form towards which capitalist democracy is tending; related tendencies include the progressive elimination of unions and other popular organizations that interfere with private power, an electoral system that is increasingly stage-managed as a public relations exercise, avoidance of welfare measures such as national health insurance that also impinge on the prerogatives of the privileged, and so on. From this perspective, it is reasonable for Cyrus Vance and Henry Kissinger to describe the United States as "a model democracy," democracy being understood as a system of business control of political as well as other major institutions.

Other Western democracies are generally a few steps behind in these respects. Most have not yet achieved the U.S. system of one political party, with two factions controlled by shifting segments of the business community. They still retain parties based on working people and the poor which to some extent represent their interests. But these are declining, along with cultural institutions that sustain different values and concerns, and organizational forms that provide isolated individuals with the means to think and to act outside the framework imposed by private power..."

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c02-s01.html

=======================================
DU is constantly saturated with huffy indignation about the supposed big difference between the parties. This "big difference" amounts to what Chomsky dispenses with here in one sentence - and this was in 1989, when the problem was not nearly as bad as it is now.

http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040223Solomon.shtml

In a recent interview, referring to this year's presidential race, Noam Chomsky pointed out:

The current incumbents may do severe, perhaps irreparable, damage if given another hold on power—a very slim hold, but one they will use to achieve very ugly and dangerous ends. In a very powerful state, small differences may translate into very substantial effects on the victims, at home and abroad. It is no favor to those who are suffering, and may face much worse ahead, to overlook these facts. Keeping the Bush circle out means holding one's nose and voting for some Democrat, but that's not the end of the story. The basic culture and institutions of a democratic society have to be constructed, in part reconstructed, and defeat of an extremely dangerous clique in the presidential race is only one very small component of that.

Excerpting from the passage you provided above:

Keeping the Bush circle out means holding one's nose and voting for some Democrat, but that's not the end of the story. The basic culture and institutions of a democratic society have to be constructed, in part reconstructed, and defeat of an extremely dangerous clique in the presidential race is only one very small component of that.

And to be quite honest, I would agree wholeheartedly with his assessment. Ousting Bush in the short term, fighting like hell (against elected Dems, if necessary) for progressive change and institution of REAL democracy and political freedom in the long-term.

& realize that it's not remotely the end of the story.

This contrasts markedly with the general hysteria on DU, where most imagine that Democrats are real opponents of Republicans, when they're more correctly understood as accomplices.

Chomsky has also made clear his opinion that Dennis Kucinich was by far the Democrat with the most genuinely progressive program. To vote for a two-faced mediocrity like Kerry will require some industrial-strength nose holding; while voting for Kucinich would have been an honor.

While he's not entirely supportive of the Democratic Party as a whole, he has said that Bush is so bad that he needs to be ousted, just for hopes of mere sanity.

Marxist political scientist Michael Parenti has said the same thing.

When you have people like Chomsky and Parenti talking of the need to focus on ousting Bush in the immediate term (and then resume the standard criticisms of the sorry state of American politics), it should provide a window into how bad things truly are.

What's important is for "progressives" to obsess over what Chomsky said 14 years ago, and ignore what he said recently.

Parenti lives a few blocks away from me. He was active in the Kucinich campaign in the East Bay & SF, volunteering as a speaker at several fundraising events (once with Dennis himself). Once or twice he even came in to Kucinich headquarters to help with office work, like addressing envelopes to Iowa, etc!

Thanks for clearing that up

Which I don't.

I've said this before, but if you were a Freeper, this would be a good tactic. Get's us all demoralized and confused about the differences between the parties, so that your boy George W. Bush can get another four years.

Of course, that's just speculation, I'm sure you a decent good hearted liberal who just doesn't care if President Bush wins another four years.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Why you have to bash Chomsky without providing any evidence is beyond me -- especially when he has recognized the importance of ousting Bush in this election.

Bad show, Peter -- not what I've come to expect from you.

But perhaps I phrased my remarks inelegantly.

I don't agree with Chomsky a lot of the time; i think there is this sort of ivory tower quality to him. He and some of the people who follow him seem to think that anybody who disagrees with him is either ill-informed, an idiot or a sell-out. In it's own way I find this attitude as problemattic as a right wing Christian who believes that everybody who disagress with him is going to hell.

That said, I think he is obviously an important thinker and, particularly in his critique of US policy in Latin America, a lot of important things to say.

I'm glad that he recognized the importance of getting rid of President Bush.


And my names Bryant

... and I apologize for the name mixup. There is a poster who goes by "pmbryant" whose first name is "Peter".

With regards to your post, you did phrase your remarks inelegantly, for certain. While I can certainly understand your views on Chomsky (mine have evolved in that direction over time, while not discounting that his studies on propaganda, manipulation and power are some of the most important viewpoints out there), I was just pointing out that he has called for ousting Bush in this election as well.

Perhaps I was a bit "inelegant" in that regard as well.... ;-)

maintains that Dems are the lesser of two evils. Now he even goes so far as to take a political position - against Bush. Now how would that help Bush get another four years?

Chomsky is writing about a different world than I'm living in.

I'm certain you won't find too much with which to disagree.

Actually, he's writing about the EXACT world you're living in. You just might not be properly appreciating it. And he wrote about these problems - the lack of real democracy, the phoniness of the US political process, the propaganda function of the media - long before they become so breathtakingly evident.

After agreeing that Chomsky sees enough of a difference to adivse others to vote Dem in 2004, you now contradict yourself and say what he was talking about in 1984 hasn't changed at all.

And you seem as if you could use to read a little more Chomsky. His analysis is not restricted to the US political process. Chomsky was originally a linguist, and linguistics, like the politics Chomsky wrotes about, applies to people all over the world.

The world which Chomsky was describing in Rich's initial post has really NOT changed all that much -- with the exception that the Republican Party has adopted a more overt and aggressive militarism than was previously thought possible. In this sense, the Republican Party has gotten appreciably WORSE, not that the Democratic Party has gotten significantly better.

This helps to explain the comments he made outlined in post #1, in which he said that although the current administration must be voted out before they are able to cause any more harm, that act alone is just a minute part of the entire process. We still must commit ourselves to the goal of both building from scratch, and rebuilding where feasible, civil institutions of true democratic process.

In short, the election of a Dem in 2004 and ouster of Bush will not change the fact that the Democratic Party is STILL one of two parties controlled by shifting business interests. Whether the guys in the white hats or black hats wins doesn't change the fact that it's still the guys in the gray suits calling the tune to which they dance.

Now more than ever. However, Rich's point was about how little difference there is between the parties when it comes to corporate influence. Though there is more corporate influence than ever, the imbalance of influence has increased and now the Repukes are far more corrupt than the Dems.

IOW, if both are close, and then one increases while the other stays the same (as you accurately described it, IMO) then the idea that they are still the same no longer applies, and that's the idea that Rich was pushing.

In short, the election of a Dem in 2004 and ouster of Bush will not change the fact that the Democratic Party is STILL one of two parties controlled by shifting business interests. Whether the guys in the white hats or black hats wins doesn't change the fact that it's still the guys in the gray suits calling the tune to which they dance.

Didn't say anything different. I just noted that the parties are not the same, not even in this one area of corporate influence.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

some are much more useful than others. Especially good are his media analyses and foreign policy articles.

As far as what he says about the dems and republicans being the same, that's only true in some abstract sense that has nothing to do with me or any person that lives in the real world.

as would be expected.