Failed States

I’ve been trying to find the time to post on Noam Chomsky’s latest book Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy.

If you haven’t read it, go out and get it. If you’re interested, check out the exclusive interview with Amy Goodman over at Democracy Now. This is, in a sense, a continuation of Hegemony or Survival by Chomsky. Hate him or love him, he’s essential reading if you wish to understand the world around you. Instead of the usual book review, though, I’ve decided to mix it up a bit. We’ll take a look at a less than favorable review of Chomsky’s book by Peter Beaumont, the Observer's foreign affairs editor. You can read the whole thing here. I’ll simply pull a few quotes from the article to illustrate the weakness of Beaumont’s analysis.

There’s nothing particularly special about the way Beaumont attacks Chomsky. That’s precisely why I’ve chosen this review. You can search the net and find no shortage of denunciations of Chomsky’s work. Nevertheless, I’ve found that at their core these denunciations share a lot in common. One of the most striking is they often make claims they simply cannot prove. For instance:

Reading Failed States, I had an epiphany: that by applying a Chomskian analysis to his own writing, you discover exactly the same subtle textual biases, evasions and elisions of meaning as used by those he calls 'the doctrinal managers' of the 'powerful elites'. The mighty Chomsky, the world's greatest public intellectual, is prone to playing fast and loose.

Pretty bold words. Wouldn’t you expect an example of his application of Chomskian analysis to Chomsky’s own work? Don’t hold your breath.

And, boy, is it a big lie this time. What Chomsky is taking on now is America's claim to be the world's greatest democracy. Failed States posits, tendentiously, that the US has become the ultimate 'failed state', a term usually reserved for places like Somalia. It is a terrorist state and a rogue state, a country that has brought us to the brink of annihilating darkness. These big claims are bolstered by his familiar arsenal of exaggeration, sarcasm and allusion.
Who is playing fast and loose here? Chomsky has been writing about our democratic deficit for decades. The world’s greatest democracy? Is he kidding? We’re talking about a country where you’re lucky to get half the registered voters out to vote in an election because the majority of Americans don’t believe in the electoral process anymore. And let’s be clear here, Chomsky doesn’t posit that the United States is the “ultimate failed state.” What he does argue is that we are showing the tell-tale signs of a failed state. In particular, Chomsky takes aim at the gap between public policy and public opinion.

But then there is an awful lot conveniently missing from Chomsky's account of the crimes of his own country. In attempting to create a consistent argument for America as murderous bully, going back to the Seminole Wars, he edits out anything that could be put on the other side of the balance sheet. I could find no mention of the Marshall Plan, although there is enough about American crimes in Guatemala, to which he returns repeatedly. He can find enough to say about America's misdemeanours during the Cold War; but nothing about the genuine fear of the Soviet Union, one of the most brutally efficient human-rights-abusing states in history.

Anyone familiar with Chomsky’s work knows he has written extensively on the Marshall Plan in the past. Apparently the Marshall Plan is the only thing left out of the “balance sheet.” If you don’t feel like clicking the link above, I’ll let Chomsky put the Marshall Plan back in the balance sheet:

The favored illustration of "generosity and goodwill" is the Marshall Plan. That merits examination, on the "strongest case" principle. The inquiry again quickly yields facts "that `it wouldn't do' to mention." For example, the fact that "as the Marshall Plan went into full gear the amount of American dollars being pumped into France and the Netherlands was approximately equaled by the funds being siphoned from their treasuries to finance their expeditionary forces in Southeast Asia," to carry out terrible crimes. And that the tied aid provisions help explain why the U.S. share in world trade in grains increased from less than 10% before the war to more than half by 1950, while Argentine exports reduced by two-thirds. And that under U.S. influence Europe was reconstructed in a particular mode, not quite that sought by the anti-fascist resistance, though fascist and Nazi collaborators were generally satisfied. And that the generosity was overwhelmingly bestowed by American taxpayers upon the corporate sector, which was duly appreciative, recognizing years later that the Marshall Plan "set the stage for large amounts of private U.S. direct investment in Europe," establishing the basis for the modern Transnational Corporations, which "prospered and expanded on overseas orders,...fueled initially by the dollars of the Marshall Plan" and protected from "negative developments" by "the umbrella of American power."

To sum it up, Chomsky probably doesn’t mention the Marshall Plan because it has no bearing on his argument whatsoever. Besides, even if you still believe your High School version of the Marshall Plan where we selflessly helped Europe get on its feet again, does that give the United States a green light to wage war around the globe, topple democratically elected governments, and interfere in the self-determination of people around the world? Interesting how Beaumont refers to these crimes against humanity as “misdemeanors of the cold war” as if murdering the President of Panama is akin to drinking and driving. Invading South Vietnam and killing over three million humans is not a misdemeanor, folks.

The fact is there is no shortage of the type of cheerleading for Empire that Beaumont wants so desperately to see. Turn on the History Channel. Turn on the nightly news. Turn on a sitcom or a movie. Pick up a newspaper. People like Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Noami Klein, Amy Goodman, Arhundathi Roy, Greg Palast, and others offer us a perspective we rarely—if ever—see in the mainstream. It’s not that the need for balance isn’t important; It’s vitally important if we wish to continue this experiment in democracy. But that means opening up to more than the narrow spectrum of debate offered in the mainstream.

Our government is failing us, and it seems to be a bi-partisan issue. From the environment to nuclear proliferation, our government has taken actions that have increased the danger and the likelihood of something really horrible happening here at home. This is not an “anti-American” screed. It’s a wake up call. And if we want to change the direction of this country, we need to be organizing and taking action. We can do this. Another world is possible. Won’t you pledge today to make it real?

| +Save/Share | |