Ben Chompers

Chompersowi się pomyliło i miało być o Islandii na spotkaniu, a były wszystkim znane prawdy o Obamie i kryzysie ekonomicznym. Podobno nic ciekawego mnie nie ominęło.


It seems the mistake was by RIFF, as they billed it as Chomsky talking about the Icelandic economy and situation. I emailed Professor Chomsky and got this response, and wanted to share. It's quite long though!

First my email

First let me thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us via satellite. It was an honor for me to hear you speak live. I have to confess I'm a bit disappointed with the moderator ignoring the Iceland specific questions and making the time about North America, as I've followed your NA information very closely, and I was hoping to hear your thoughts on countries without totally broken national media.

I would like to use this opportunity to ask further about a few Icelandic specific things and if you have the time to answer I will share these with those friends of mine who were also at the talk.

Iceland is considering joining the EU, or rather, the parliament has applied and is in talks. In the past, a full 70% majority of the people were against joining. Should Iceland be accepted, the issue has to be voted on via national referendum, so it's up to the people to decide. During the talks however, those with the money and media power (as the moderator mentioned, the former PM and main privatizer of businesses is now the editor of the largest newspaper) have been pushing hard to change public sentiment in favor of joining the EU, and a recent poll has shifted drastically to a full 56% in favor of the talks continuing, rather than being withdrawn now. Am I right to be paranoid that joining the EU is going to open up more foreign ownership of Icelandic resources and not help the average Icelander, and in fact most likely hurt them as they lose control of their national resources?

How does a single individual combat the type of power and influence someone like the former-PM now editor of the newspaper's influence. You mentioned Bolivia, the workers meetings in the US, South America, etc, but all of these instances seem to share the situation of near total collapse to force change. How can someone hope to fight against the powers that be when everything is currently quite good, but trajectories are diverging to make it worse in the future? Is it even possible without becoming a full time activist? You are big on grass roots mobilization, but sometimes it seems so impossible when the "common sense" beliefs are so ingrained that you sound like a crazy person when trying to talk about equality, market flaws, strong social safety nets, and workers rights. How does one combat that without becoming a burnt out shell when faced always such an uphill battle?

Iceland is so small, how can we possibly resist the pockets, influence, and power of the EU or US if they turn their gaze on our resources?

His response:

Glad you could make the talk, and sorry there was no time for discussion. I suspect he avoided the Iceland-specific problems because he knew I wouldn't be able to say much about them. Just don't know enough, and don't like to make off-the-cuff superficial comments.

I don't quite agree with you on activism. There's nothing like total collapse in the US, which remains a very rich and privileged society. Same in Bolivia, though far poorer. The remarkable steps towards democracy were not a reaction to collapse. And same in other cases. Take the popular movements of the '60s in the US, which brought about significant changes. That was a time of unprecedented growth and general prosperity.

It's true that one can sound like a "crazy person." I've lived most of my life that way -- if you're thinking of the reaction in the intellectual community. When I started giving talks opposing the Vietnam war in the early 60s, I was speaking to a few neighbors in someone's living room, or in a church with four people: the pastor, the organizer, a drunk who walked it, and someone who wanted to kill me. Other activists have had, and still have, much the same experience. Over time, with enough dedication and effort, a great deal can be done, as we know from history, including recent history, and for many people our own experience.

Noam Chomsky

I sent a followup:

Thank you for your prompt answer, I appreciate it. Collapse was a poor word choice. Maybe it would be better to say facing an imminent problem that directly affects them would have been better. There are enough unemployed in the US to provide fertile ground for a workers movement. If you have low unemployment currently (we have 7% and dropping, it was at 1% 2 years ago), it's harder to get people to care about government choices that could cause those high unemployment numbers in 10 years time.

I understand what you're saying about activism, and I can totally believe you've felt like that. Does it ever feel like a Sisyphean task when the other side has so much more power and influence to counter? I remember watching recently one of your talks from the 70s, and it was inspiring, and the people listening seemed to really hear you and agree, but it just seemed like so little has changed between then and now in terms of being able to keep the US out of foreign wars and affairs. I mean right now they are in the middle of two wars, not just one, and that doesn't count all the other covert operations. Sure anti war protests are more vocal, but what has that accomplished?

I guess I am frustrated, and I personally don't see any changes for the better, and I'm wondering if you see seeds of hope that could challenge the power structure, and does it require things coming to a head to actually get more people behind a movement?

His response:

These thngs are hard to predict. Take the Great Depression, when unemployment was more than twice as high as now. The crash was in 1929. It wasn't for several years that serious actions develped.

I think the protests have accomplished a lot, on a great many issues. Take anti-war protests. Contrary to what is often claimed, the protests against the Iraq war were much greater than those against the Vietnam war at any comparable stage. Hard to prove, but I suspect that is one reason why the Iraq war, horrible as it was, was far more restrained than what Kennedy and Johnson were doing with scarcely any protest. Not heaven, but progress.

Activism just in the past generation has brought about very substantial and positive changes in many areas. A lot that is taken for granted now would have been almost unthinkable 50 years ago. But it doesn't matter. Optimism-Pessimism is a subjective choice. Whatever we choose, we should be doing much the same things.