Posted by
voice_of_reason on Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:52:06 AM
Note: Chomsky's article may be found at the following link: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm
I hadn't seen this one before, so it was an interesting read, particularly since it was written in mid-1986. At first, I was struck by how prescient Chomsky's writing was, until I remembered that this particular article had been written after Gorbachev took over; glasnost was in the air, and words like perestroika were being bandied about. Afghanistan was already a shambles (7+ yrs after the Soviet invasion), and Chernobyl had just exploded. In the mean while, the American economy had rebounded from its 'Cahtuh-era malaise'; also, big, bad Reagan was in his 2nd term.
Well, I have a couple of comments and one fundamental question ... How is this article not an erudite, linguistically perfect, but philosophically absurd version of "Socialism is right in principle, but the Soviets kinda botched it in practice"? My overall conclusion, factoring in the timeline (above) -- it appears that Comrade Chomsky was scrambling to cover his ol' posterior after decades of having given ideological cover to the 'evil Empire' in Western coffee houses.
Now for the article itself, in which Chomsky seems to say:
* there is a pure form of Socialism, which liberates working people from exploitation
* Soviet leaders, e.g. Lenin & Trotsky, then Stalin etc., were imperfect practitioners, whose methods (such as the creation of 'managers') contradicted the Marx-ian vision of a liberated, unexploited working class. Other than that ... Socialism rocks!
* the Soviet State and State capitalists are both guilty
- Soviets: claim that their 'managers' are leading the world towards the socialist ideal, but they lie. [see below: this relates to the 'blame the ref, blame the players, but not the root-cause'' analogy]
- State capitalists: use the "Soviet = socialist" lie to enslave their people into conformity & obedience; ensuring that they willingly 'rent' themselves to factory owners & managers [people who live in semi-Capitalist systems are scared, foolish, prostitutes].
For all his erudition, Chomsky's intellectual mistake, is in his very first step. The very premise of Socialism is flawed - to blame the Soviet implementation (but to praise the Socialist idea) is analogous to blaming a bullet for murder, when it was the the killer who originated the idea of murder.
Socialism attempts to level - not the playing field - but the outcome of the game. Imagine a soccer tournament in which the score of every match is decreed to be 2-2, and everyone 'shares' equally in the prize money, derived from ticket sales. Pretty soon no spectators show up, and that the players don't seem to play very well! There is no (entertainment) value, nor is there any incentive to practice, improve & succeed. In such a situation, do you blame the game, the referees and the unmotivated players - or, should you get a competitive spirit back into the system?
People are not equal, fungible entities, but individuals who possess different levels of capital [brain, brawn and bounty, hey, lets call them the three 'B's]. In a free market, the distribution of workers, managers and owners is largely based on an individual's 3B status. Yes, it is the luck of the draw, and isn't always fair. The good news is that in a free market, things aren't static over the long term. Yes, some people acquire bounty (wealth capital) via luck, or inheritance, usually the stored product of their ancestors' brain/brawn, maintained through the sanctity of property rights for their heirs. Abuse can and does take place, but usually at the margins. Some fortunes were made (historically) via corruption or enslavement/exploitation, usually way back in the Wild West era. However, in a competitive society, it is actually harder for dimwit heirs to grow family inheritances without coercive Govt influence - which is why the Rockefellers lean to the left.
Despite the competitive dog-eat-dog scenario that Chomsky-ites disparage under free-market Capitalism, society prospers through individual action, inspired by individual self-interest, not coercion. Compare that to the well intentioned Socialist plans that lead to non-competitive, dreary societies.
Socialism requires a non-human creature who, lacking any sort of self-interest gene, toils for the glory of the State, with only a subsistence-level life as his reward. Capitalism works with normal humans, improving their lives proportionate to their brains, labor and capital. While the outcome under Capitalism is by no means guaranteed, it has been proven to improve the standard of living in every country that has allowed some semblance of it to exist.
It is that simple ... really.
I also think that Chomsky's use of the term "State Capitalists" is crafty, but rather disingenuous. He has used a propagandist's tool - that of linguistic definition - by naming and offering only a grossly adulterated kind of Capitalism as the alternative to Soviet-style Communism. He is eloquently wistful about an idealized pure-Socialist pipe dream, but paints a gritty view of real-world State Capitalism, in which scared people prostitute themselves to factory owners. I guess we will need an American Karl Marx to show up and declare "Prostitutes of the Capitalist World, unite ..."
The reality is that even in the mixed-economy "State Capitalism" of modern-day US, people voluntarily show up for work on time, work hard in a competitive environment and earn a decent living. Some of us even obtain a sense of fulfilment from certain aspects of our jobs! I'm not suggesting that it is utopian - because it isn't - but average people lead decent lives.
Chomsky's claim that State Capitalists use anti-Communist scare tactics to dupe people into renting themselves out ... is laughable. People who live in mostly-Capitalist countries are not dodging bullets, sailing on rafts through shark-infested waters, tunelling under walls, climbing barbed wire, etc. to escape to Communist playgrounds. The problem, not that Chomsky would recognize it as such, is actually that America too is heading towards Statism - under both (R) and (D) parties.
It doesn't make sense [but it sure makes for good agit-prop] when Leftists blame Capitalism for the poverty that reigns in 90% of the world - that does NOT have Capitalism. Socialist leaders, who are busy enslaving their own countrymen, like to make bogeymen of Capitalist countries. Such leaders need scapegoats to deflect criticism of their own actions.
Further, it is not intellectually consistent to compare some purist vision of Socialism with the type of 'mixed' economy that passes for Capitalism.
It would be more consistent to compare either:
* real-world Socialism with real-world Capitalism -OR-
* pure Socialism with pure Capitalism
The first has been proved decidedly via history - Capitalist economies [even those that mix-in liberal doses of collectivism] have improved the the well being of more people than real-world Socialism. Those gains have not come at the expense of non-Capitalists [that's the exploitation myth], but as a result of value/wealth creation.
Comparing the 'pure' forms of Socialism and Capitalism is an interesting exercise.
Capitalism is consistent with human nature. Socialism (even in its ideal form) is not, requiring, for its success, a kind of non-human behavior.
I can understand that if one celebrates collectivist kum-ba-ya, Socialism would seem like nirvana. So, the wishful thinking of Leftists can be understood (even forgiven), but it remains just that - wishful thinking.
For an ideology to succeed in any large context it has to work with normal human beings.
Sure, pure-Socialism (as espoused by mild mannered intellectuals such as Chomsky, but not by inglorious basterds like Fidel, Chavez, Stalin & Mao) may work in a society comprising of altruistic automatons. On such a planet, sure, I could be convinced that Socialism Rocks!
But Capitalism works with, and helps improve the lives of everyday humans.