Chomsky: Corporations and the Richest Americans Viscerally Oppose the Common Good

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/visions/chomsky-corporations-and-richest-americans-viscerally-oppose-common-good-0

Whether public education contributes to the Common Good depends, of course, on what kind of education it is, to whom it is available, and what we take to be the Common Good. There’s no need to tarry on the fact that these are highly contested matters, have been throughout history, and continue to be so today.

One of the great achievements of American democracy has been the introduction of mass public education, from children to advanced research universities. And in some respects that leadership position has been maintained. Unfortunately, not all. Public education is under serious attack, one component of the attack on any rational and humane concept of the Common Good, sometimes in ways that are not only shocking, but also spell disaster for the species.

All of this falls within the general assault on the population in the past generation, the so-called “neoliberal era.” I’ll return to these matters, of great significance and import.

Sometimes the attacks on education and on the Common Good are very closely linked. One current illustration is the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” that is being proposed to legislatures by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-funded lobby that designs legislation to serve the needs of the corporate sector and extreme wealth. This act mandates "balanced teaching of climate science in K-12 classrooms.”

[merrily]

1. Neoliberals = hostile and condescending to liberals.

Yet, they use the word.

[rock]

3. Yep, they both fall into that group that competes,

not cooperates.

[merrily]

7. Aside from neoliberals (aka New Democrats) and whatever you consider liberal,

who makes up the Democratic Party?

[eomer]

15. Neoliberals <> New Democrats

The right wing of the Democratic Party is neoliberal - that much is true. But neoliberals also encompass all of the Republican Party.

Just wanted to clarify. Maybe that's what you meant?

[merrily]

19. Interesting. I thought Republicans were conservatives, not neoliberals.

Some conservatives are neoconservatives; some are not. But, I never thought of them as neoliberal.

Aren't neoliberals supposed to be socially liberal?

Sociologist Loïc Wacquant argues that neoliberalism has transformed the U.S. into a “centaur state,” or a nation with little governmental oversight for those at the top and strict control of those at the bottom.[135] Santa Cruz History of Consciousness professor Angela Davis and Princeton sociologist Bruce Western have claimed that the high rate (compared to Europe) of incarceration in the U.S. – specifically 1 in 37 American adults is in the prison system – heavily promoted by the Clinton administration, is the neoliberal U.S. policy tool for keeping unemployment statistics low, while stimulating economic growth through the maintenance of a contemporary slave population and the promotion of prison construction and "militarized policing."[136] David McNally, Professor of Political Science at York University, argues that while expenditures on social welfare programs have been cut, expenditures on prison construction have increased significantly during the neoliberal era, with California having "the largest prison-building program in the history of the world."[137] The Clinton Administration also embraced neoliberalism by pursuing international trade agreements that would benefit the corporate sector globally (normalization of trade with China for example). Domestically, Clinton fostered such neoliberal reforms as the corporate takeover of health care in the form of the HMO, the reduction of welfare subsidies, and the implementation of "Workfare".[138]

Neoliberal policies advanced by supranational organizations have come under criticism, from both socialist and libertarian writers, for advancing a corporatist agenda. Rajesh Makwana, on the left, writes that "the World Bank and IMF, are major exponents of the neoliberal agenda" advancing corporate interests.[139] Sheldon Richman, editor of the libertarian journal The Freeman, also sees the IMF imposing "corporatist-flavored 'neoliberalism' on the troubled countries of the world." The policies of spending cuts coupled with tax increases give "real market reform a bad name and set back the cause of genuine liberalism." Paternalistic supranational bureaucrats foster "long-term dependency, perpetual indebtedness, moral hazard, and politicization, while discrediting market reform and forestalling revolutionary liberal change."[140] Free market economist Richard M. Salsman goes further and argues the IMF “is a destructive, crisis-generating global welfare agency that should be abolished."[141] "In return for bailouts, countries must enact such measures as new taxes, high interest rates, nationalizations, deportations, and price controls." Writing in Forbes, E. D. Kain sees the IMF as "paving the way for international corporations entrance into various developing nations" and creating dependency.[142] He quotes Donald J. Boudreaux on the need to abolish the IMF.

In a dramatic act of defiance against neoliberal globalization, South Korean farmer and former president of the Korean Advanced Farmers Federation Lee Kyung-hae committed suicide by stabbing himself in the heart during a meeting of the WTO in Cancun, Mexico. Prior to his death he expressed his concerns in broken English:

My warning goes out to the all citizens that human beings are in an endangered situation that uncontrolled multinational corporations and a small number of bit WTO members officials are leading an undesirable globalization of inhuman, environment-distorting, farmer-killing, and undemocratic. It should be stopped immediately otherwise the failed logic of the neo-liberalism will perish the diversities of agriculture and disastrously to all human being.[143]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

But no, that is not what I meant. If you take New Democrats like Clinton and Obama and their followers, and whatever you consider liberals out of the group you consider to be Democrats, who would remain? That is what I meant. Who comprises today's Democratic Party in your opinion, if not liberals and New Democrats?

For example, I consider myself a traditional Democrat, in the mold of FDR, Truman, LBJ, Humphrey. But most people here consider me liberal, "far left," etc. I think they are using those terms way incorrectly, but that is beside the point for purposes of my question to you.

[JHB]

20. Neoliberalism is an economic term, about "liberal" markets....

Last edited Fri Oct 3, 2014, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)

...I.e., with few restrictions. It's not directly related to political liberalism, and usually works against it.

Neoconservatism is mostly about foreign policy, primarily marked by hawkishness about intervening militarily to carry out foreign policy goals.

Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are quite compatible, and both of them dominate the thinking of the leadership of both parties.

[merrily]

21. I know that Marshall, head of the Progressive Policy Institute, signed the PNAC letter

Before founding PPI, he worked for the DLC.

I don't think Republicans ever refer to themselves publicly as neoliberals, do they?

[JHB]

22. I don't think whether they use the term publicly is relevant...

...since that aspect becomes embroiled in their messaging: why confuse things by saying one kind of liberalism is good but another kind will wreck the country, when you can file all the "good" under "Ronald Reagan showed us..." and simply demonize "liberal"?

If you get into the weeds of an economic discussion, there is some distinction between "conservative economics" and "neoliberal economics", but again, some of that comes from people (mostly conservatives) wanting to draw a distinction between the two because it would be bad form to admit they're 90+% in agreement with their nominal opponents.

For most of the rest of us, the alleged distinctions between conservative economics and neoliberalism at best minor and usually insignificant hair-splitting. In practice, both work to reduce "government activism" and government "interference" in the economy, encourage union busting, push for lower taxes, deregulation, stripping worker protections, and in general valuing monied interests over everything else.

Yes, there's a distinction in that some things that conservatives think should be eliminated completely neoliberals will acknowledge some benefit if used with only the lightest of light touches, but they all cater to the same class of wealthy political donors.

[merrily]

23. extremely bad form for all sides.

it would be bad form to admit they're 90+% in agreement with their nominal opponents.

Hence Nader gets excoriated for telling Americans what they had every right to know before they voted in the Democratic primary of 1992.

However, I think Democrats don't so much mind the confusion caused among their base by terms like "neoliberal" and "progressive."

You gave me some useful distinctions and info. Thanks.

[eomer]

25. I don't think there are really any neoliberals who call themselves by that term.

The term tends to be used only by people who are opposed to it. Those who favor neoliberalism pretty much always call themselves by other terms that address additional questions besides whether they favor the free markets and related ideas that comprise neoliberalism.

But even though they don't call themselves neoliberals, basically all those who call themselves conservatives in the US do advocate for the ideas of neoliberalism. Of course most of them are liars, too, so while they advocate publicly for free markets what they're really, privately angling for are rigged markets that shovel money to them ideally for nothing in return.

[JHB]

28. True. Among Republicans, they call it "conservative" and/or invoke...

..."freedom" and "Ronald Reagan".

Among Democrats, they tend to self-describe as "pro-business", "centrist" and "pragmatist". Nice marketing, because it implies that anyone else isn't.

[merrily]

31. I know. The home page of PPI's website used to say

"Home of the pragmatic progressive" or some such. I think they've taken that bit down now. Maybe it was all the ridicule that term got (richly-deserved, IMO).

[merrily]

30. Yes, there are, on the Dem side. I've heard them.

But, you haven't answered my question yet.

[eomer]

32. Answering your question.

I haven't thought about this much. I guess I would generally agree that the Democratic Party is made up of "New Democrats" and liberals, although I think I'd rather use different names for the former. I'd rather call them right wing and/or corporatists. Fascists would also do, or perhaps Inverted Totalitarians.

[merrily]

33. I apologize. I conflated your posts with that of rock, who

posted Reply 3. It was really rock who I wanted to press for an answer.

[Enthusiast]

2. They are destroying the nation.

Simple as that.

[freebrew]

4. The PTB realized during the 60s...

the reason for these anti-war protests was all the 'free' education being given to the proles.
Nixon cut the education part of the GI bill in half.
Colleges were increasingly difficult to get into and there were teachers and courses designed for failure.

IMHO, this was planned destruction of the nation.

[Fuddnik]

5. And Reagan killed off the best university system in the country.

[freshwest]

18. That is EXACTLY what happened! Also messed with civics and history books in public schools.

[merrily]

24. Free education was the reason for the anti-war protests?

I disagree.

[freebrew]

27. An educated new generation...

as a result of the GI Bill.
An enlightened populace with the ability to see the wrongs being perpetrated in their name.
The draft helped, too. More impetus to attend college.
But the means was there, unlike years before and after.
JFK's idea that education was the best national defense troubled those in power that relied upon pulling the wool over their eyes, STS.

The PTB certainly took notice.

[merrily]

29. Ah, now, I see what you are saying. Thanks.

[DallasNE]

6. "Balanced Teaching"

Now what the hell is that supposed to mean.

2 + 2 = 4

Now just how does one go about bringing "balance" to that teaching, by saying 2 + 2 can also equal 22?

[ReRe]

8. The oligarchs just don't care for the word "common"

... common good, commonwealth, common sense and they despise the word "commons." They see that word and think "privatize, privatize, privatize!"

[FiveGoodMen]

11. "privatize, privatize, privatize!"

Or, in other words, "Mine, Mine, Mine!"

[ReRe]

13. Money, money, money, money, money...

... more, more, more, more, more.

[L0oniX]

9. Chomsky is a treasure ...enjoy and learn while you can.

Zinn (another treasure) is gone ...Moyers may be quitting soon ...and I don't blame him. Any equitable replacements in the wind?

[truedelphi]

14. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^n/t

[marmar]

10. K/R

[hifiguy]

12. K and R!

[kentuck]

16. What is the "Common Good"?

If someone could define that, then perhaps we could make some progress?

[leftstreet]

17. Noam Chomsky: What Is the Common Good?

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21070-noam-chomsky-what-is-the-common-good

Not sure if this is what you're after

[daleanime]

26. K&R....