Chomsky puts current events in historical perspective

[Hannah Bell]

QUESTION:

"I’ve also been noticing that there’s not a whole lot of national representation of our struggle and our movement, and it’s really been troubling me. So my question to you is, how exactly is it that we can get the attention of our national Democratic and progressive leaders to speak out against these measures and to help end union busting here in the United States?"

NOAM CHOMSKY:

It’s very interesting. The reason why you can’t get Democratic leaders to join is because they agree. They are also trying to destroy the unions.

In fact, if you take a look at—take, say, the lame-duck session. The great achievement in the lame-duck session for which Obama is greatly praised by Democratic Party leaders is that they achieved bipartisan agreement on several measures. The most important one was the tax cut. And the issue in the tax cut—there was only one issue—should there be a tax cut for the very rich? The population was overwhelmingly against it, I think about two to one. There wasn’t even a discussion of it, they just gave it away...

The person he (Obama) selected to be in charge of creating jobs is Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, which has more than half their workforce overseas. And, you know, I’m sure he’s deeply interested in jobs in the United States. But what he has is deep pockets, and also, not just him, but connections to the tiny sector of the ultra-rich corporate elite, which is going to provide that billion or billion-and-a-half dollars for the campaign. Well, that’s what’s going on.

http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=2027§ion=Article

[myrna minx]

1. K&R. n/t

[ananda]

2. Thank you, Mr. Chomsky.

I always prefer substance over propaganda.

[housewolf]

3. Here's a link to the whole interview

27 Minutes from Today's Democracy Now program

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/2/17/noam_chomsky_on_civil_rights_obama_latin_america_and_the_history_of_the_us_in_the_middle_east

[blindpig]

4. 'nuff said. k&r

[EFerrari]

5. From his interview with Amy.

K&R

[patrice]

6. Chomsky also validates a point that amounts to: Trolls weren't created by the internet . . .

Unions CAN be so powerful that they ARE courted and/or attacked in various ways from inside and out. This means that within the economic and legal environment in which Barack Obama "sold out" we must consider the near certain possibility that that sort of thing has been going on at all levels, more or less, since the 1940s - AND - will continue today with this current resurgence in popularity if Union membership is not diligent and brave.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I’d like to ask you about this whole issue of the assault on unions. Clearly, it has arisen in the last few months in a coordinated way. Here in New York State, all the major business people have gotten together, raised $10 million to begin an ad campaign, and they’re being supported by both the Democratic new governor, Andrew Cuomo, and as well as the Republican-Independent Mayor Bloomberg. But they seem to be going after the public sector unions after having essentially destroyed most of the private sector union movement in the United States. They realize that the public sector unions are still the only vibrant section of the American labor movement, so now they’re really going after them in particular. Yet, you’ve got these labor leaders who helped get Obama elected and who helped get Andy Cuomo elected, and they’re not yet making the stand in a strong enough way to mobilize people against these policies.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, you’re absolutely right. There has been a huge attack against private sector unions. Actually, that’s been going on since the Second World War. After the Second World War, business was terrified about the radicalization of the country during the Depression and then the war, and it started right off—Taft-Hartley was 1947—huge propaganda campaigns to demonize unions. It really—and it continued until you get to the Reagan administration.

Having seen a couple of work environments that need unionizing, up close and personal, it is VERY clear to me how various kinds of pressure, met with job in-security and passivity/lack-of-pro-action in every dimension even in the smallest least risky opportunities, at that profoundly important interface between lowest-level management and what COULD be Labor-leaders, but isn't, has resulted in at least some Labor selling itself out.

There ARE, and always have been, deals to be made and if we don't know exactly which jobs are going to pay for "the deal", we can always blame others. Plausible deniability works for anyone who plays along by "the rules", afterall.

I post this as a caveat on making it ***ALL*** about Barack Obama. As Unions rise, they will become PRIME political real-estate. And if we don't begin by recognizing that what made Obama "sell out" in order to get where he is going (wherever ((?)) that is) is the same thing that has made millions and millions of us sell-out when it came to a point of challenge for the same reasons, but on a different scale, and this IS a significant part of our current state of affairs.

If unions don't begin this re-incarnation by recognizing HOW this has happened, if it's always and only about "the other guy" and never about who/what/why/how/where/when each of us takes a stand for what we ourselves are, we're just going to repeat the whole corrupt cycle at a time when we, our children, and generations to come can ILL afford to do so.