Chomsky on Trump

[Richard Barrett]

Chomsky is a marginal figure in politics - I seriously wonder whether anyone who hasn't got some kind of college degree in a liberal arts type subject has heard of him. His audience seems to consist almost entirely of people who share his politics.

This is true up to a point, without the "liberal arts" part (everyone who is concerned in any way with linguistics, and many other human sciences, has heard of him too!), but that doesn't make his command of international politics any less incisive and valuable.

[Conchis]

This is true up to a point, without the "liberal arts" part (everyone who is concerned in any way with linguistics, and many other human sciences, has heard of him too!), but that doesn't make his command of international politics any less incisive and valuable.

No, indeed: his commentaries are valuable but his 'reach' is lamentable and this is not (altogether) his fault.

I've never seen or heard an interview with Chomsky in which he sounds anything other than pessimistic: being a socialist in America must be an exercise in damage limitation.

[french frank]

No, they were not impoverished by joining the then EEC or EC, but they are now as a result of monetary union, and the still enduring "project" of political union.

What I meant was that Greece, Spain, Portugal (and Ireland) were already the poor countries of Europe before they joined.

As far as Greece is concerned, this is an interesting article which gives a view on the context of Greece joining the EU in 1981 which (says the writer) hindsight tends to ignore. On monetary union, this lays out some facts which (says this writer) about the Greek situation in 2001 when it applied to join the eurozone. Placing the entire blame on the structures of the EU is not an entirely balanced view.

That capitulation is itself partly a function of the centralisation of decision-making about economic policy within the EU, so that there is relatively little room for manoeuvre for national parties (especially within the eurozone). And that great decision-making power has been accompanied by relatively little democratic accountability, so that failed or failing policies have not been properly challenged, and decisions have in some cases been taken by wholly unaccountable organizations like the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup.

I'm not sure that the BoE is any more 'accountable': should it be controlled by the government of the day to make it accountable to the people?

In contrast, at least in theory, governments of nation-states can be removed at elections and there can be significant changes of policy (as with the recent US election and with, e.g., UK elections in 1979 and 1997).

Yes, in theory. Though why does it happen so seldom? Isn't it frequently objected that political parties are now 'all the same'? Or that the Conservatives can claim that 'the country' voted for a referendum by voting for the Conservative election 'package'? How far do these indiividual changes even correspond with the democratic 'will of the people' - in reality?

It was entirely foreseeable that leaving the free movement principle in place unaltered after the access of the former Soviet Bloc countries would lead to a large increase in migration flows from south and east to north and west, and this was only increased by the Eurozone crisis. To me it is a laissez-faire principle which favours mainly white Europeans from particular countries and classes and discriminates against mainly non-white non-Europeans, including citizens of former European colonies.

Though in the UK the majority of immigration is from non-EU countries - and that is expected to continue while there will be a block on movement of EU people.

It also leaves refugees fleeing war, persecution and economic devastation in a desperate situation, pressed out on the borders of Europe while the privileged movement rights of Europeans are preserved. I think it's divisive, discriminatory and unethical, and those who talk about racism and xenophobia should think about how Europe treats non-Europeans.

There is a problem - though the refugees are not fleeing war-zones because of EU actions. Are you saying that the white Europeans should stay at home so that when there is a refugee crisis there will be somewhere for them to move to? In Germany the xenophobia is directed towards refugees; in the UK it's directed towards EU citizens as well as non-Europeans; in France it's historically the N. African Arabs. The United States aren't in the EU but Mexicans are now targets; in Russia it's South Asians.

To blame EU policy does seem to be 'excusing' racism. I don't believe that most people who engage in racist behaviour have been personally disadvantaged by immigrants (any more than that the mass of people who voted to Leave the EU have personally encountered disadvantage from our membership. Some may have done so 'on behalf of' those who have been disadvantaged).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I’m not convinced of the relevance of this observation.

I think the implication is that Trump is uneducated, tunnel-visioned, and rather dim, and therefore not really fit to hold office.

[Beef Oven!]

What I meant was that Greece, Spain, Portugal (and Ireland) were already the poor countries of Europe before they joined.

As far as Greece is concerned, this is an interesting article which gives a view on the context of Greece joining the EU in 1981 which (says the writer) hindsight tends to ignore. On monetary union, this lays out some facts which (says this writer) about the Greek situation in 2001 when it applied to join the eurozone. Placing the entire blame on the structures of the EU is not an entirely balanced view.

The particular position that Greece finds itself in today is precisely due to its joining of the EU and the Eurozone. It may well be that if it hadn’t, it would still find itself in a comparable adverse situation, but that’s not the point. In pursuing its political and economic expansionism, the EU admitted a singularly unfit country; it’s hard to know what boxes Greece could tick with its recent past of military dictatorship, limited free-press, lack of a transparent, impartial justice system, and deep-seated economic problems.

[Beef Oven!]

I think the implication is that Trump is uneducated, tunnel-visioned, and rather dim, and therefore not really fit to hold office.

Or, a savvy, focused, uncluttered thinker who is the best man for the job of leading the US out of the Obama-inflicted decline that it finds itself in.

[ahinton]

Or, a savvy, focused, uncluttered thinker who is the best man for the job of leading the US out of the Obama-inflicted decline that it finds itself in.

At the close of his first week in office he's hardly given that impression!

[Conchis]

Trump supporter probably feel enthusiastic about his first week in office. He has done the things he said he was going to do re: abortion, Muslims, the wall with Mexico and he's made encouraging noises about how America will trade with the rest of the world.

Of course, how much of this is 'activity' as opposed to 'action', remains to be seen.

[french frank]

The particular position that Greece finds itself in today is precisely due to its joining of the EU and the Eurozone. It may well be that if it hadn’t, it would still find itself in a comparable adverse situation, but that’s not the point. In pursuing its political and economic expansionism, the EU admitted a singularly unfit country; it’s hard to know what boxes Greece could tick with its recent past of military dictatorship, limited free-press, lack of a transparent, impartial justice system, and deep-seated economic problems.

Perhaps you should read the article? It was precisely its emergence from a military dictatorship that ticked a box as something to be preserved since such a regime would NOT have been accepted by the EC.

The particular position that Greece finds itself in today is precisely due to its joining of the EU and the Eurozone. It may well be that if it hadn’t, it would still find itself in a comparable adverse situation, but that’s not the point.

I would have thought it was. If you're saying they might have been just as badly off economically outside a more evenly integrated, successful EU. The rich countries could have gone it alone, I suppose, and left the poorer countries to solve their own problems.

[Beef Oven!]

Perhaps you should read the article? It was precisely its emergence from a military dictatorship that ticked a box as something to be preserved since such a regime would NOT have been accepted by the EC.

I read the article. Digging a hole and then filling it in is hardly a recommendation.

Military intervention does not come about where democracy is embedded, unless the people want it (or don’t want it - think Turkey, both ways around). Greece is not a mature democracy now, and it certainly wasn’t when admitted.

I would have thought it was. If you're saying they might have been just as badly off economically outside a more evenly integrated, successful EU. The rich countries could have gone it alone, I suppose, and left the poorer countries to solve their own problems.

Nothing wrong with assisting ailing countries and enabling them towards greater democracy and economic development. Lots wrong with taking ailing countries and bringing them into a political union and articulating their economies with much bigger, more powerful economies and expecting the same, unalterable fiscal policy to work.

The EU should have done the former, unless its aim was greater political and economic integration, and never mind the consequences.

[ahinton]

I read the article. Digging a hole and then filling it in is hardly a recommendation.

Military intervention does not come about where democracy is embedded, unless the people want it (or don’t want it - think Turkey, both ways around). Greece is not a mature democracy now, and it certainly wasn’t when admitted.



Nothing wrong with assisting ailing countries and enabling them towards greater democracy and economic development. Lots wrong with taking ailing countries and bringing them into a political union and articulating their economies with much bigger, more powerful economies and expecting the same, unalterable fiscal policy to work.

The EU should have done the former, unless its aim was greater political and economic integration, and never mind the consequences.

To return to the thread topic, though (by bypassing EU issues and concentrating on such as we so far understand of Trump's America), neither of the conditions outlined in your third paragraph would seem likely to have any part to play in a Trumpist "America first" scenario, whatever form that might take (if indeed it takes any at all).

[Dave2002]

I don't believe that most people who engage in racist behaviour have been personally disadvantaged by immigrants (any more than that the mass of people who voted to Leave the EU have personally encountered disadvantage from our membership. Some may have done so 'on behalf of' those who have been disadvantaged).

I doubt that en masse the people of Stoke who seem to have voted vigorously to leave the EU, possibly because of fears about immigrants, have any real understanding of the issue. AFAIK and also based on my own experiences, it's hardly a "difficult" area with a large immigrant community. Not in the same league as, for examples, Southall, Brixton, Luton, Slough, some parts of Birmingham, Bradford, and some other parts of London, where for the most part people of whatever kind seem to live well enough, and peaceably enough.

[ahinton]

I doubt that en masse the people of Stoke who seem to have voted vigorously to leave the EU, possibly because of fears about immigrants, have any real understanding of the issue. AFAIK and also based on my own experiences, it's hardly a "difficult" area with a large immigrant community. Not in the same league as, for examples, Southall, Brixton, Luton, Slough, some parts of Birmingham, Bradford, and some other parts of London, where for the most part people of whatever kind seem to live well enough, and peaceably enough.

But doesn't this belong in another thread rather than in one about Trump's America?

[Dave2002]

But doesn't this belong in another thread rather than in one about Trump's America?

Maybe - but I was "simply" commenting on ff's remark about racism, which was itself in this thread.

It is arguably relevant to discussion about Trump as his current actions appear to exhibit racist tendencies. Although not a political commentator, Caitlin Moran's recent article in the Times - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ca...-end-597vzz5v6 - was quite interesting. She pointed out the relative lack of "coloured" faces at DT's inauguration, and also mentioned empty stands which Mr and Mrs Pence passed. This was not shown on the TV programmes I watched, though I did notice the very low percentage of visible ethnic minorities at the event - not in proportion to the known figures for the USA as a whole.

[Richard Barrett]

I've never seen or heard an interview with Chomsky in which he sounds anything other than pessimistic: being a socialist in America must be an exercise in damage limitation.

I think he calls himself an anarchist rather than a socialist, not that this changes the damage limitation. It must be said that the election of Trump is some justification for the pessimism he's been expressing for many years. Apart from anything else (and there is much else) his ascendancy is likely to be catastrophic for the future habitability of the planet.