Great ideas and very well written, but honestly comrade Chomsky is a bit boring... ( )

Try as a might I can't really find any holes in his arguments except of course he always sees any socialists as some benign creatures with nothing but charity in their hearts and not just the other side of the same power coin. ( )

yay chomsky being smart again ( )

Profit over people has been a rallying cry for some time now. Chomsky put this book out in 1998 and it has been revised in 2011. I remember Reagan's deregulation and saving American industry (usually with protectionism). I was in graduate school in the late 90s and remember the push for globalization. The irony there too is I was attended a very liberal university and the international relations program was big on globalization. Globalization was seen as open and free trade with each nation producing what it did best. The increased efficiency would raise the standard of living for everyone. Fear of losing American jobs was offset by cheaper products and a rising standard of living. Finally, globalization would bring peace. With trade creating dependencies on other nations for products and exports, peace would become the logical result. All this sounded fine, in theory, and instructors made a strong case for these ideas. Peace, prosperity, and free trade sounded rather ideal. There was a problem, however.

The job exodus, low corporate taxes, government subsidies, and corporate influence over government created the concept of neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is meant to inspire thinking of Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations. Instead, it has created a system that has lead to the 1%. In 1971, 90% of international financial transactions were in the real economy -- trade or long term investment. By 1995, 95% of the international transactions were speculative; only 5% were in the real economy. Chomsky places much of the blame on Nixon and the ending of the Brenton Woods System and the regulation and oversight it created.

Chomsky quite frequently crushes the belief that America spreads democracy and freedom to nations of the world. In fact, America has a long history of supporting dictatorships. More than a few democratically elected leaders have been overthrown directly or indirectly by the US. The reason boils down to US interests. Democratically elected leaders generally owe their allegiance to those who elected them. Generally this is the poor and lower-class in developing countries. People want jobs, healthcare, and affordable housing and food. Many times this means public ownership of resources -- oil and minerals. It can mean land redistribution, tariffs, and a primarily domestic economy. These are threats to "Ameican Interests." American business wants foreign ownership of natural resources and foreign investment/control of industry. Large plantation owners are more stable than small peasant farms.

United States offered to help governments open themselves to foreign investment and ownership. In Latin America, the United States offered governments protection of their borders. This allowed military spending inside countries to be concentrated on internal security. Increased Internal security allowed governments to hold power and keep the population under control. Stability and open markets were America's interests. In the long run, all this has done is to increase the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few.

America's freedom is something of an illusion we hold to. We established ourselves as a free country, but only white, land owning males had a say in the government. John Jay said that those who own the country should have the voice. Madison later would follow up by stating if everyone can vote, it would harm the land owners, eventually leading to land redistribution violating the key right of property. America considered a race of people to be only 2/3s a person. Women were not given the right to vote until the 20th Century. The original inhabitants had to wait until 1924 before they became citizens in the land of their ancestors.

For such a small publication Chomsky covers a great deal of territory and I have only touched on a few items. Our world is not what we see it to be. People are too willing to believe and turn that belief to blame. How could the World Court try and bring charges against the US for mining Nicaragua's harbors? How can the UN not agree with the United States? How can countries not allow foreign ownership of their property? The question should simply be "Why can't people see what is really going on?".


( )

This collection of essays and speeches describes the driving force behind and the impact of neoliberalism. The position that Chomsky takes is less that neoliberalism is a bad thing (though he does clearly make that point) and more that it's espousal by US and other wealthy nations along with their major business entities, is entirely without economic or political principles. That is to say the free trade and market liberalisation of neoliberalism are only accepted by these players when it suits their own narrow interest (eg a particular US industry sector has become strong enough to dominate in domestic and international markets). In these circumstances the aim is to negotiate trade agreements which insist on full access to the markets of other countries. This is a tradition that goes back to the Opium Wars and beyond. Where the chill of market forces and competition don't suit, because a sector is uncompetitive, then protectionism is adopted.
In either scenario, the participants in the decision making process are limited to senior business leaders protecting their interests and government ministers in opaque international forums such as the OECD. The topic may be trade but the impact is on people, their jobs and working conditions and the environment. The process is fundamentally undemocratic, serving the interests of the few not the many.
Whether you agree with Chomsky on these points or not, this is well worth reading. It may be a bit dated (1998), but the debate continues. ( )