You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December, 2007.
(just found out that they got charged with insighting violence after this show, though it was later dropped)
Through the best of times,
Through the worst of times,
Through Nixon and through Bush,
Do you remember ‘36?
We went our seperate ways.
You fought for Stalin.
I fought for freedom.
You believe in authority.
I believe in myself.
I’m a molotov cocktail.
You’re Dom Perignon.
Baby, what’s that confused look in your eyes?
What I’m trying to say is that
I burn down buildings
While you sit on a shelf inside of them.
You call the cops
On the looters and piethrowers.
They call it class war,
I call it co-conspirators.‘Cause baby, I’m an anarchist,
You’re a spineless liberal.
We marched together for the eight-hour day
And held hands in the streets of Seattle,
But when it came time to throw bricks
Through that Starbucks window,
You left me all alone.
You watched in awe at the red,
White, and blue on the fourth of july.
While those fireworks were exploding,
I was burning that fucker
And stringing my black flag high,
Eating the peanuts
That the parties have tossed you
In the back seat of your father’s new Ford.
You believe in the ballot,
Believe in reform.
You have faith in the elephant and jackass,
And to you, solidarity’s a four-letter word.
We’re all hypocrites,
But you’re a patriot.
You thought I was only joking
When I screamed “Kill Whitey!”
At the top of my lungs
At the cops in their cars
And the men in their suits.
No, I won’t take your hand
And marry the State.
‘Cause baby, I’m an anarchist,
You’re a spineless liberal.
We marched together for the eight-hour day
And held hands in the streets of Seattle,
But when it came time to throw bricks
Through that Starbucks window,
You left me all alone.
I’m now the proud owner of a new domain name. If only I could fix the fucking buttons, my blog would look great.
Damn. Just realised my long(ish) rant about John Bird, the Big Issue and Westminster council has somehow gone missing from my blog. How odd.
Questioner: Hello Mr. Chomsky. I’m assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I’m also assuming you have a general idea about his positions. Here my summary of Mr. Paul’s positions:
- He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).
Noam Chomsky: Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.
- He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)
Noam Chomsky: “Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded — like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.
- He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).
Noam Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you’ve already mentioned.
There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. Just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power — itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.
- He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).
Noam Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultra-nationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.
I really can’t find differences between your positions and his.
Noam Chomsky: There’s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being “broken” are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based — the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).
So I have these questions:
1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of “Libertarianism”?
Noam Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion — on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.
2) Can you please tell me what role “private property” and “ownership” have in your school of “Libertarianism”?
Noam Chomsky: That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.
3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate…and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?
Noam Chomsky: No.
This is the first day of my life
I swear I was born right in the doorway
I went out in the rain suddenly everything changed
They’re spreading blankets on the beach
Yours is the first face that I saw
I think I was blind before I met you
Now I don’t know where I am
I don’t know where I’ve been
But I know where I want to go
And so I thought I’d let you know
That these things take forever
I especially am slow
But I realize that I need you
And I wondered if I could come home
Remember the time you drove all night
Just to meet me in the morning
And I thought it was strange you said everything changed
You felt as if you’d just woke up
And you said “this is the first day of my life
I’m glad I didn’t die before I met you
But now I don’t care I could go anywhere with you
And I’d probably be happy”
So if you want to be with me
With these things there’s no telling
We just have to wait and see
But I’d rather be working for a paycheck
Than waiting to win the lottery
Besides maybe this time is different
I mean I really think you like me
I fear I’m rambling in a fashion that won’t make sense to anyone other than myself. New year’s resolution: take time to write properly so people that can’t see into my brain are able to understand what the fuck I’m talking about.
If I have to choose a side between the communitarians and the liberals, I’ll inevitably choose the former (while trying to assimilate the worthwhile bits of the latter). Even so, reading stuff like this makes me fucking cringe at the extent to which New Labour’s communitarianism has legitimated a political language which can’t even account for the worthwhile concerns liberalism raises about infringements into the private sphere.
As some twat on facebook said recently:
It reminds me of the sort of approach that Julian Le Grand has started talking about, based on the recognition that defaults matter – so rather than having the permission to smoke as the default position (people only have to buy a packet of cigarettes), he suggests the default should be that no-one has the permission to smoke, and those that want to would have to buy a permit to do so.
It’s a way of changing behaviour without impeding anyone’s fundamental rights and freedoms, an approach he calls ‘libertarian paternalism’.
Though I suspect the guy misreads Le Grand, given that the former is clearly a moron whereas the latter clearly isn’t, it’s oddly indicative of a wider trend. The invocation of ‘community’ is a trump card that can be played against any claim of individual liberty. People should be allowed to spend their time giving food to the homeless? Not if it harms the community. A notion I find so utterly libertarian when deployed within the context of an anarchist politics, is so profoundly not when utilised by the modern day labour politican.
http://open.yale.edu/courses/courses.html
Posted here so I don’t forget it and can come back to it when I have time. Cheers Kate. That’s an amazing link.
