Thomas Lane wrote:

>Hi folks. If any of you are interested in reading or listening to some of
>Noam's extensive political work, be sure to check out the Chomsky Archive at
>http://www.worldmedia.com/  We've got several complete books, dozens of
>audio, the complete audio to many speeches, and much more. In the near
>future we'll add a search engine, links, and some other cool stuff. You can
>also read the interview I did with Noam on anarchism.
>
><Plug mode off>
>
>Having said that, have any of you thought about what Noam would think of
>this list? What possible criticisms might he have?
>

Thanks Tom, I've been meaning to bring that up as I have a bone to pick
with Chomsky on a related subject.

I am referring to something Chomsky said in an interview sometime about the
social impact and possibilities of the internet, this is the bit that I
particularly disagreed with:

        "CM (Chris Mountford): Do you think that the technology is
        inherently democratic?

        NC: There is no technology which is inherently democratic or
        no technology which is inherently oppressive for that matter,
        technology is usually a fairly neutral thing. The technology
        doesn't care really whether it's used for oppression or liberation,
        it's how people use it."

I think this is simply wrong, not the last sentence, which is absurdly
self-evident (of course the technology itself has no feelings at all), but
to claim that no technology is inherently democratic or oppressive seems to
fly in the face of history. I am no expert on history, like Lawrence Libby
I have little formal education (less than Lawrence actually), but even I
have not failed to see the link between development of technologies and new
social systems.

For example the development of agriculture provided the material
circumstances necessary to, indeed virtually obligating, the development of
a society based on private property. A more recent example is the
development of the printing press, which many scholars believe was a
significant factor in the reformation.

Another example, as noted by Chomsky himself somewhere (I think, I can't
recall exactly where) is in the field of education itself. He points out
that the provision of universal education was necessitated by the
development of mechanised industry and the industrial revolution, which
required a workforce that had at least a rudimentary literacy and knowledge
of mathematics. As such, it seems certain, even the development of the
factory mode of production (terrible as that was) had the redeeming feature
of obligating our capitalist masters to provide us with the tools of
liberation - knowledge, or at least the means (literacy) to gain knowledge.

Chomsky's view, as expressed in the same interview, is that technology (all
technology) can be used to liberate or oppress, depending on how people use
it:

        "But the way it works out in practice is a reflection of the
        state of activism and organisation and resource allocation
        and so on. Incidentally the public nets where everyone is
        talking to one another have, in my opinion, the same degraded
        character as the individual e-mail messages; people are just
        too casual in what comes across...the effect is you often get
        good things, but buried...the quality of what people are doing
        is actually declining because of their intense involvement in
        these e-mail interactions which are have such an
        overwhelming character when you get involved in them. And
        it's kind of seductive, not personally for me, but I know people
        get seduced by the computer and sitting there banging around
        at it. It has a negative potential and a certain positive
        potential, but I think it's a double edged sword"

This seems to miss the more fundamental point that even if a technology
only provides the material possibility of a more democratic society it is
not neutral, on the contrary it is revolutionary in nature. I am assuming
of course that humans DESIRE freedom, an assumption I share with Chomsky,
but based on this assumption it seems to me inevitable that if people
desire this, then all that is required is the means, the tools, by which
the desired state can be attained.

But if the means are not at hand, that is if the technology or technologies
are not available to achieve genuine freedom and democracy, because they
have not been invented, then desire for these conditions will not, can not,
be fulfilled - no matter how much it is desired.

This is a concept argued by Aristotle, he pointed out in defence of slavery
that it was necessary because "the looms won't operate themselves", or
words to that effect. Of course as more sophisticated technologies have
been invented by human kind it has rendered the more oppressive social
systems redundant. Slavery is ended not by the good nature of the
slave-owner, but because slavery is less efficient - even uncompetititive
by comparison with modern technologies.

How can anyone say that such technologies are neither inherently democratic
or oppressive?

I may have more to say on this, but I wonder whether it is really
necessary, is there anyone out there willing to defend the Chomsky position
- or is it a non-starter. I hope there is, perhaps its just my Aussie sense
of giving a bloke a fair go, but I feel a bit guilty attacking poor old
Noam when he isn't around to defend himself.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tasmania