>Noam Chomsky on The Common Good > > From his speech delivered at the Progressive Challenge, an > educational forum featuring progressive thinkers and activists, > held on Capital Hill on January 9, 1997. > >Background issues are worth attention, because it's important, I think, to >recognize how sharply contemporary ideology has departed from traditions >and values which are quite important and significant and which it claims it >upholds. That divergence is worth understanding and I think it carries a >lot of direct lessons about the current scene. > >Let's begin with the common good. We can trace that concept back to the >earliest foundations of political theory. Anyone who went to a good college >knows that it all comes from Aristotle's Politics which is surprisingly >timely in many ways. In Politics, which is pretty subtle and complex, the >main problem is how to achieve what Aristotle calls, "the Common Good of >All." Per Aristotle, "the state is a community of equals." It's aiming at >the best life possible for all of them. The people must be supreme and they >must participate fully and equally. (A qualification: "people" is a narrow >category for Aristotle. We've at least learned something in 2,000 years.) >But among those he considered the people, they have to be equal, free, >participatory. And the government must not only be democratic and >participatory, but also a welfare state, which provides, as he put it, >"lasting prosperity to the poor by distribution of public revenues" in a >variety of ways that he discusses. > >The point being that an essential feature of a decent society, and an >almost defining feature of a democratic society, is relative equality of >outcome-not opportunity, but outcome. Without that you can't seriously talk >about a democratic state. > >These concepts of the common good have a long life. They lie right at the >core of classical liberalism, of enlightenment thinking. Adam Smith, as >everyone knows, advocated free markets, but if you look at the argument for >free markets, it was based on his belief that free markets ought to lead to >a perfect equality, which is a desideratum in a decent society. Like >Aristotle, Smith understood that the common good will require substantial >intervention to assure lasting prosperity of the poor by distribution of >public revenues. > >So Adam Smith's praise of the division of labor is well known, but less >known is his condemnation of the division of labor for its inhuman effects >which, as he said, "will turn working people into objects as stupid and >ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to be" and there fore must >be prevented in any improved or civilized society by government action to >overcome the devastating market forces. > >Other leading contributors to classical liberalism went much further than >this, condemning wage labor itself, for the reason that it deprives people >of their humanity. When the laborer works under external control, we may >admire what he does but we despise what he is-a classic liberal slogan. >deToqueville said that the art advances, the artisan declines. He was, of >course, also a great figure of the classical liberal pantheon and he agreed >with Smith, Thomas Jefferson and many others, that equality of outcome is >an important feature-a crucial feature in fact-of a free and just society. >And he warned of the dangers of a permanent inequality of condition and an >end to democracy if the manufacturing aristocracy (which is growing up >under our eyes in the United States in the 1830s, remember, one of the >harshest that has ever existed in the world) should escape its confines, as >it later did beyond his worst nightmares. > >That's classical liberalism, way back to Aristotle. > >Similar ideas run through the independent working class press from the very >origins of the industrial revolution. There was a lively press, say in >eastern Massachusetts-Lowell, Lawrence and places like that-back in the >1840s and 1850s. It was run by working people, "factory girls" as they were >called, artisans and so on. They bitterly condemned what they called "the >new spirit of the age"- "gain wealth forgetting all but self" which they >regarded as a demeaning and degrading doctrine that sweeps aside any >concern for the common good, and also was destroying their culture, the >rights that they'd felt they'd won in the American Revolution, later the >Civil War. They bitterly condemned the tyranny of rising industrial >capitalism, much as deToqueville had, insisting, in their words, "that >those who work in the mills should own them," and that people should run >their own affairs, certainly in the political arena, but beyond as well. > >Well, I don't think the mill hands of Lowell and Lawrence would have been >much surprised by the views of America's leading Twentieth Century social >philosopher, John Dewey, who like them was as American as apple pie. He >describes politics as "the shadow cast over society by big business" and >he-the leading philosopher of democracy in this century- goes on to say, >"talk of democracy has little content when big business rules the life of >the country through its control of the means of production, exchange, the >press and other means of publicity, propaganda and communication." Like the >working people in eastern Massachusetts almost a century earlier, he held >that in a free and democratic society, workers must be masters of their >industrial fate and private power must be changed from a feudalistic to a >democratic order. > >These are ideas that trace back to the Enlightenment and classical >liberalism and they've reappeared constantly in popular struggle in the >United State and elsewhere. I don't think they have lost their >significance, or relevance or, for that matter, appeal. > >Some of the concerns of working people had been expressed by James Madison >years earlier. By 1792, shortly after the Constitution was established, he >was already expressing deep concerns over the fate of the democratic >experiment that he had crafted. He warned that the rising developmental >capitalistic state was leading to a real domination by the few under an >apparent liberty of the many. He deplored what he called, "the daring >depravity of the times, as private powers become tools and tyrants of >government, bribed by its largesses and overawing it with their powers and >combinations, casting over society the shadow that we call politics." > >Madison's words, but not the values, can easily be translated into a >description of the contemporary scene, and you can read them in current >writings. For example, Business Week in late 1995, reported with wonder >that the new Congress "represents a milestone for business. Never before >have so many goodies been showered so enthusiastically on America's >entrepreneurs." Though they go on to say that's not enough-the lobbyists >are called to go back to the trenches to demand more. Another accompanying >headline reads, "The Problem Now: What To Do With All That Cash"-as surging >profits are overflowing the coffers of Corporate America and dividends are >booming, while wages are stagnating or declining, along with security and >work conditions. In large measure, that's an effect of policy decisions >which were directed to these ends, including the criminal assault-criminal >in the technical sense-on labor rights in the '80s which happens to be >reviewed rather well in the same journal. > >Let me turn to another contemporary issue that traces back to Aristotle's >Politics and took an interesting turn along the way. Aristotle recognizes >that democratic systems can come in many different forms. The best >functioning of them, even the best, most properly functioning democracy >would be flawed, he felt, as long as the goal of equality is not reached. >And the reason was that if you had sharp inequality, but perfect democracy, >the poor majority would seek the interest of the needy, and not the common >good of all. That can be safeguarded only to the extent that people >generally have moderate and sufficient property-that is, neither great >wealth, nor poverty. > >Similar concerns actually entered into our own Constitution, but in a >somewhat different form, and not without a lot of tension-which continues >right to the present. In the constitutional debates, Madison raised the >same problem. He warned that "democracy would undermine the responsibility >of government to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," >that is, to keep them from plundering the rich, as John Foster Dulles and >President Eisenhower described the great problem of international affairs >in secret some years later. > >Madison expected the threat of democracy to become more severe over time >because he expected an increase in the proportion of those who "will labor >under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal >distribution of its blessings." He was concerned by what he called, "the >symptoms of a leveling spirit" that he already discerned, and he warned of >the future danger "if the right to vote were to place power over property >in hands without a share in it." > >That problem confronting Madison-the same as Aristotle's problem-could be >solved in one of two ways. One is by reducing poverty. The other is by >reducing democracy. Aristotle's choice was the first. Madison's was the >second. He recognized the problem, but since the prime responsibility of >government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority, >he therefore urged that political power be put in the hands of the more >capable set of men, those who represent the wealth of the nation, with the >public fragmented and disorganized. > >And that's the Madisonian system, which has remained fairly stable over two >centuries-although with outcomes that he very soon deplored, as I've >indicated. The reason for his surprise, I think, is that Madison, like the >rest of classical liberalism, was pre-capitalist and anti-capitalist in >spirit. And he expected the leadership to be benevolent and enlightened and >so on. > >He learned differently very fast. > >There is no reason now-anymore than there ever has been-to accept the >doctrines that sustain power and privilege. Or to believe that we are >somehow constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws-not simply >decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will. They are >human institutions and they have to face the test of legitimacy. And if >they do not, they can be replaced by others that are more free and more >just, as has often happened in the past. > > >##################################################################### > >PLEASE NOTE: new email address: [log in to unmask] > > > COUNTRY CONNECTIONS JOURNAL > Seeking The Good Life-For The Common Good > > 14431 Ventura Blvd., #407; Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 > 818.501.1896 > email: [log in to unmask] > web: http://www.igc.apc.org/cocomag/ > > " I believe in the ultimate decency of things." R.L. Stevenson >============================================================================== > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >U.S. McLibel Support Campaign Email [log in to unmask] >PO Box 62 Phone/Fax 802-586-9628 >Craftsbury VT 05826-0062 http://www.mcspotlight.org/ >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe to the "mclibel" electronic mailing list, send email > > To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: <not needed> >Message: subscribe mclibel > >To unsubscribe, change the message to: "unsubscribe mclibel"