Wednesday, March 24, 2004
This is going to be good. In a strange post (permalink seemingly busted) attacking both the IMF and Wall Street, Chomsky laments the "democracy deficit" in the United States:
People in the more civilized sectors of the world (what we call "the third world," or the "developing countries") often burst out laughing when they witness an election in which the choices are two men from very wealthy families with plenty of clout in the very narrow political system, who went to the same elite university and even joined the same secret society to be socialized into the manners and attitudes of the rulers, and who are able to participate in the election because they have massive funding from highly concentrated sectors of unaccountable power that cast over society the shadow called "politics," as John Dewey put it.
But it's up to us whether we want to tolerate this, and if we could begin to approach the level of democracy of, say, Brazil, we could do quite a lot about IMF conditionalities. And it doesn't happen by just showing up once every four years to participate in an "election.
OK, as a Princetonian I am compelled to agree with the Noamster: that our major parties both nominated Yalies who were tapped by Skull and Bones is both eerie and repulsive. But then again, both are preferable to the only Princetonian in the race.
Today, at least, the "comments" are better than the blogger's own work. For example, from Doug:
I would like to think that there are better "democratic" examples other than that of Brazil. What about autonomous villages in Chiapas, or the assembly movement, and self managed factory occupations of Argentina?
Call me a bonehead! I consider myself reasonably well-informed, and I've completely ignored the beacon of freedom that is the "self managed factory occupations of Argentina."