文章 » 政治

乔姆斯基:美国民主新浪潮受到压制

乔姆斯基:美国民主新浪潮受到压制

Noam Chomsky谈美国的经济自杀

GRITtv 2012.5.4
这是一场危机,几乎全球都陷入停滞。欧美主要资本主义经济体的经济增长缓慢,贫富差距明显,这种变化给生产和金融化带来冲击。美国和欧洲正在用不同方式自杀。原题:从历史的角度来看当前局势,中文为摘要,附英文全文

从历史的角度来看当前局势--美国言论自由电视台节目主持人劳拉·弗兰德斯专访美国著名民权活动家、反战人士、语言学家诺姆· 乔姆斯基

原文提要诺姆·乔姆斯基曾在上世纪七八十年代参加民权、反战和反干预运动,对"占领华尔街"运动创建的合作团体及其政治影响印象颇深。他认为,美国执行的政策相当于经济自杀,但在工人合作团体等空间内人们还是有可能换一种方式生活。

美欧陷入危机

劳拉·弗兰德斯问:您如何从历史的角度来看当前局势?

诺姆-乔姆斯基答:这是一场危机,几乎全球都陷入停滞。欧美主要资本主义经济体的经济增长缓慢,贫富差距明显,这种变化给生产和金融化带来冲击。美国和欧洲正在用不同方式自杀。欧洲在衰退中采取紧缩政策,必将引发灾难,而且已经遭到抵制。美国主要是在转移生产租金融化。这个问题很难解决。

问:从政治角度如何来看?

答:同样有所不同。欧洲极端排外主义抬头,对福利社会构成威胁。在衰退中采取紧缩政策对社会契约造成冲击。美国的选举制度几乎彻底崩溃。很长时间以来受控于私人开支的选举制度已经变成了公共关系的舞台。

共和党几乎放弃成为传统政党的努力,开始追随富人和企业的脚步。这么做无法获得选票,因为必须调动另一部分选民:宗教右派。上世纪80年代以来宗教右派不断壮大,现在成为共和党的重要选民基础,这意味着共和党反对流产和妇女权利。美国的本土主义者非常恐惧,而且恐惧情绪随着他们认识到白人很快将成为少数民族而与日俱增。他们就是民主党人。共和党已经没有温和派。虽然现在民主党还有中间派,但也开始右倾,放弃了大部分白人工人阶级。

阶级斗争激化

问:您将"占领"运动描述为30年来对阶级斗争的第一次有组织反击。

答:这是一场阶级斗争,也是一场针对年轻人的斗争,所以教育成本才会飙升。这不是出于真正的经济原因.而是一种控制和灌输技巧。实际上此次运动是第一次有组织的大规模反击。

问:将"占领"运动和"阿拉伯之春"相提并论合适吗?

答:相似之处在于,二者都是对新自由主义的反击。但在埃及这样的穷国和美国这样的富国造成的影响不同。不过规模颇为相似。新自由主义给埃及带来数字上的增长。在"阿拉伯之春"之前埃及是世界银行和国际货币基金组织的典范。唯一的问题是:工资降低、公共服务减少、粮食补贴消失、财富高度集中以及贪腐泛滥。实际上也应该对南美近10年来发生的事件进行剖析。50年前拉美就迈向了解放,现在"阿拉伯之春"开始步其后尘。"阿拉伯之春"也同样产生了传染效果,鼓舞了"占领"运动,并与之产生互动。

问:媒体对"占领"运动的报道十分暧昧。无政府主义和组织之间矛盾吗?

答:媒体报道之所以暧昧不清,是因为"占领"运动存在两条不同的路线。一条是政治路线:规范银行、杜绝选举献金、提高最低工资标准和加强环保举措。这条路线不但对社会舆论,还对相关的实际行动产生了影响。另一条路线是建立合作团体,这对美国这样分崩离析的国家而言至关重要。虽然美国人几乎不发表言论,只关注电视和互联网。但是如果没有可以畅所欲言的次级组织,就无法实现民主。"占领"运动创建的社团教会人们互相帮助、共同协作、发展自己的福利体系并且拥有发表言论和民主参与的空间。这就是造成媒体报道暧昧不清的原因。

问:这是媒体夸大"占领"运动的暴力性的原因吗?

答:媒体总是试图展现处于边缘地带的人们发起的运动毫无意义或者暴力的一面,但很难关注运动的真正核心:建立美国缺乏的民主互助团体。马丁·路德·金曾说,他就像摩西看到了应许之地却无法到达,而那片应许之地就是"穷人运动"。他被暗杀后,他的夫人科雷塔· 斯科特·金发起了一场公民权利运动,从孟菲斯一直蔓延到整个南方,直至华盛顿,但最终却被国会扼杀。这就是政府对待对其构成威胁的民众运动的方式。



问:金博士曾在孟菲斯支持工人罢工,您如何看待工会运动的未来?

答:上世纪20年代这场罢工遭到挫败。工人罢工后来几经起伏,取得了一定成果。继里根总统之后,克林顿总统采取了另一种瓦解工会的方法:北美自由贸易协定。该协定加大了对工会组织的束缚。最终的结果是,私人部门的工会化降低到7%。虽然公共部门的工会得以存留,但是近年来在奥巴马的插手之下也受到重创。冻结联邦公务员的工资相当于加重公共部门的负担。

问:这么说工会还是有希望的?

答:至少不比上世纪20年代差。工会组织和罢工运动的确令政府感到恐惧,因为这是工人占领工厂的前兆。二战后工会一直受到打击,美国的工会历史尤其充满暴力,无数工人为此牺牲。

媒体欺骗民众

问:媒体如何使权力、民主以及个人的社会角色"货币化"?

答:它们位于权力体系的中央。无论如何,媒体也是企业,属于大企业的一部分,在很多方面与其他权力体系联系密切。因此它们通常都是反动的。媒体和学术界都说人民是民主实践的主体,但事实上美国的民主参与十分匮乏。媒体批评伊朗的总统候选人必须得到伊斯兰教长的支持,但却从未指出美国的候选人必须得到资本家的支持。没有募集数百万资金就无法在美国参加总统竞选。媒体在某些方面的批评具有欺骗性,而且它们惯于互相通气。

--英文概述

In an interview with GritTV’s Laura Flanders, author and MIT professor Noam Chomsky discussed the potentially bleak future facing both the United States and the European Union. Both, he said, are facing historic crises and are going about trying to resolve them in exactly the wrong ways.

According to Chomsky, we are currently living in a period of “pretty close to global stagnation” but that the world’s great powers are reacting to the lack of growth in exactly the wrong manner. “The United States and Europe are committing suicide in different ways, but both doing it.”

He called European austerity measures “a disaster” and indicated that he expects them to fail, the question being more about how long it will take. The spending cuts and slashing of benefits to workers are ultimately part of a plan designed to dismantle the social contract, he said, although some governmental leaders are more willing than others to call it that.

The U.S., Chomsky believes, has failed in that our electoral system has been “shredded” by the introduction of private money. Our nation has shipped production and manufacturing offshore and concentrated on the “financialization” of our economy. The social safety net has essentially been replaced by the prison system, he said, with the U.S. “getting rid of the superfluous population through incarceration.”

It’s also a mistake, he said, to treat the Republican Party as a genuine political party rather than the “lock-step” policy arm of the superrich. Of course, the wealthy can’t sell the idea of a plutocracy to the population outright, so they mobilize the socially conservative base by stoking the so-called “culture wars.”

Chomsky has a new book, Occupy, about the Occupy Wall Street movement, what it says about society and humanity’s way forward through this time of economic and social stagnation. He calls OWS “the first major public response to 30 years of class war” and believes that the movement’s greatest success has been the introduction of the inequalities of everyday life into the public dialogue.

The nearly half-hour discussion ranges over a number of topics, but keeps coming back again and again to the importance of individual engagement in society and the political system, and the power of Occupy as a force for social and political change.

--英文全文

LF: Let’s start with the big picture. How do you describe the situation we’re in, historically?

NC: There is either a crisis or a return to the norm of stagnation. One view is the norm is stagnation and occasionally you get out of it. The other is that the norm is growth and occasionally you can get into stagnation. You can debate that but it’s a period of close to global stagnation. In the major state capitalists economies, Europe and the US, it’s low growth and stagnation and a very sharp income differentiation a shift — a striking shift — from production to financialization.

The US and Europe are committing suicide in different ways. In Europe it’s austerity in the midst of recession and that’s guaranteed to be a disaster. There’s some resistance to that now. In the US, it’s essentially off-shoring production and financialization and getting rid of superfluous population through incarceration. It’s a subtext of what happened in Cartagena [Colombia] last week with the conflict over the drug war. Latin America wants to decriminalize at least marijuana (maybe more or course;) the US wants to maintain it. An interesting story. There seems to me no easy way out of this….

LF: And politically…?

NC: Again there are differences. In Europe there’s an dangerous growth of ultra xenophobia which is pretty threatening to any one who remembers the history of Europe… and an attack on the remnants of the welfare state. It’s hard to interpret the austerity-in-the-midst-of-recession policy as anything other than attack on the social contract. In fact, some leaders come right out and say it. Mario Draghi the president of the European Central Bank had an interview with the Wall St Journal in which he said the social contract’s dead; we finally got rid of it.

In the US, first of all, the electoral system has been almost totally shredded. For a long time it’s been pretty much run by private concentrated spending but now it’s over the top. Elections increasingly over the years have been [public relations] extravaganzas. It was understood by the ad industry in 2008 -- they gave Barack Obama their marketing award of the year. This year it’s barely a pretense.

The Republican Party has pretty much abandoned any pretense of being a traditional political party. It’s in lockstep obedience to the very rich, the super rich and the corporate sector. They can’t get votes that way so they have to mobilize a different constituency. It’s always been there, but it’s rarely been mobilized politically. They call it the religious right, but basically it’s the extreme religious population. The US is off the spectrum in religious commitment. It’s been increasing since 1980 but now it’s a major part of the voting base of the Republican Party so that means committing to anti-abortion positions, opposing women’s rights… The US is a country [in which] eighty percent of the population thinks the Bible was written by god. About half think every word is literally true. So it’s had to appeal to that – and to the nativist population, the people that are frightened, have always been… It’s a very frightened country and that’s increasing now with the recognition that the white population is going to be a minority pretty soon, “they’ve taken our country from us.” That’s the Republicans. There are no more moderate Republicans. They are now the centrist Democrats. Of course the Democrats are drifting to the Right right after them. The Democrats have pretty much given up on the white working class. That would require a commitment to economic issues and that’s not their concern.

LF: You describe Occupy as the first organized response to a thirty-year class war….

NC: It’s a class war, and a war on young people too… that’s why tuition is rising so rapidly. There’s no real economic reason for that. It’s a technique of control and indoctrination. And this is really the first organized, significant reaction to it, which is important.

LF: Are comparisons to Arab Spring useful?

NC: One point of similarity is they’re both responses to the toll taken by the neo lib programs. They have a different effect in a poor country like Egypt than a rich country like the US. But structurally somewhat similar. In Egypt the neoliberal programs have meant statistical growth, like right before the Arab Spring, Egypt was a kind of poster child for the World Bank and the IMF [International Monetary Fund:] the marvelous economic management and great reform. The only problem was for most of the population it was a kind of like a blow in the solar plexus: wages going down, benefits being eliminated, subsidized food gone and meanwhile, high concentration of wealth and a huge amount of corruption.

We have a structural analogue here – in fact the same is true in South America – some of the most dramatic events of the last decade (and we saw it again in Cartagena a couple of weeks ago) Latin America is turning towards independence for the first time in five hundred years. That’s not small. And the Arab Spring was beginning to follow it. There’s a counterrevolution in the Middle East/North Africa (MENAC) countries beating it back, but there were advances. In South America [there were] substantial ones and that’s happening in the Arab Spring and it has a contagious effect – it stimulated the Occupy movement and there are interactions.

LF. In the media, there was a lot of confusion in the coverage of Occupy. Is there a contradiction between anarchism and organization? Can you clarify?

NC: Anarchism means all sort of things to different people but the traditional anarchists’ movements assumed that there’d be a highly organized society, just one organized from below with direct participation and so on. Actually, one piece of the media confusion has a basis because there really are two different strands in the occupy movement, both important, but different.

One is policy oriented: what policy goals [do we want.] Regulate the banks, get money out of elections; raise the minimum wage, environmental issues. They’re all very important and the Occupy movement made a difference. It shifted not only the discourse but to some extent, action on these issues.

The other part is just creating communities — something extremely important in a country like this, which is very atomized. People don’t talk to each other. You’re alone with your television set or internet. But you can’t have a functioning democracy without what sociologists call “secondary organizations,” places where people can get together, plan, talk and develop ideas. You don’t do it alone. The Occupy movement did create spontaneously communities that taught people something: you can be in a supportive community of mutual aid and cooperation and develop your own health system and library and have open space for democratic discussion and participation. Communities like that are really important. And maybe that’s what’s causing the media confusion…because it’s both.

LF: Is that why the same media that routinely ignores violence against women, played up stories about alleged rape and violence at OWS camps?

NC: That’s standard practice. Every popular movement that they want to denigrate they pick up on those kind of things. Either that, or weird dress or something like that. I remember once in 1960s, there was a demonstration that went from Boston to
Washington and tv showed some young woman with a funny hat and strange something or other. There was an independent channel down in Washington – sure enough, showed the very same woman. That’s what they’re looking for. Let’s try to show that it’s silly and insignificant and violent if possible and you get a fringe of that everywhere.

To pay attention to the actual core of the movement — that would be pretty hard. Can you concentrate for example on either the policy issues or the creation of functioning democratic communities of mutual support and say, well, that’s what’s lacking in our country that’s why we don’t have a functioning democracy – a community of real participation. That’s really important. And that always gets smashed.

Take say, Martin Luther King. Listen to the speeches on MLK Day – and it’s all “I have a dream.” But he had another dream and he presented that in his last talk in Memphis just before he was assassinated. In which he said something about how he’s like Moses he can see the promised land but how we’re not going to get there. And the promised land was policies and developments which would deal with the poverty and repression, not racial, but the poor people’s movement. Right after that (the assassination) there was a march. [King] was going to lead it. Coretta Scott King led it. It started in Memphis went through the South to the different places where they’d fought the civil rights battle and ended up in Washington DC and they had a tent city, Resurrection Park and security forces were called in by the liberal congress. The most liberal congress in memory. They broke in in the middle of the night smashed up Resurrection Park and drove them out of the city. That’s the way you deal with popular movements that are threatening…

LF: Thinking of Memphis, where Dr. King was supporting striking sanitation workers, what are your thoughts on the future of the labor movement?

The labor movement had been pretty much killed in the 1920s, almost destroyed. It revived in the 1930s and made a huge difference. By the late 1930s the business world was already trying to find ways to beat it back. They had to hold off during the war but right after, it began immediately. Taft Hartley was 1947, then you get a huge corporate propaganda campaign a large part if it directed at labor unions: why they’re bad and destroy harmony and amity in the US. Over the years that’s had an effect. The Labor movement recognized what was going on far too late. Then it picked up under Reagan.

Reagan pretty much informed employers that they were not going to employ legal constraints on breaking up unions (they weren’t not strong but there were some) and firing of workers for organizing efforts I think tripled during the Reagan years.

Clinton came along; he had a different technique for breaking unions, it was called NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement.] Under NAFTA there was again a sharp increase in illegal blocking of organizing efforts. You put up a sign – We’re going to transfer operations to Mexico… It’s illegal but if you have a criminal state, it doesn’t make a difference.

The end result, is, private sector unionization is down to practically seven percent. Meanwhile the public sector unions have kind of sustained themselves [even] under attack, but in the last few years, there’s been a sharp [increase in the] attack on public sector unions, which Barack Obama has participated in, in fact. When you freeze salaries of federal workers, that’s equivalent to taxing public sector people…

LF: And attacks on collective bargaining?

NC: Attacks on collective bargaining in Wisconsin [are part of] a whole range of attacks because that’s an attack on a part of the labor movement that was protected by the legal system as a residue of the New Deal and Great Society and so on.

LF: So do unions have a future?

NC: Well, it’s not worse than the 1920s. There was a very lively active militant labor movement in the late part of the 19th century, right through the early part of 20th century. [It was] smashed up by Wilson and the red scares. By the 1920s right-wing visitors from England were coming and just appalled by the way workers were treated. It was pretty much gone. But by 1930s it was not only revived, it was the core element of bringing about the New Deal. The organization of the CIO and the sit-down strikes which were actually terrifying to management because it was one step before saying “O.K. Goodbye, we’re going to run the factory.” And that was a big factor in significant New Deal measures that were not trivial but made a big difference.

Then, after the war, starts the attack, but it’s a constant battle right though American history. It’s the history of this country and the history of every other country too, but the US happens to have an unusually violent labor history. Hundreds of workers getting killed here for organizing at a time that was just unheard of in Europe or Australia…

LF: What is the Number One target of power today in your view? Is it corporations, Congress, media, courts?

NC: The Media are corporations so… It’s the concentrations of private power which have an enormous, not total control, but enormous influence over Congress and the White House and that’s increasing sharply with sharp concentration of private power and escalating cost of elections and so on…

LF: As we speak, there are shareholder actions taking place in Detroit and San Francisco. Are those worthwhile, good targets?

NC: They’re ok, but remember, stock ownership in the US is very highly concentrated. [Shareholder actions are] something, but it’s like the old Communist Party in the USSR, it would be nice to see more protest inside the Communist Party but it’s not democracy. It’s not going to happen. [Shareholder actions] are a good step, but they’re mostly symbolic. Why not stakeholder action? There’s no economic principal that says that management should be responsive to shareholders, in fact you can read in texts of business economics that they could just as well have a system in which the management is responsible to stakeholders.

LF: But you hear it all the time that under law, the CEO’s required to increase dividends to shareholders.

NC: It’s kind of a secondary commitment of the CEO. The first commitment is raise your salary. One of the ways to raise your salary sometimes is to have short-term profits but there are many other ways. In the last thirty years there have been very substantial legal changes to corporate governance so by now CEOs pretty much pick the boards that give them salaries and bonuses. That’s one of the reasons why the CEO-to-payment [ratio] has so sharply escalated in this country in contrast to Europe. (They’re similar societies and it’s bad enough there, but here we’re in the stratosphere. ] There’s no particular reason for it. Stakeholders — meaning workers and community – the CEO could just as well be responsible to them. This presupposes there ought to be management but why does there have to be management? Why not have the stakeholders run the industry?

LF: Worker co-ops are a growing movement. One question that I hear is — will change come from changing ownership if you don’t change the profit paradigm?

NC: It’s a little like asking if shareholder voting is a good idea, or the Buffet rule is a good idea. Yes, it’s a good step, a small step. Worker ownership within a state capitalist, semi-market system is better than private ownership but it has inherent problems. Markets have well-known inherent inefficiencies. They’re very destructive. The obvious one, in a market system, in a really functioning one, whoever’s making the decisions doesn’t pay attention to what are called externalities,effects on others. I sell you a car, if our eyes are open we’ll make a good deal for ourselves but we’re not asking how it’s going to affect her [over there.] It will, there’ll be more congestion, gas prices will go up, there will be environmental effects and that multiplies over the whole population. Well, that’s very serious.

Take a look at the financial crisis. Ever since the New Deal regulation was essentially dismantled, there have been regular financial crises and one of the fundamental reasons, it’s understood, is that the CEO of Goldman Sachs or CitiGroup does not pay attention to what’s calledsystemic risk. Maybe you make a risky transaction and you cover your own potential losses, but you don’t take into account the fact that if it crashes it may crash the entire system. Which is what a financial crash is.

The much more serious example of this is environmental impacts. In the case of financial institutions when they crash, the taxpayer comes to the rescue, but if you destroy the environment no one is going to come to the rescue…

LF: So it sounds as if you might support something like the Cleveland model where the ownership of the company is actually held by members of the community as well as the workers…

NC: That’s a step forward but you also have to get beyond that to dismantle the system of production for profit rather than production for use. That means dismantling at least large parts of market systems. Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make profit in order to survive. You are compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others.

Markets also have a very bad psychological effect. They drive people to a conception of themselves and society in which you’re only after your own good, not the good of others and that’s extremely harmful.

LF: Have you ever had a taste of a non market system — had a flash of optimism –– oh this is how we could live?

NC: A functioning family for example, and there are bigger groups, cooperatives are a case in point. It certainly can be done. The biggest I know is Mondragon but there are many in between and a lot more could be done. Right here in Boston in one of the suburbs about two years ago, there was a small but profitable enterprise building high tech equipment. The multi-national who owned the company didn’t want to keep it on the books so they decided to close it down. The workforce and the union, UE (United Electrical workers), offered to buy it, and the community was supportive. It could have worked if there had been popular support. If there had been an Occupy movement then, I think that could have been a great thing for them to concentrate on. If it had worked you would have had another profitable, worker-owned and worker managed profitable enterprise. There‘s a fair amount of that already around the country. Gar Alperovitz has written about them, Seymour Melman has worked on them. Jonathan Feldman was working on these things.

There are real examples and I don’t see why they shouldn’t survive. Of course they’re going to be beaten back. The power system is not going to want them any more than they want popular democracy any more than the states of middle east and the west are going to tolerate the Arab spring… .They’re going to try to beat it back.

LF: They tried to beat back the sit-in strikes back in the 1930s. What we forget is entire communities turned out to support those strikes. In Flint, cordons of women stood between the strikers and the police.

NC: Go back a century to Homestead, the worker run town, and they had to send in the National Guard to destroy them.

LF: Trayvon Martin. Can you talk for a few minutes about the role of racism and racial violence in what we’ve been talking about? Some people think of fighting racism as separate from working on economic issues.

NC: Well you know, there clearly is a serious race problem in the country. Just take a look at what’s happening to African American communities. For example wealth, wealth in African American communities is almost zero. The history is striking. You take a look at the history of African Americans in the US. There’s been about thirty years of relative freedom. There was a decade after the Civil War and before north/south compact essentially recriminalized black life. During the Second World War there was a need for free labor so there was a freeing up of the labor force. Blacks benefitted from it. It lasted for about twenty years, the big growth period in the ‘50s and ‘60s, so a black man could get a job in an auto plant and buy a house and send his kids to college and kind of enter into the world but by the 70s it was over.

With the radical shift in the economy, basically the workforce, which is partly white but also largely black, they basically became superfluous. Look what happened, we recriminalized black life. Incarceration rates since the 1908s have gone through the roof, overwhelmingly black males, women and Hispanics to some extent. Essentially re-doing what happened under Reconstruction. That’s the history of African Americans – so how can any one say there’s no problem. Sure, racism is serious, but it’s worse than that…

LF: Talk about media. We often discern bias in the telling of a particular story, but I want you to talk more broadly about the way our money media portray power, democracy, the role of the individual in society and the way that change happens. …

NC: Well they don’t want change to happen….They’re right in the center of the system of power and domination. First of all the media are corporations, parts of bigger corporations, they’re very closely linked to other systems of power both in personnel and interests and social background and everything else. Naturally they tend to be reactionary.

LF: But they sort of give us a clock. If change hasn’t happened in ten minutes, it’s not going to happen.

NC: Well that’s a technique of indoctrination. That’s something I learned from my own experience. There was once an interview with Jeff Greenfield in which he was asked why I was never asked ontoNightline. He gave a good answer. He said the main reason was that I lacked concision. I had never heard that word before. You have to have concision. You have to say something brief between two commercials.

What can you say that’s brief between two commercials? I can say Iran is a terrible state. I don’t need any evidence. I can say Ghaddaffi carries out terror. Suppose I try to say the US carries out terror, in fact it’s one of the leading terrorist states in the world. You can’t say that between commercials. People rightly want to know what do you mean. They’ve never heard that before. Then you have to explain. You have to give background. That’s exactly what’s cut out. Concision is a technique of propaganda. It ensures you cannot do anything except repeat clichés, the standard doctrine, or sound like a lunatic.

LF: What about media’s conception of power? Who has it, who doesn’t have it and what’s our role if we’re not say, president or CEO.

NC: Well, not just the media but pretty much true of academic world, the picture is we the leading democracy in the world, the beacon of freedom and rights and democracy. The fact that democratic participation here is extremely marginal, doesn’t enter [the media story.] The media will condemn the elections in Iran, rightly, because the candidates have to be vetted by the clerics. But they won’t point out that in the United States [candidates] have to be vetted by high concentrations of private capital. You can’t run in an election unless you can collect millions of dollars.

One interesting case is right now. This happens to be the 50thanniversary of the US invasion of South Vietnam – the worst atrocity in the post war period. Killed millions of people, destroyed four countries, total horror story. Not a word. It didn’t happen because “we” did it. So it didn’t happen.

Take 9-11. That means something in the United States. The “world changed” after 9-11. Well, do a slight thought experiment. Suppose that on 9-11 the planes had bombed the White House… suppose they’d killed the president , established a military dictatorship, quickly killed thousands, tortured tens of thousands more, set up a major international terror center that was carrying out assassinations , overthrowing governments all over the place, installing other dictatorships, and drove the country into one of the worst depressions in its history and had to call on the state to bail them out Suppose that had happened? It did happen. On the first 9-11 in 1973. Except we were responsible for it, so it didn’t happen. That’s Allende’s Chile. You can’t imagine the media talking about this.

And you can generalize it broadly. The same is pretty much true of scholarship – except for on the fringes – it’s certainly true of the mainstream of the academic world. In some respects critique of the media is a bit misleading [because they’re not alone among institutions of influence] and of course, they closely interact.

请您支持独立网站发展,转载请注明文章链接:
  • 文章地址: http://wen.org.cn/modules/article/view.article.php/c10/3374
  • 引用通告: http://wen.org.cn/modules/article/trackback.php/3374

罗检秋:坤角如何走红--社会文化史视野中的民初京剧 胡鞍钢:如何打开和阅读中国这部天书
相关文章
崔泉墨:凤凰与秃鹫--新闻业者的道德和能力
汪晖:“去政治化的政治”与大众传媒的公共性(访谈)
美学者乔姆斯基答人物周刊问
熊月之:晚清几个政治词汇的翻译与使用
王绍光:财政没有透明就不是民主
王绍光:民族主义与民主
福柯:作者是什么?
刘洪涛:理解胡安·林兹的民主思想
王东宾:回乡调查之一:农村低保的民主治理
包雅钧:罗伯特·达尔论美国民主政治体制
赵汀阳:民主如何正当
赵汀阳:中国应比西方有更大胸怀
许章润:法治社会与良善生活
王绍光:“公民社会”袪魅
杨鹏飞:金融危机下工会的抉择
中组部党建所:国外主要政党关于党内民主建设的理论与实践
包华石:小心西方诡辩束缚中国话语
王绍光:谈民主和“选主”
王安忆:隔断与打通
常凯:论中国的罢工权立法
常凯: 南海罢工三重要启示
陈静:媒体行业的道德困境:社会公益个人隐私难兼顾
张慧瑜:社会“主体”的想象与“体制化”规训——以几则电视栏目报道为例
冯象:下一站,renmin大学
萧武:宜黄事件反思
罗慕士:揭露美国谎言的美国人
一清:南方报系与重庆打黑的纠结
游正林:60年来中国工会的三次大改革
裴宜理:中国革命中的知识精英与底层教育
韩少功:扁平时代的写作
赵刚:人不好绝望,但也不可乱希望 ——读陈映真的《一绿色之候鸟》
何鹏举:民主怎么了?从“市场政治”到“剧场政治”
王绍光:美中央情报局及其文化冷战
汪晖:“代表性的断裂”:反思未来民主的进程
沈灏:追寻繁荣复兴,建设公共社会
李 曼: 国内外广告伦理研究综述
萧武:警惕某些钉子户与媒体垄断正义--理解拆迁
乔姆斯基:“阿拉伯世界失火了”--论埃及危机
蔡明烨:《文化之战:媒体与英国左派》--两代间的拉锯战
卡尔维诺:准--诺顿讲稿之三
林春:“中国模式”议
乔姆斯基:9·11之后,战争是唯一的选择?
乔姆基斯:美国维稳的背后意图
托马斯·迈尔:论民主
福山:“否决政治”让美国瘫痪
乔姆斯基:世界和平命悬济州岛
加布里尔与汪晖:金融危机时代的民主和正义
王绍光:民主为什么是个好东西
林沛理:民主的最大敌人
汉森:混合宪制vs.三权分立:现代民主的君主制与贵族制特征
韩西雅:究竟谁使工人文化宫变得“很纠结”?
刘平:裴宜理《上海罢工》述评
克鲁格、汪晖:反媒体撕开了媒体那厚重的窗帘(对话)
李玉敏:《盛京时报》关于"九一八"事变报道评析
乔姆斯基:财富阶级和无以立足的无产者
麦克切斯尼、福斯特:互联网与资本主义的邪恶联姻
王绍光:民主:独轮车还是四轮驱动
本明顿:政治与友谊--与雅克·德里达的座谈
王晓明:文化不能被钱牵着鼻子走
彼得拉斯:欧洲和美国工人阶级:右派、左派和中间派
汪晖:世界政治制度中“代表性”的缺失(访谈)
冯象:法学的历史批判--答《北大法律评论》
哈特、奈格里:《大众》序言:共同的生活
王绍光:抽选、代表、民主--关于民主运作形式的反思
李零:环球同此凉热--我的中国观和美国观
朗西埃:从胜利的民主到罪恶的民主--民主之恨第1-4章
王绍光:《超越选主:对当代民主的反思》前言
王绍光:失而复得的民主利器:抽选
莱恩·穆勒森:从民主和平理论到强制性政权更迭
韩潮:保守者归来——读曾亦《共和与君主》
王绍光:另一个世界是可能的
苏力:作为制度的皇帝
王绍光:代表型民主与代议型民主
蔡美儿:《起火世界》序言:全球化与种族仇恨
API: 工具箱 焦点 短消息 Email PDF 书签
请您支持独立网站发展,转载本站文章请提供原文链接,非常感谢。 © http://wen.org.cn
网友个人意见,不代表本站立场。对于发言内容,由发表者自负责任。



Xoops 苏ICP备10024138 | © 06-12 人文与社会