A few weeks ago (November 2005), 77-year-old, Noam Chomsky
was voted by the British monthly Prospect
and Washington-based Foreign Policy
as the most important public intellectual alive today. Meanwhile, Maude Barlow, chairwoman of the Council of Canadians,
received the prestigious alternate Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood Award) this
week (December 8 2005) in Sweden.
There is no doubt that both Noam Chomsky and Maude Barlow
have dared to raise (and done so for many a decade) hard and difficult
questions about both globalization and the American empire. Chomsky has been
active longer than Barlow, but many of their concerns are one and the same.
Both Chomsky and Barlow publish in a prolific manner, and both have spent many
a long and demanding hour on the lecture circuit. Chomsky and Barlow have their
following and fans, and both cut to the core and centre of many of the
troubling issues in our global economic, political, military and ecological
order.
Those who have had the courage to see beneath the thin
surface of American foreign policy cannot help but see its rapacious and
duplicitous nature. The many overt and covert CIA operations (and the millions
of deaths as a result) cannot go unnoticed. The fact that our global liberal
international order tends to fawn on the wealthy and ever weaken the poor is
there for one and all to see. It does not take a great deal of thought or
research to realize that the Bretton Woods organizations beat the drums of a
market economy, and punish those who will not goose step to such an ideological
beat. The UN is often powerless to oppose both the aggressive nature of the
American empire and the capitalist bent of both the USA and laissez-faire
capitalism.
Noam Chomsky and Maud Barlow have been at the forefront in
the USA, Canada and the larger global stage in offering a significant
minority report. Their voices have not gone unheard, hence the many kudos
offered them in the past and in the final few months of 2005.
It is one thing to agree with Chomsky, Barlow and tribe
about some of their legitimate criticisms of the world order and how it
operates and is structured. The much more difficult question to answer is this: what is
the best and wisest way to oppose such an order, and, equally important, how do
we create a just and equitable world order and standards that serve a nation
well?
Chomsky, Barlow and disciples tend to, for the most part,
hold high the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), protest and
advocacy politics, government-assisted organizations, soft left networks, and
local and regional politics as the best way to resist and oppose globalization
and US imperialism. The turn to the voluntary sector, society and the people
(this can be defined in many ways) should be applauded and welcomed. It is
interesting to note that both the anarchist left and the libertarian right
share a certain suspicion of the state and formal party politics. And, this is
where it is essential to question both the anarchist and advocacy left of
Chomsky, Barlow and tribe and the libertarian right.
We should never pit society against the state. The state can
distort its high calling, and it must be criticized when it does so. This does
not mean the role of the state should be minimized. Society can and does play
an important gadfly role, but anarchist and social groups are notorious for
fragmenting and splintering for a variety of relational and ideological
reasons. Both the state and society have much to offer, and both have demons
they must face.
It is simplistic and silly to romanticize the people and
society while demonizing the state and formal party politics. Such a mentality
and ideology thwarts and undermines the very possibility of bringing about
national standards for health care, education, culture, pensions, employment
insurance and other important public goods.
Noam Chomsky and Maud Barlow have strong and committed
anarchist and advocacy approaches to dealing with American foreign policy and
globalization. Both tend to be converts and committed to such a way. This means
that the state is often seen as suspect and mostly seen in a negative manner.
Is this dualism, though, a mature way to do politics? And, more importantly, is
it likely to bring about the desired end that Chomsky and Barlow long to
attain? I doubt it. Those who dare to raise questions about the politics of
Chomsky and Barlow need not be seen as right of centre or standing in the
sensible centre. There are other ways of challenging the menace of
globalization and US imperialism than hiking too far down the Chomsky and
Barlow path and trail.
It is essential to realize that the protest and advocacy
approach to politics often turns to political parties and the state to realize
their goals and aims, and yet they constantly keep a safe distance from such a
means to actualize their ideals. Political parties are like boats that carry
the cargo of ideas across the water from one shore to another. Those who only
stand on the shoreline and complain about the crew, captain and boat without
getting on any of the boats doom themselves to a life of perpetual criticism
and protest. It is the boat of political parties that carries the larger public
issues in an imperfect way from one shore to another. Needless to say, these
boats can be seen as various political parties that ferry the passengers to
different places, but to seriously refuse to get on any boat is silly posturing
and can be quite indulgent.
Noam Chomsky and Maude Barlow have never really engaged, in
an ongoing and serious way (Barlow flirted with the Liberal party in the
1980s), what it means to work within a political party to ferry a vision from
one shoreline to another. Politics is often about a search for the possible and
the good, and when the ideal and the perfect becomes an enemy of the imperfect
good, the ideal becomes subverted and minimized. The boat, in short, never
leaves the shoreline, and those whose eyes see a better country never reach
such a destination for the simple reason they refuse to get on the craft that can
take them there.
There is no doubt that in Canada society has played an
important role in bringing about a better country to live in, but it is
political parties and the state that bring about the larger goods in a public
way. If, as Canadians, we ever hope to oppose American expansionism, we need a
strong state to say a firm NO to the USA. If we ever hope to have public
policies that ensure that one and all have access to a variety of necessary
services, we need a strong state. Those who neither think seriously nor deeply
about the needful role of the state, and those who badmouth political parties
without getting involved in them, might just be creating the conditions for the
very thing they oppose the most. The real irony is this. It is often the anarchist
and advocacy idealists, by their inability to understand the positive role of
the state in thought and deed, that might just be facilitating and lubricating
the very thing they fear the most. In short, unless the anarchist and advocacy
left can see the limitations and shortcomings of their approach to politics,
they might just be the very agents of undermining their highest ideals and
serving the power elite they so oppose.
We do need to ask, even in a minimally critical way, the
appeal and limitations, strengths and limitations of anarchist and advocacy
politics. Those who cannot question their deepest commitments are no
different from the fundamentalists they often oppose and turn their backs on.
Fundamentalism does come in various shapes, sizes and colours. It can be crude
and it can be subtle, and it is the more subtle forms that are the more
dangerous.
Noam Chomsky was voted the most important public
intellectual alive today. Maude Barlow was offered the Right Livelihood Award.
What do such kudos say about those who did the voting, and are there other
public intellectuals who see things in a broader way than Chomsky? And, are
there others whose understanding of living rightly might go deeper than
Barlow’s and the Council of Canadians?
rsd