Pessimism Of The Intellect, And Optimism Of The Will

Q: Why have you decidedto participate in the WSF? What do you think of it?

Noam Chomsky: Twomeetings are taking place pretty much at same time. One is the Davos meeting of"the masters of the universe," to borrow the term used by the world'sleading business journal, the London Financial Times, when they met a year ago.The term was presumably used with a touch of irony, but it is rather accurate.The second is the World Social Forum (WSF) meeting in Porto Alegre, bringingtogether representatives of popular organizations throughout the world whoseconception of what the world needs is rather different from that of the masters.

Neither group, of course,is popularly elected -- a charge constantly leveled by the masters and theiracolytes against the WSF, but, obviously, far more applicable to the Davosgroup. In fact, it would be a misunderstanding to say that on these issues,there even exist "elected governments." The reason is that the issuesare kept from the general public even in the most free and democratic societies,the United States for example.

Public opinion studiesreveal that the general population is quite concerned with these issues, andlargely opposed to the policies of the masters, which are supported with nearunanimity by the corporate sector, the government, and the ideologicalinstitutions. The media are well aware of the popular opposition. The WallStreet Journal, for example, ruefully observed that opponents of the mislabeledfree trade agreements have an "ultimate weapon": the generalpopulation, which must therefore be kept in the dark. For the same reasons, theissues do not arise in the political arena. But of the parts of the globalpublic that have become informed through popular organizations, labor unions,peasant organizations, independent media, and other means, it is a reasonableguess that the WSF represents a rather broad sample.

So in answer to yourquestion, I am delighted to have the opportunity to attend.

As for what I think of it-- in my opinion, hopes for a decent future lie very substantially in the handsof those who will be gathered at Porto Alegre and others like them.

Q: Porto Alegre Forum likesto say that it is an anti-Davos event. Don't you think that the problem is allthis polarity? Is the way to combat the so-called "unique thought" topropose an "opposed unique thought"? Do you really think that thedemands of the Porto Alegre Forum -- forgiveness of debts, less agriculturalprotectionism, etc -- are enough to finish underdevelopment?

Noam Chomsky: Tosay that the Porto Alegre Forum is "anti-Davos" is to presuppose thatsomehow Davos is prima facie legitimate and that popular opposition to what itrepresents requires some special justification. If one chooses to frame thematter in these terms -- I do not -- it would be more reasonable to say thatDavos is "anti-Porto Alegre," and to ask why the Davos gathering evenhas the right to take place.

Davos is a gathering ofthose whom the international business press, with only a touch of irony, calls"the masters of the universe."

Porto Alegre is a gatheringof popular organizations from around the world whose picture of how societyshould be organized is different from that of the masters.

Such confrontations aremajor themes of history. And fortunately, popular forces have won many victoriesover the centuries, overcoming illegitimate and unaccountable concentrations ofpower, such as those gathering in Davos. They of course pretend to representdemocratically-elected governments, but that is such a transparent absurditythat I presume we need waste no time on it, particularly with regard toneoliberal globalization.

Whether the programs ofthose gathered at the WSF will make significant inroads into the seriousproblems of global society -- of which "underdevelopment" is only one-- depends on what falls under the term "etc." in the question. Surelyit should go far beyond the two examples mentioned, important as they are.

Q: Do you see this movementas a new sort of "International" of the left, liberal and progressiveforces of the world society? In that sense, should it have a program?

Noam Chomsky: Thetraditional goal of the left since its modern origins has been to bring about aform of globalization that is rooted in participation of the great mass of thepopulation of the world, and that, accordingly, will be responsive to theirinterests and concerns -- diverse, complex, often unclear, to be explored in acreative and experimental spirit: an "international," in short. Therewere preliminary efforts from the 19th century, either terminated, or distortedby brutal state power or other factors.

The WSF has the promise tobecome the first really significant manifestation of such globalization from thebottom, a very welcome prospect, with enormous promise. As for a program, thereis a measure of shared understanding and perspective. Programs have beenformulated in earlier meetings, and have led to cooperative action. Just howspecific a program should be leads us back to the earlier question.

Q: Why should the hegemonicpower be worried about the WSF and this kind of movement? Does it have a realchance of challenging the financial and multinational corporations power?

Noam Chomsky: Thehegemonic power, and the "masters of the universe" generally, aregreatly concerned about the WSF and the forces it represents, and about whatthey call "anti-globalization movements," a term of propaganda that weshould avoid. That is why there is such a constant drumbeat of articlescondemning these movements. It is also the reason why international economicagreements are negotiated largely in secret, and rarely reported in any detail.

Consider as an example theQuebec Summit of the Americas last April, which was to endorse the "FreeTrade Area of the Americas." We know from polls that the issues are ofgreat concern to the public, but the issues, and the forthcoming Summit and theFTAA, were kept carefully out of the electoral arena in November 2000. They alsoreceived virtually no media attention beforehand.

At the Summit itself,coverage was mostly meaningless. It kept mainly to disruptions, along with greatpraise for the ringing endorsement of democracy and "transparency" bythe leaders who gathered at Quebec. Their commitment to these high ideals wasillustrated not only by the suppression of the issues, but by the blackout ofmajor studies by leading human rights and economic analysis organizations of theeffects of NAFTA, hailed as the model for the new FTAA. These were timed forrelease at the summit, and were on every news desk in the country. It's a usefulexperiment to check the coverage (don't bother; it has been done and it wasvirtually zero). The silence and secrecy make good sense. The system ofconcentrated power is fragile, and knows it, and has to bend every effort toensure that the "ultimate weapon" is not unsheathed.

Q: What kind ofcontribution can the world social forum give to this hope of a peaceful world?

Noam Chomsky: TheUS intelligence agencies have recently published their projections for thecoming years. They predict that "globalization" -- meaning, theparticular form of neoliberal economic integration favored by centers of power-- will continue, leading to growing inequality and increased financialvolatility (hence slower growth and dangerous chaos). Five years ago, the USSpace Command, which is in charge of the programs to militarize space (including"missile defense" as a small component), presented its publicjustification for these programs. A prime concern is the growing gap between"haves" and "have-nots" that they too anticipate as aconsequence of the investor-rights version of "globalization." Theyexpect, reasonably, that the result will be turmoil among growing numbers ofimpoverished people throughout the world, who will have to be controlled byforce. Hence the need to militarize space, providing the US with immenselydestructive weapons launched from space, probably nuclear-powered. Apart fromthe horrendous consequences for the victims, that is also a prescription forglobal disaster.

Against this background,the potential contribution of the World Social Forum to a peaceful world becomesquite clear.

The WSF is a gathering ofpeople of the world who are committed to reversing these dangerous and extremelythreatening tendencies, focusing on the core problem -- namely, the process ofneoliberal globalization that is expected by its designers to have these andother ominous effects. Participants at the WSF basically agree with theassessment of the intelligence agencies and military planners, but theyrepresent people, not concentrated power, and therefore have differentinterests: their concern is decent survival for human beings, not increasedconcentration of power and profit with all that it entails, as the designers ofthe system themselves anticipate.

Returning to your question,the contribution of the WSF is essential, and can be decisive.

Q: Is it possible toorganize the complex and diverse scenario of the so call anti-globalizationforces (in my articles, I like to depict them not as being in a struggle againstglobalization, but against neoliberal globalization)?

Noam Chomsky: Youare quite right to call them opponents of "neoliberal globalization,"that is, of a particular form of international economic integration that the"masters of the universe" have designed in their own interests, withthe interests of the general population incidental. Not a great surprise; itwould be surprising, and a sharp break from history as well as logic, if it wereotherwise.

No one is opposed to"globalization" in the general sense. For example, participants in theWSF are not opposed to the fact that it exists and that they are attending, aconstructive illustration of globalization.

You are also right to referto the "complex and diverse scenario." That is as it should be. Manyinterests are represented, as they should be when people from South and North,from farms and factories, from all walks of life, young and old,.... cometogether to consider complex issues that are very important but often poorlyunderstood -- by anyone. How much organization there SHOULD be is an openquestion: it should not go beyond the level of common purpose and understanding.How much there WILL be is up to the participants to determine.

Q: What is the differencebetween anti-Americanism and the struggle against globalization? Can this beused by the United States to promote a new polarization such as the one thatresulted from the Cold War? Is there a way to detect and stop terrorism in anti-U.S.reactions?

Noam Chomsky: Itis always important to look carefully at how questions are formulated, whetherin the sciences or inquiry into human affairs. One often finds hiddenassumptions that should be unearthed, critically analyzed, and often rejected.When that essential preliminary task is undertaken, we often find that thequestions cannot be answered, and should be recast.

I think that's true in thiscase. Take the concept "anti-Americanism." It is a rather curious one.Such concepts are typically used only in totalitarian states or militarydictatorships. Thus "anti-Sovietism" was a grave crime in the halls ofthe Kremlin in the old days, and I suppose the Brazilian generals and theirsupporters charged their internal enemies with being "anti-Brazilian."

In countries that have somerespect for their freedom, the concept would be dismissed with ridicule. Imaginethe reaction in the streets of Milan or Rome to a book called"anti-Italianism." And then observe the actual reaction in the US andBritain to a book by a respected author called "anti-Americanism" -- ascholar who specializes in the Soviet Union, incidentally, and thereforeunderstands very well the model he is following. No one should be surprised todiscover that the book is a deceitful rant against those who fail to worship theHoly State with sufficient ardor, and that it is for that reason that it ishighly praised in sober reviews in the New York Times and elsewhere.

Those who criticized thecrimes of the Kremlin or the Brazilian generals were not"anti-Russian" or "anti-Brazilian," surely. And by the sametoken, those who oppose crimes of the most powerful state in the world are notanti-American; in fact, the crimes are often strenuously opposed by aconsiderable majority of the population. The term should be abandoned, as in thecase of its ugly models.

Consider next "thestruggle against globalization." I know of no such struggle.

The participants in thePorto Alegre World Social Forum, for example, are not opposed to the fact thatthey are able to attend, thanks to international integration, that is,globalization. The First International did not oppose globalization: that wasits highest goal, as its name indicates. Globalization in itself is supported oropposed by no one. The question is: what kind of globalization? Like others, theterm "globalization" has been appropriated by the powerful as anideological weapon. They want it to be used to refer to a specific form ofinternational economic integration, designed in the interests of investors andfinancial institutions. They can then condemn critics of their projects as"anti-globalization," primitives who want to return to the stone age.No one should tolerate such deceitful practices.

Going back to the question,it cannot be formulated, and hence cannot be answered, because it is framed inconventional terminology, which is crafted to ensure that only inappropriateanswers can be given.

Translating the question tomore appropriate terms, it should be transparent that the popular strugglesagainst this particular form of international integration cannot possibly beunderstood to be "anti-American," where the term "American"refers to the people of the United States. One simple reason is that it isopposed by the majority of the American population, which is why negotiationshave to be carried on behind closed doors, the issues do not arise in elections,and the media and journals have to hold a "veil of secrecy" over whatthey know.

As for polarization, powercenters in the US and their associates elsewhere do not want it: rather theywant submission. But if those opposed to them do not submit, they will of courseseek to vilify and punish them, leading to polarization. There is nothing new orsurprising about that.

On prevention of terrorism,it is an important task, whether it is the terrorism of the weak or of thestrong, which, not surprisingly, is far more lethal and destructive. Of course,the powerful will seek to restrict the concept so that it applies only to terroragainst them, excluding the far worse terrorism they carry out against others.If we submit to their efforts, we will ask only how terror directed against therich and powerful should be detected and stopped. But we have fallen into a trapin the first step.

Q: Some months after thefirst edition of the World Social Forum, last year, president Fernando HenriqueCardoso has defended the creation of a tax over the financial transfers aroundthe world. This was originally a proposal of Attac, one of the NGO thatorganizes the World Social Forum. Also last year, a french parlament membercongratulated Fernando Henrique for the Social Forum, even though the presidenthad nothing to do with the event. Do you believe that the discussions of theForum can change the mind of the men in power or at least influence their acts?

Noam Chomsky: Theproposal goes back many years; in fact, with many variants. The best-knownproposals of the kind you mention are those of Nobel laureate James Tobin, about30 years ago, though John Maynard Keynes had made similar suggestions for a taxon financial transfers long before. The issue became of great importance withthe dismantling of the Bretton Woods system in the 1970s, leading to anastronomical increase in very short-term financial transactions, a developmentthat many economists regard as a primary reason for the general deterioration ofthe global economy during the "neoliberal" period of the past 25years; John Eatwell and Lance Taylor in a recent book, to mention one example.

As for the WSF, it is anoutgrowth of many years of popular resistance to the specific form ofinvestor-rights "globalization" that has been imposed on much of theworld in the past several decades. Protest and resistance have been locatedmostly in the South, including prominently Brazil. In recent years they haveextended to the industrial countries as well, and important internationalalliances have been formed, a very promising development.

There has certainly been aninfluence on the rhetoric of dominant power centers, and to an extent, on theirpractice. Even totalitarian regimes and military dictatorship have to respond,to some extent, to popular mood. That is far more true of more free anddemocratic systems. But the goal should not be just to induce the powerful to beless harsh. Rather, it should be to dismantle concentrations of illegitimatepower. That has been a leading theme of history for many centuries, fortunately,and it has by no means run it course.