A closet capitalist called Chomsky
Published by Yazad Jal October 25th, 2005 in PhilosophyNoam Chomsky, recently voted as the world’s top public intellectual is a closet capitalist. Don’t shake your head and drown me in his numerous speeches and books. Instead of listening to him talk, watch what he does. Hoover Institute’s Peter Schweizer did exactly that and here’s what he came up with:
One of the most persistent themes in Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest one percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor — like eighty percent of the population — pay off the rich.”But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution — just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,” he wrote in one email. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. Although he did say that the tax shelter is okay because he and his family are “trying to help suffering people.”
Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite the anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist he has turned himself into a brand name. As John Lloyd puts it, writing critically in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those “open to being ‘commodified’ — that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be.”
Read the whole piece.
22 Responses to “A closet capitalist called Chomsky”
- 1 Pingback on Oct 25th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
- 2 Pingback on Aug 5th, 2008 at 6:59 am
- 3 Pingback on Aug 5th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Is there any revolution left anywhere at all? The ways the modern world functions is pretty much fixed irrespective of which side of the spectrum you belong to, even if the Left runs a govt all by itself in India (god forbid!), you won’t see too much deviation from the norm. There won’t be any gulags or community farming. Best example of this is what has happened to the Left in Kerala where they have outdone the Congress in being corrupt and so on.
All they have done it is to change the respective colours to red and terminologies to old commie-speak, but the deed in itself remains the same. Most revolutions or revolutionary ideas/ideals, from eco movements to libertarianism, these days are again very much marketed and commoditized. Take your pick, get your kick, tune in and feel happy that you’ve made your little bit of difference somewhere.
He is maximising his utility..what is wrong with that ? Isn’t that rational behaviour ? Without wanting to sound like an apologist for Chomsky , what is Schweizer trying to say exactly ? That Chomsky by taking tax breaks is not practising what he preaches ? And by copyrighting his intellectual output he is a hypocrite !? While an individual with a net-worth of 2,000,000 $ is definitely wealthy by any standards , he is still far from the wealthiest one percent, whose use of trusts is of a totally different scale. Secondly, assuming he did manage to reach the level of the top one percent and exploited tax holes - and he still spoke against it, would that make that fact a falsity ? What is Schweizer trying to say - the message is wrong ? The messenger is wrong ? If for e.g. if Gandhi was secretly feared touching harijans and avoided as much as he could - would that take anything away from the man or the message ?
Yadu, what is wrong with Chomsky is that he is displaying the very behaviour he condemns in others, and that makes him a hypocrite at the very least. That has no bearing on his beliefs, whose validity bears no relation to his behaviour, and must be argued on different grounds that don’t concern the man himself. Yazad is not arguing otherwise.
Did you know:
“Comodified” actually means “to turn into a comode”
the correct usage would be “comoditize”!!!
Comsky*? Capitalist? Really?
Is nothing sacred?
*misspelt on purpose
First of all Yezad Jalji, thanks for bringing this to our notice. I think you have just started a new discussion string in the Indian blogosphere.
The most telling phrase in the article is this: “In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand”.
I am not a Chomsky fan but I must say that the book “Understanding Power” has a few good ideas. Although the pet themes of Chomsky, his pathologies are also there in the book in ample measure. I would say that another very smart intellectual of the chomskian mould is our very own, Madam Arundhati Roy.
I don’t think the whole point is that Chomsky is a hypocrite. Rather, Chomsky argues that it is feasible — not merely morally preferable — for society to be organized along grounds of cooperation and non-competitiveness. But the fact that an exponent of such views sees fit to charge such high speaking fees, amass a large amount of wealth for himself and his family, and do all he can within the law to avoid paying taxes (to fund government programs that he no doubt supports) can cast some doubt on the feasibility of his vision for society. The level of cooperation that he envisions may not be something that comes naturally to humans but instead might be achievable only through a strong, intrusive government. Yes, it is a cheap tactic and it is much better to argue with empirical results and logic. But it makes a good story.
I still do not understand how this makes Chomsky a hypocrite. If Schweizer would rather poke a hole in Chomsky’s conclusions by a scholarly analysis it would still make sense, since there are many as Chomsky tends to get carried away and exaggerates. However having read that article I doubt Schweizer possesses that capability.
Secondly excuse me for relying on anecdotal evidence, but I have heard that Chomsky usually speaks not for a fee but on the condition that his room, board and fare is covered. At least that was the case when he spoke at my college when I was doing my under-grad.
Maybe does he does charge 12,000 $ from student unions I guess. Though which student unions/faculty did agree for paying a speaker 12,000 $ whose political views the vast majority of students outside the Business/Economic/Political faculties hardly know/care about I would be interested in knowing, cause mine definitely wouldn’t even if it could afford to. I would like to believe that Chomsky is smart and wily enough to do a free seminar and realise that the resultant publicity will fetch him higher royalties. Now that would be a true capitalist.
Finally assuming he does charge 12,000 $ a pop and puts that money in a trust for his daughters – that makes him a hypocrite ? That would be akin to saying Ayn Rand, a woman who made much sense is a hypocrite if she gave alms to a poor man.
Don’t get me wrong, while I recognise the fact that Chomsky makes a living off his activism, however I’d rather prefer hearing critique of his views as opposed to his estate planning for his family. What I absolutely detest is the low blows on either side of the political spectrum which add nothing to the debate, of which Schweizer’s article is a prime example.
Yadu, to answer your examples:
1) Ayn Rand did not oppose giving alms to a poor man. Yes, she would have opposed giving alms to a poor man who would make no attempt at all to improve his lot. If it turned out that Ayn Rand gave alms to such a man then yes, it would certainly mark her out as a hypocrite.
More importantly, if it turned out that if she gave alms to such a man because she felt obliged to help him, then it would be powerful evidence for those who claim that the urge to help others is innate in human beings and cannot be controlled by conscious volition - it would certainly be a strike against Ayn Rand’s theories.
2) Similarly, if Gandhiji secretly loathed Harijans and avoided contact with them, then it would certainly mark out Gandhiji as a hypocrite.
It would also provide ammunition to a Casteist who claims that segregation of castes is an innate feeling which cannot be controlled by human volition.
There is hardly any thoughtful person who is a Casteist in the sense I described above, but there are serious people who question Chomsky’s views.
There’s me for example. There’s also Yazad. There is also Amit above. We oppose the estate tax. We support property rights. We believe that a person has the right to pass on his property to his children. We believe all this not just on ethical grounds, but also on grounds of feasibility. We believe that the urge to amass wealth, to love your children and to pass on your wealth to them is natural and should be used as a force for the good.
That Chomsky, who is consciously opposed to all these things is still unable to follow his own advice is certainly a strong bit of evidence for us. If a “socially conscious” person like him can’t bring himself to do what he preaches, how does he think that his ideas will be implemented on a society-wide scale without large-scale coercion?
The rational tone of the comments by amit, ravikiran in support of their views is slightly missing from the words of Peter Schweizer. He sounds partisan.
Ravi, I am not disputing there are serious people opposed to Chomsky’s views - it’s Schweizer’s tone in the article I have a problem with and the credibility of his insinuations. I would believe that the vast majority of Chomsky’s supporters + readers, if told that the royalties from the books they were reading are reinvested by Chomsky within the laws of the country, it would have no bearing of the inferences they draw from his books, however in this respect you disagree.
Where he does dispute property rights as you mention, as well as I can remember it is with regards to transfer of output/knowledge created/subsidised by public money to private corporations through lobbying/influence of the moneyed elite. Where is the contradiction with copyrighting his books? I haven’t read anything by Chomsky yet where he says a man in not entitled to his output.
Brand Chomsky sells as Schweizer’s mentioned. Maybe because he is not just another America-hating mullah, but someone whose books are backed by a high degree of verifiable sources hence credible. I disagree with large parts of what he has to say, and unfortunately Chomsky’s views are only getting more extreme as he is getting older. However I also disagree to the contention that Chomsky’s ability to profit from his books/views contradicts what he stands for.
If by earning a living and profiting from his writing ability he is indeed a hypocrite, I guess the only lifestyle-choice he has is of Unabomber (in jest!).
Surely he does favour the imposition of estate tax? Surely, he does oppose trust funds? Trust funds are a device for the rich to ensure that money gets transferred to their children without the state getting its share… Isn’t it hypocritical for him to set up the trust fund himself? If the argument is that there are many people richer than he who should go first, then almost everyone can make that argument. Shouldn’t he lead by example? Besides, most of the people in the world are poorer than he. Doesn’t he have an obligation to transfer his wealth to them?
>Where is the contradiction with copyrighting his books?
Chomsky worked in MIT, which is a statefunded institute. It is highly unfair of him to use the thinking and research done in the time he has been employed with them to write books and claim copyright for himself. This is exactly what he accuses others of doing.
As for his “verifiable sources” and credibility, I suggest you look up the record of his statements on the Khmer Rouge.
And yes, he could live the lifestyle of a Unabomber and he’d still be a hypocrite. He would still not be following the standards he sets for others.
An implicit assumption in the above kind of analysis seems to be that a man who criticizes a system should completely renounce everything to do with the system. This is simply not possible in most circumstances. In fact, today if you want to criticize any system of reasonable size, you have to be in a position to do so yourself, both in terms of status and money. For example, if you want to help the poor, you yourself have to first become rich enough to help them. This is not hypocrisy. It’s simply the means that are necessary these days to achieve that objective. These days, people listen to you in the first place only if you have prestige or money, or both. I don’t think Chomsky is seeking monetary gains for himself that are in any way out of line or extravagant. To ask him to give up being part of the capitalist system before criticizing it is a little childish; one may as well ask him not to wear Levi’s jeans and Calvin Klein shirts before he writes a critique of textile corporations. Going to an even bigger extreme, one may as well demand that he not consume life saving medicines, if he wants to criticize the pharmaceutical industry. Gone are the days when one could live in a forest and preach about iniquity and goodness, expecting social and political revolutions. In fact it can be argued that those among Chomsky’s critics who demand that he completely forgo capitalism want him to do exactly that: to leave the US and be in a place where he will be unable to criticize and expose them, so that they can now enjoy a nice, Chomsky-free, blissfully ignorant life themselves.
If commodification refers to Chomsky’s drive to make his ideas known through constant reiteration and by providing massive amounts of references about them, then any writer who assertively makes a point is guilty of trying to ‘commodify himself’. The more important question concerns the image which people have of him. It can be argued that it’s the people who are commodifying Chomsky through idolatry. He is merely presenting his ideas in a forceful manner, in a way that he deems fit. If people are taking his word as dogma and attaching a brand value to them, it’s really their problem, not his. In fact, this would be a part of the general hero-worship of him that people indulge in. In his works that I have read, I have not come across Chomsky saying something to the effect of ‘This is important because I say it’. In fact, that is precisely what drew me to his writings. A lot of the things which he says are ‘elementary’ (although the kind of elusive elementary concepts that we find elementary only in retrospect). Much of what he says can be gleaned through common sense, and by keeping your eyes open and your mind alert. Much of what he says can be understood if we read the everyday news intelligently and critically. You can hate Chomsky and still check up on his references objectively and agree with many things that he says. You certainly don’t have to believe in something because Chomsky says it. A lot of his references are accessible, especially in today’s Internet age, and so can be verified quite independently of him. So I believe that Chomsky does not try to ‘commodify’ himself. If any one, it’s the people who worship him that do so. Hero-worship is largely the people’s fault, not the hero’s. In fact, given the critical and objective thinking that Chomsky encourages his readers to do, he would never approve of any hero-worship. In a Berkeley talk a few years ago, he said (in rough paraphrase), “People come to hear me talk and would believe me because I am a Professor from MIT. That is nonsense. They should hear me speak and then think about what I have said, making up their own mind quite independently of who I am”. In fact, Chomsky’s attitudes are exactly those that are supposed to prevail in scientific and unbiased thinking.
the statements about getting his articles and speeches for a fee look one-sided. Do a Google search and see how many of his important articles and audio interviews you can get for free. There are also many video clips which you can see for free. So there is actually more of a case that you can make here for the number of articles and clips of his that are freely available. Again, as far as his name is concerned, it would only be a servile and easily swayed reader who will assume that a book is great only because it has Chomsky’s name on it. So again, I think the burden of answerability is more on the readers. Also, I can see that this is a good example of how the publishers are manufacturing the consent of readers by using Chomsky’s name, something that Chomsky has constantly written about. Regarding the high fee for his public speeches, first of all, there are many professional speakers who charge that kind of fee for speeches. I don’t know the exact nature of the fee structure for professional speakers, but one can think of reasons why he charges a high fee. The simple goal may be to filter the number of requests for speeches that he gets. I am sure that someone like Chomsky must be getting hundreds of requests for speeches and interviews almost every day. If the usual systems of filtering based on priority don’t work and if he is still getting deluged with requests, I would not be surprised if monetary filters are the only ones that can be used to restrict the number of talks that he gives. And again, all this argument is only assuming that there is something inherently wrong or ‘capitalist’ in charging a high fee for giving a public speech. Also as before, the analysis seems to be neglecting the number of free talks he has given.
Regarding Chomsky’s capitalizing on 9/11 etc., If Chomsky did all this, at most, it would be all right to call him an opportunist. Firstly, how does that make him an ardent capitalist by default? Secondly, by that token, all of us are opportunists. Wouldn’t all of us like to do something at the right place and the right time to maximize the impact of our opinions and thoughts? Chomsky seems to have simply done that. Again, as for the fee, he could have done that precisely because he was in greater demand and wanted to limit the number of speeches that he would need to give.
As for Chomsky’s views about the Khmer Rouge, yes, he did receive flak for them. But firstly, they constitute only a small part of his work over the years, and everybody can make mistakes. Many of his references are verifiable, about many diverse matters. Secondly, it is very much true that the US media vastly overinflated the discussion of the Khmer Rouge horrors, unspeakable as they were, and almost completely stifled the coverage of the also horrific Indonesian invasion of East Timor whose consequences were being seen at the same time.
Lastly, an observation- Peter Schweizer has written two other books, one on the Bush dynasty, and the other one on the Reagan dynasty, and both have received reviews from Publishers Weekly, which point to the fact that they seem biased. His book from which the Chomsky critique has been picked, itself has has been said to be something which is less of a critique of liberal ideology, and more of fodder for ad hominem bloggers. (Amazon)
Let me emphasize that I am not saying that the opinions or statements of Peter Schweizer are false. I only think that they cannot provide a conclusive picture of Chomsky being a closet capitalist, and they lay too much emphasis on the man himself rather than his deeds. Men live and die, but it’s their ideas which endure. If Chomsky’s models endure, after a hundred years, his personal life’s activities as such would be a footnote to a footnote, compared to the discussion of his ideas. Even if he does do the things noted above, the motivations could be very different from what have been assumed. Quibbling over the above-mentioned traits of Noam Chomsky, would be, I think, doing a great disservice to his work and the body of knowledge he has erected, on which we should really be spending our time. Irrespective of what Chomsky does, it would be a good idea to consult his references and read his words. The proof of the pudding is in its eating, not in the private life of the cook.
http://ashujo.blogspot.com
Hariprasad says -
“The rational tone of the comments by amit, ravikiran in support of their views is slightly missing from the words of Peter Schweizer. He sounds partisan. ”
I don’t know about the rational tone of amit and ravi, but i got the exact same feeling when i read Schweizer’s article. It had a partisan and over-the-board tone to it. To draw parallel, it was like watching Sun TV (owned by Karunanidhi’s family) on a news item regarding Jayalalitha’s corruption.
I am sure, a thousand credible counters can be given to Schweizer’s article.
On the same note, I agree with the contradiction pointed out by Schweizer in Chomsky’s attitude towards trusts etc.
To add to the last two sentences in my prev. comment -
“I am sure, a thousand credible counters can be given to Schweizer’s article. — provided the necessary research and interpretations are done”
However, I dont think it is worth it because “I agree with the contradiction pointed out by Schweizer”.
The man is making a point - and I dont see any reason not to take it. I only have problems with the boldfacing and underlining, and that doesnt matter.
Distinctions between the message and the messenger cannot be cited as an argument here - for the simple reason that we are not debating the message. The issue here is Chomsky’s ignorance of his own position in the spectrum.
No one is questioning his right to own a copyright. What is in question here is his insistance that others do not/should not have that right. Again, the question is not whether he has a right to invest and create trust funds, what is in question is his insistance that others do not have that right.
I enjoyed this post. You should consider mailing a link to the post to India’s own utter Chomskey nutter Arundhati Roy. She too has succesfully branded herself but to everyone else she seems to be harping endlessly on virtues of Maoist revolution.
Will Arijit Sett please note:
Dictionary
com·mod·i·fy (kə-mŏd’ə-fī’)
tr.v., -fied, -fy·ing, -fies.
To turn into or treat as a commodity; make commercial: “Such music . . . commodifies the worst sorts of . . . stereotypes” (Michiko Kakutani).
[COMMODI(TY) + –FY.]
This argument violates one of the most elemental logical fallacies, that of attacking the person. Rather than addressing the issues Chomsky raises, you have effectively avoided them and moved into a “you don’t practice what you preach” argument. I don’t care about his personal life. I care about what he has to say about the nature of our economy, society, etc.
Natty,
If Chomsky himself does not follow the ideas he propounds, then what he says about “nature of our economy, society, etc.” is all hot air as he’s not willing to follow through those abstract ideals and put them in practise.