Chomsky’s theories of the corporate-state
partnership, and how it concentrates power in the hands of large corporations,
are well known, especially:
But neither Rand nor Hayek subscribed to
corporate-state partnership. In both cases, they value the individual, not the
corporation and not the state and certainly not the combination of the two. So
I don’t think that is the reason why he is unhappy with both Rand and Hayek.
From the above video “elections are always
bought”, “President Obama’s election was funded by corporate interests”, and
numerous other examples indicate his deep displeasure with the state-corporate binding.
I would like to see quotes from Chomsky
that specifically describe his displeasure with both Rand
and Hayek rather than trying to predict his rationale. Chomsky is always very
deep in his rationale, so I don’t think that we can simply say the
corporate-state binding is why he is against either Rand or Hayek.
Mike Pool quoted this short paragraph from
the article, which is somewhat enlightening:
"Hayek was the kind of 'libertarian'
who was quite tolerant of such free societies as Pinochet's Chile, one of the
most grotesque of the National Security States instituted with US backing or
direct initiative during the hideous plague of terror and violence that spread
over the hemisphere from the 60s through the 80s. He even sank to the level of
arranging a meeting of his Mont Pelerin society there during the most vicious
days of the dictatorship. "
But that critique is not directed at Hayek’s
ideas about economics in general, only about his interpretation of Hayek’s poor
showing in the political area, specifically in supporting Pinochet and the US
methods of supporting property owners at the expense of the average citizen.
His description of how democratic groups
in Haiti were overturned by
government and a dictator was reinstalled under US actions, is typical Chomsky,
and very clearly in line with his past work. But in broad brush strokes in the
article, he paints both Rand and Hayek (neither of whom are known for their
political wisdom) as evil without considering the kudos they gave to the
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Menzel
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Rich Cooper
Thanks – a very interesting article. I’m surprised at how
vehemently Chomsky shrugs her off as evil. He doesn’t give any
explanation in the article; do you have any information about WHY he thinks Rand is evil?
It's obvious if you read Chomsky's (vast) work on political theory and
American social and political history, especially his writings on social
security, taxation, corporate welfare, the massive redistribution of
wealth from the middle class to the top income brackets engineered by
conservative tax policy over the last dozen years, etc, all of which are in
vehement opposition to the social darwinism that lies at the heart of Randian
economic theories (and current GOP economic politicies).