Chomsky’s
theories of the corporate-state
partnership, and how it concentrates power in the
hands of large corporations,
are well known, especially:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TieGj2Yi5r8
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
the US
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
individuals.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5
- 5 7 1 2
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Rich Cooper
<rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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).