|
|
|
|
|
|
by ad_hominem
2623 days ago
|
|
|
Power wants to preserve its power. Chomsky is upset that Microsoft and other companies use the World Trade Organization as a weapon, but what does he expect would happen? This is what every entity does whether it be a government or corporation. They figure out ways to pull the levers of power to preserve/strengthen themselves. Europe rightfully formed the European Union to strengthen itself on the playing field with the USA. I get his point with Lula da Silva being charged with corruption at a bad time, but has he talked with actual Brazilians? Because it's my understanding that the corruption problem was (and still is) very bad over there and has real repercussions on daily life. Would he really give da Silva immunity just because he's from a labour party? Should Brazilians just turn a blind eye because he did some good things? This is the same kind of blind infatuation he had with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, giving him a pass until the situation is so bad that you can't look away any longer. Power also corrupts his labour movements. I too wish that the world didn't need American military bases everywhere. I think Trump is on the right track with closing them off. But on the same hand the world is still not made of sunshine and rainbows. We do need warships patrolling the Strait of Hormuz so that Iran doesn't hold oil tankers hostage. We need warships in the Gulf of Aden so that pirates aren't hijacking cargo ships. We need military responses to events where civilians' lives are in severe peril, and UN peacekeeping is unfortunately still not up to par there yet (Rwanda, Srebrenica, Darfur, etc.). edit: And not that I'm in favor of preserving the status quo per se, but I think we need some new ideas (and ones that aren't just proxies for existing power structures, giving the biggest entities a new cudgel to wield). Chomsky's criticism is valid and necessary but the solutions he has rallied around haven't panned out. |
|
|
Probably exactly what he observes. I don't think he's in any way surprised that powerful people do what they can to preserve and extend their power. He's just speaking up, so that maybe, one day, we relieve those people of some of their power.
> Would he really give da Silva immunity just because he's from a labour party?
From what I have heard that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that while being jailed, he's not even allowed to make a public statement, or even read a newspaper. There's a whole spectrum between that and full immunity.
Besides, I'm not sure how much that would weaken his arguments: whether he deserved jail and why he actually ended up in jail are probably pretty separate things. He might be corrupt, but the reason he was punished may very well because his opponents wanted him down, instead of some independent judge. (I'm speculating here, I know nothing about the facts.)