Noam Chomsky on 1968

By Noam Chomsky Published 08 May 2008

Nineteen sixty-eight was one exciting moment in a much larger movement. It spawned a whole range of movements. There wouldn't have been an international global solidarity movement, for instance, without the events of 1968. It was enormous, in terms of human rights, ethnic rights, a concern for the environment, too.

The Pentagon Papers (the 7,000-page, top-secret US government report into the Vietnam War) are proof of this: right after the Tet Offensive, the business world turned against the war, because they thought it was too costly, even though there were proposals within the government - and we know this now - to send in more American troops. Then LBJ announced he wouldn't be sending any more troops to Vietnam.

The Pentagon Papers tell us that, because of the fear of growing unrest in the cities, the government had to end the war - it wasn't sure that it was going to have enough troops to send to Vietnam and enough troops on the domestic front to quell the riots.

One of the most interesting reactions to come out of 1968 was in the first publication of the Trilateral Commission, which believed there was a "crisis of democracy" from too much participation of the masses. In the late 1960s, the masses were supposed to be passive, not entering into the public arena and having their voices heard. When they did, it was called an "excess of democracy" and people feared it put too much pressure on the system. The only group that never expressed its opinions too much was the corporate group, because that was the group whose involvement in politics was acceptable.

The commission called for more moderation in democracy and a return to passivity. It said the "institutions of indoctrination" - schools, churches - were not doing their job, and these had to be harsher.

The more reactionary standard was much harsher in its reaction to the events of 1968, in that it tried to repress democracy, which has succeeded to an extent - but not really, because these social and activist movements have now grown. For example, it was unimaginable in 1968 that there would be an international Solidarity group in 1980.

But democracy is even stronger now than it was in 1968. You have to remember that, during Vietnam, there was no opposition at the beginning of the war. It did develop, but only six years after John F Kennedy attacked South Vietnam and troop casualties were mounting. However, with the Iraq War, opposition was there from the very beginning, before an attack was even initiated. The Iraq War was the first conflict in western history in which an imperialist war was massively protested against before it had even been launched.

There are other differences, too. In 1968, it was way out in the margins of society to even discuss the possibility of withdrawal from Vietnam. Now, every presidential candidate mentions withdrawal from Iraq as a real policy choice.

There is also far greater opposition to oppression now than there was before. For example, the US used routinely to support or initiate military coups in Latin America. But the last time the US supported a military coup was in 2002 in Venezuela, and even then they had to back off very quickly because there was public opposition. They just can't do the kinds of things they used to.

So, I think the impact of 1968 was long-lasting and, overall, positive.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: 1968

View the discussion thread.

117 comments

Sat, 2008-05-17 21:32 — writeon

Certain writers seem to attract a veritable attack squad bent on abusing them and destroying any rational discussion of their views. The idea seems to be to swamp any real debate with inane diatribes and character assassination.

It's like a form of cyber-fascism. I'm beginning to think this is orchestrated as a kind of military excercise in the coming cyber-war for the hearts and minds of world opinion. It's like bunch of not very bright, but terribly cocky, teenagers writing grafitti on the walls and feeling awfully pleased with themselves. One rolls ones eyes with embarrasment at most of their comments, but one is also keenly aware of the Fascist character of many of their comments. They remind me of the stories my uncle told me about the methods used by the Nazies when he was teaching in Germany. I'm sure that given half the chance these right-wing brutes would be burning books and pushing Chomsky into the flames, with pig-like grins on their stupid faces.

Thu, 2008-05-15 04:33 — workingtitle

Toddwill starts the rot here with his dirty little comment about "a bunch of lefties", followed by Tonypal and his "...the intellectual for people who aren't nearly as smart as they think they are." He can't see what's so illegal about the Iraq war, bearing in mind article 2 of the non-international US constitution and some 'relevant Supreme Court rulings'. AtlantaSteve is the first to use the term 'lapdogs' to refer to anyone who may agree with Noam Chomsky. Apparently they're all 'doomed to live a sad life'. Sduncan is angry that Chomsky thinks the US are the only baddies. It's not true, patently, but as Cybertiger says, 'it's always the superior folk who disappoint most'. Prospector rebukes Chomskers for the suggestion that JFK attacked South Vietnam. He directs us to Real Clear Politics, where Rich Lowry tells us that war has served the US well, and that anti-war movements were just a ‘temper tantrum’. Grammar nor politics need be accurate; “Let me make this real clear. Bend over!” StephenDecatur apparently reaps the benefits of US imperialism. He welcomes the balancing effect of 'folks' like Chomsky, Zinn, Carter and Zontag, without whom the US would be mere ‘fascists’, but without Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bush... ‘we turn that energy on ourselves’. Which energy; violent fascism? No evidence that this energy would turn inwards without the tempering effect of democratic opposition. However, he supports the fascists because he benefits from their behaviour, not because he’s sacred of their turning on him. And that damned 2000 election was NOT stolen. Mustng66 announces wonderfully that reading Chomsky is like dealing with a paedophile 'one on one'. Gristo fabulously finds that reading Chomsky's ‘excrement on paper’ makes him ‘want to shower’. Many favourites, but for me, Dkenyon takes the crown with his comment that 'Chumpsky', who is a 'fool', preaches his 'holier than thou rubbish...without impunity or risk of jail'. !! Worthy of the current monkey-boy pres. We know what he means cos we're clever. Dkenyon for president!

Sun, 2008-05-11 04:02 — Rod

Norm has a curious twist on the ending of the Vietnam War. Here is what really happened. LBJ conducted hands on policy during the war. He feared China and would not bomb the north. When Nixon took office he visited China and got their reading of the situation. He then bombed Hypong Harbor which forced NV to sue for peace in Paris. The armistice was signed by all parties and overseen by Henry Kissinger. Almost before the ink was dry the Democrats in Congress, intent on surrender, withdrew funding for the war including funding for withdrawal. Once NV saw this, they abandoned the peace agreement and resumed fighting. All the details are described in Henry Kissinger’s book, Years of Renewal.

Thu, 2008-05-15 04:36 — workingtitle

Toddwill starts the rot here with his dirty little comment about "a bunch of lefties", followed by Tonypal and his "...the intellectual for people who aren't nearly as smart as they think they are." He can't see what's so illegal about the Iraq war, bearing in mind article 2 of the non-international US constitution and some 'relevant Supreme Court rulings'. AtlantaSteve is the first to use the term 'lapdogs' to refer to anyone who may agree with Noam Chomsky. Apparently they're all 'doomed to live a sad life'. Sduncan is angry that Chomsky thinks the US are the only baddies. It's not what Chomsky says, but as Cybertiger says, 'it's always the superior folk who disappoint most'. Prospector rebukes Chomskers for the suggestion that JFK attacked South Vietnam. He directs us to Real Clear Politics, where Rich Lowry tells us that war has served the US well, and that anti-war movements were just a ‘temper tantrum’. Grammar nor politics need be accurate; “Let me make this real clear. Bend over!” StephenDecatur apparently reaps the benefits of US imperialism. He welcomes the balancing effect of 'folks' like Chomsky, Zinn, Carter and Zontag, without whom the US would be mere ‘fascists’, but without Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bush... ‘we turn that energy on ourselves’. Which energy; violent fascism? Perhaps this energy would turn inwards without the tempering effect of democratic opposition. However, he supports the fascists because he benefits from their behaviour, not because he’s sacred of their turning on him. And that damned 2000 election was NOT stolen. Mustng66 announces wonderfully that reading Chomsky is like dealing with a paedophile 'one on one'. Gristo fabulously finds that reading Chomsky's ‘excrement on paper’ makes him ‘want to shower’. Many favourites, but for me, Dkenyon takes the crown with his comment that 'Chumpsky', who is a 'fool', preaches his 'holier than thou rubbish...without impunity or risk of jail'. !! Worthy of the current monkey-boy pres. We know what he means cos we're clever. Dkenyon for president!

Sun, 2008-05-11 04:25 — realworld2008

"Democrats in Congress, intent on surrender..." Some things never change. Semper Fi...

Sun, 2008-05-11 05:42 — lgstarr

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_taint_of_68.html

Thu, 2008-05-15 08:07 — taghioff.info

@yebiga
"How does an understanding of syntax qualify him to comment on activist democracy?"

He came into activism by studying the language used by the media. He has made some very good points about that,I personally prefer his analysis of the media to his linguistics.

"Derivative! Derivative!

They may help my understanding of language or story but they harm our understanding of man's condition. "

Well, yes, that is indeed first base. The problem with the linguistic turn in social theory is that you get to a place where you realise that things out side of human discourse do not have their own inherent meanings attached to them. This can lead to a nihilism, because people take up the materiastic point of view. Or in other words they look at the world as if they were a thing. This makes them think that nothing has any meaning, or rather that meaning has no basis.

But that is a false view because we are human beings, and thus are born to make meaning. This is something that emerges out of being alive and having some sort of intention. Life in turn is something that emerges naturally, given the rigth circumstancs.

Thus their is nothing un-natural about meaning. We are meaning-making animals, connected to nature through shared metabolism and shared intentionality, and the universe is only meaningless if you choose to ignore that you are just such a human being.

This is not cosmic stuff, it is really just a matter of getting back to the human condition. The problem with Chomsky's universal grammar is that it does not really reflect human flexibility, but he is right that we are meaning making animals with a huge innate capacity to organise our worlds into meaningful wholes with a grammar (or set of social practices) that reflect that.

This is a very useful perspective to take when approaching politics. We live in a world with a cosmology of international trade and a mythology of the economic human and a privatised vision of knowledge as divorced from relationship, which we call information. This is not a "science" it is a cosmology, with a corresponding grammar of how we approach our day to day practices.

Sun, 2008-05-18 02:10 — workingtitle

@ yebiga.
@yebiga

There's lots to say. You raise lots of points, but time is limited and I have children to slaughter. I want to know more about how you might propose to go beyond Christian narratives of Good versus Evil, of victims and villains, in relation to those social political events on which Chomsky commentates.

Key example would be the recent US acquisition of the Iraq economy (fair assessment?). My question is; with a healthy disrespect for ‘feelgood compassion’, and with a screeching phobia of finger-pointing morality, how can we discuss the Us mission in Iraq in honest and useful terms, including the death and (necessary?) deceit that has gone with it, and in such a way that we feel comfortable to salute our conclusions?

Tue, 2008-05-27 06:31 — shakeybooty

Failed States was awesome

Sun, 2008-05-18 05:10 — yebiga

@workingtitle

Well if we could transcend christian thought, your left with respecting the details of the problem. I know its boring but thats it. The solutions are always in respecting the detail.

Here there is no short cut of damning the uncomfortable as evil. Here there is no simple narrative to stir a populace to war.

This is merely common sense. But we prefer the dramatization. Who wants to shift thru all the details, the counter arguments to understand all the sides and work thru solutions. Much easier to identify the villain and obliterate them.

The problem with Chomsky is that he perpetuates this christian lexicon of demonizing problems: corporate culture, multi-nationals. It helps those on the left to feel good about themselves as they drench themselves in compassion. But in reality, this compassion is merely a celebration of powerlessness. It merely entrenches the problem it feigns to solve.

In Iraq, the demonizing of terrorists excused us from the necessity of understanding and working through the details of how a culture resorts to these extremes. Instead, by demonizing them US soldiers felt it appropriate to torture and humiliate Iraqi prisoners. O joy to terrorist recruiters!

But we all know this, what we don't know is that our intellectual left is equally culpable in perpetuating this christian lexicon. And in them, it is self conceited, superior and closer to its original early christian form.

And when any of them get any power, watch the jesuit arise..