Newsletter
Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Jobs
Policy | Charity & Fundraising | Research | Education | Executive | Media | Social Care | Communications
User login
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.
Tags: 1968
From the magazine
-
Ian Mulheirn -
Robert Skidelsky -
Felix Martin -
New Statesman -
Rafael Behr -
Ryan Gilbey -
Laurie Penny -
Alice O'Keeffe -
T S Eliot
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists
117 comments
Man, Carl go back to the sand box with your paranoid delusions. I know that critical thinking is a waste of time, however, just lose the anger thing. Be sure to take your all meds and stay happy its Mothers Day.
@zig713 from the USofAnger
"I know that critical thinking is a waste of time, however, just lose the anger thing."
Classical projection! I hope you're getting some therapy, some anger management perhaps - before you resume military service in the Marine Corps overseas - like ginny's proud daddy.
PS. I'm optimistic that Americans will huff and they'll puff and one day stop the world spinning on its leftist axis of evil.
zig317, what anger....I`m making serious comments, this is supposed to be a serious forum.
YOU are soooo NWO...."take your meds and stay happy"....yes, this is the NWO way...life on prozac, recreational drugs and the ultimate fix, a NWO mortgage millstone around your neck.....the best buzz you`ll ever get.LOL....sorry, I need another LOL
Maybe you can help ginny out....can YOU list 5 proud USofA moments. Before you do that, as it will take rather a long time, could you "please" explain what you mean by "paraniod delusions".....before you answer, check you have clearence from Langley.LOL
Anybody care to recall what happened on 16 March 1968? That incident taught me all I need to know about the bestial capability of the American soldier ... and the quality of American justice.
@ginny, daughter of a proud American Marine Corps killer
"However, cybertiger, you characterize all American military as having "bestial capability". What an ignorant, prejudiced analysis!"
It's Democracy, stupid!
Sorry, ginny, I didn't mean ALL American soldiers are capable of doing beastly things to other critters. I meant to say that a democratic majority of American soldiers are capable of doing some pretty unpleasant things when they're playing away with islamofascists, leftist fundamentals and other such like undesirables.
jkl;jkl;j
puddleheads,
the world is full of catastrophes and death and evil. i do not know why your puny brains cannot accept the fact that man, yes man, you, me and your old aunt betty are capable of the vilest evil. That fact means that there is a necessary use of force to stop it, by a democratically elected govt, with a 4th estate watching it, and the ability to change direction every 2 to 4 years. What about this is so hard to understand.
Now, if you think the American Soldier is in itself an evil entity, then have the balls to state that you are an isolationist and vote accordingly. Please dont put partisanship into this, because that is just cowardice. Think outside of the group for once. If you think we should invade Darfur...if you think weshould have bombed Serbia for Bosnia and Kosovo, then have the BALLS to say that we should have taken out the king of horror, Saddam Hussein. If you cannot do that, PLEASE explain to me how you can make the justification for the other wars
Please it be that Joe the Ragamuffin is a puddle head ...
@workingtitle
touche! It does seem I have made the chomkys into pharisees. I too, it seems, remain trapped in christian syntax. As for the victim, it is more than just the humanities - by extension it embraces all of us.
Further insight into my ideas pertaining to the christian mutation can be gained by reading Niethzsche, try "twilight of the idols" and "the anti-christ". Friedrich died on the eve of the 20th century, so he did not have the pleasure of witnessing the more modern christian mutations like communism, critical analysis, structuralism and all things narrative.
Fred did however highlight the christian syntax in utilitarianism. Towards which I feel he was too harsh. Imagine, however, what he would have made of communism and its post marxist off-shoots in our universities.
The Chomkys of 1968 are to be admired. Their hey day was a brief renaissance; it inspired politics, music, film, and the arts in general. More importantly, their actions promoted civil liberties, and forced governments to extend the social safety net in most western countries. That is the Chomskys legacy, and for this they should be proud.
Now, what enabled that generation to inspire humanity and what disabled ours? No doubt the Chomkys would like to believe themselves simply special. Or, we could argue that the established corporate forces are just smarter at intimidating and manipulating the media. You could argue that and it is a reasonable argument. But is it the whole explanation?
I don't think Chomskys generation was genetically special, and i don't believe our crop of students and young adults are intimidated; they are simply both ignorant and alienated from their own culture. Why? They had a very different education to the chomskys.
Chomskys education was inclusive, the narrative of his education glorified our culture and its achievements and invited the chomskys to add to the conversation. In 1968 they did.
The post chomsky education has a very different narrative. The student is left to look at his culture as an outsider, the culture is in fact the enemy. The student is not invited to add to the conversation, rather he/she is taught to despise it, to cite every excess, every crime. This student is taught to expect the worst, so when Rumsfeld comes along the narrative which has been taught is merely confirmed.
Todays student simply does not have the education to object.
@yebiga
Whichever way you look at it, we live on this planet and have one shot at this particular life. The Christians were not the first and will not be the last religion to see the significance of compassion for others, though they seem to have been the most obviously moved to action by this.
Even if you are post-x, this does not necessarily tell you anything about y.
So even if you are post-Christian, this does not necessarily tell you anything about the things that Christianity believes it refers to. To put it another way, wanting to help people, wanting to do something does not necessarily mean you have a messiah complex, there can be other bases of motivation for that, and other ways in which that motivation is built up and expressed.
Conversely, detached nihilism and a still contemplation of the nature of things does not necessarily mean you have escaped the confines of belief, you have merely chosen a different kind of shelter.
The point is to wake up to your situation, which contemplation helps with by cutting through the crap. It is in this sense that contemplation leads to action.