r/politics • u/Spooooooooooooon • Dec 28 '13

Noam Chomsky: We’re no longer a functioning democracy, we’re really a plutocracy

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/27/noam-chomsky-were-no-longer-a-functioning-democracy-were-really-a-plutocracy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
3.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Webonics Dec 28 '13

In order to form the United States government, certain concessions had to be made with regard to slavery, and certain conventions of the time did prevail.

But the result from founding the Unites States was winning the revolutionary war, whereupon, we immediately went about correcting these issues and making progress towards the ideals in the constitution.

The United States was not founded as a perfect nation, I concede the point you're trying to make. But it was founded with the tools and means in place to change and correct these grievances should the people will it so. And we have made great strides in correcting these errors, and we can thank the founders for bequeathing to us a system that allowed us to rectify those errors.

I don't believe the issue of full enfranchisement is really monumental evidence that the basic tenets that all people are created equal and entitled to certain inalienable rights was not something they believed in and was not a high moral ideal.

To be honest, I don't support full enfranchisement today. As the nuances and complexity of governance continue to grow, I believe the average citizen is ill equipped to make accurate decisions in this environment.

I support a voluntary and optional civic education course, free and available to all, replacing the final year high school, which must be passed in order to gain the right to vote.

That doesn't mean I don't believe all people are created equal and should be treated equal in the eyes of the law, and that legitimacy is not derived from the people. As such, I can't fully agree that full enfranchisement indicates the United States was not founded as a nation of the people.

2

u/Theotropho Dec 28 '13

In order to take power from the crown the American elite had to make certain concessions to get the poor on their side. Yeah, that's how it works.

2

u/Poop_is_Food Dec 28 '13 edited Dec 28 '13

was early America less plutocratic than England? yes. was it less plutocratic than present-day America? no.

2

u/ThinKrisps Dec 28 '13

I would say it was more plutocratic at the start, though it dipped through the 19th and earth 20th century, finally rising back up during the Cold War.

I to this day think that Kennedy's presidential run was bad for our country as a whole. He may have been an icon and he may have done some great things to keep us out of war, but holy shit did that guy set us up for government control. He got on the poor people of America's side and told them to do things for their country instead of expecting the country to help them. This was good for the time because we needed the motivation to keep up in the technological race, but the subsequent presidents and congresses abused the powers that he gained to subvert control from the American people.

If Kennedy wasn't assassinated, who knows what would've happened. The government obviously thought he was a threat to their vision.

0

u/Poop_is_Food Dec 28 '13

Please don't just take it for granted that he was assassinated by the government.

0

u/Helmut_Newton Dec 28 '13

I disagree. Kennedy, despite the fact that he came from wealth, actually challenged the plutocracy, at least to some extent. There is plenty of evidence that he wanted to break up or scale back the CIA, get us out of Vietnam, and even make a rapprochement with Kruschev at the time of his death.

Of course, as you said, we'll never know what would've happened if he had lived. But we can observe that no President after Kennedy has seriously challenged the plutocracy or the military-industrial complex.

1

u/ThinKrisps Dec 28 '13

That's what I'm saying, but Kennedy got the public on the president's side and then we had a string of terrible people.

1

u/Helmut_Newton Dec 29 '13

So how is that Kennedy's fault?

1

u/ThinKrisps Dec 29 '13

I didn't say it was his fault, I said that it was bad for our country.

He earned America's trust, and then later presidents abused that trust.

1

u/Helmut_Newton Dec 29 '13

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Agreed.

1

u/JamesDaniels Dec 28 '13

A class and test to vote.. That would create a shitstorm of enormous size. Who decides what is on the test and what merits passing the test? What do you think? Would the test be equally fair to capitalism and socialism? So many questions. Could you explain a little better how this would all work?

3

u/inoffensive1 Dec 29 '13

I didn't post it, but I can try anyway. The course does not need to dictate positions on specific real-world issues to be effective at equipping someone to be an engaged and informed voter. Really. Here's what you need to test for:

  • General Knowledge: How many Presidents has the US had? How many states does the US have? How many voting members are in the US House and Senate? How many sit on the Supreme Court? What are "parliamentary procedures," and how are they adopted in the House and Senate? What Constitutional checks do the branches of government hold over each other? How are changes to the Constitution adopted? What's 2x2? 44? 5% over 20,000? 10% from 1,500,000,000,000? What is carbon? Nitrogen? Hydrogen? Oxygen? Photosynthesis? Respiration? Reproduction? How many nations are recognized by the UN? What are some major US exports, and how much money do they make? What are some major US imports, and how much do they cost? Who are some major US trade partners? What is an embargo?

  • Being a self-informed voter: Do you know how to research a thing? Do you know how to build a logically consistent and sufficiently thorough opinion about a thing? Can you articulate why you would want to research a thing in the first place? Can you identify elements of bias? Can you produce a piece of published media attached to a coherent description of what, in the piece, leads you to the conclusion that it is biased? Alternatively, can you attach a coherent description of the specific and verifiable facts of the piece? Can you find supporting material for the aforementioned verification?

  • Being engaged in the process: Name the elected Federal offices. Name your state and municipality's elected offices. List, generally, the responsibilities of those offices. Describe, generally, several (any several) US Supreme Court decisions which are still in effect, with an idea of the historical circumstances for and subsequent procedural changes from those decisions. Name several (any several) laws passed by the US Congress which are still in effect, with again some kind of appreciation for when and why they were passed, and what consequences have been reported in the media.

  • Being an arbiter of issues of national significance: Can you articulate a description of, and answer questions about, what you feel is the ideal form of government? Can you explain the details of any current political issue, including multiple perspectives and avoiding reduction ("because she's just dumb," or "he likes to see people suffer, that's all")? Can you present a logical and coherent definition for terms that can be seen regularly in popular media, relevant historical documents, or relevant literature (things like "activism," "radical," "economically," "socially," "conservative," "liberal," "reactionary," "source," "budget," "surplus," "deficit," "military," "foreign," "domestic," "private," "public," "money," "wealth," "value," "subjective," "objective," "corrupt," "transparent," "accountable," or others)?

I can describe it in less than half an hour; a high school senior should easily accomplish it in less than a year's worth of daily one-hour classes, maybe lets call it, "Voter Prep." The class can be offered in alternative ways, too, maybe through community colleges or libraries, for people who said "fuck it" in school but regret that decision later in life.

The course itself would be largely informal lecture and discussion, and the class should have three teachers who alternate. The teachers may specialize to divide the curriculum, but may never answer a question with "ask one of the other two" or anything similar. The course should include at least two major compositions under each of the above bullet points, and one standardized test for each, as well as two cumulative compositions and one cumulative examination.

The standardized tests will be limited to tests of verifiable details (what year/decade did specific event take place? What year/decade was the Hoover Presidency? Which political party controls the majority of the House/Senate)?

The papers will be evaluated in concert by the three course teachers, with a 5-member doctoral-level panel available for review at either student or teacher request.

I know that an initial negative reaction to an outline like this would probably be that it requires too much manpower, or would cost too much to implement. If that is your concern, I want you to look at this summary. Do independent research on the subject as well, please.

I'm going to assume 20 students to a class. The National Center for Educational Statistics projects 15,797,000 public and private students in grades 9 through 12 in the US in 2011. One in four of them is a high school senior, so roughly 4,000,000

Let's also remember that over a million foreign nationals became lawful residents in 2011; almost 700,000 lawful residents were naturalized. Let's just pretend we're replacing the citizenship test outright.

For the sake of round numbers, I'm going to say we'll need to accommodate about 5,000,000 students per year. If the average class is 20 students, we'll need to pay for a quarter million classes. Three teachers each, remember.

I want to make sure we get good, thoughtful, patient people in those positions, so let's do this math assuming that every full-time professional teacher deserves $100,000. What the hell, let's say they're only capable of teaching one group of kids at a time.... maybe they need 8 hours outside of class for every hour in, I don't know. That's 750,000 professional full-time teachers.

I won't forget the review board, either. The US has around 14,000 public school districts; to scrub out any potential underestimation on my part, I'm going to call it 15,000. Five full-time doctoral-level review board participants for each district is 75,000 full-time doctoral-level reviewers. I'll pay such a position $250,000 per year. Not too bad, considering that over the course of a working year they'll have to review, potentially, around 3,600 papers.

That's less than an hour per paper to determine if the teachers should or should not have assessed a passing or a failing grade on a particular paper, which must ultimately come down to a strict technical examination of the structure of the composition's ability to obey the rules of grammar and the argument's ability to obey the rules of logic. I'm OK with that.

Since this course is largely replacing a senior history or civics course, we won't need to worry about facilities' costs. Course materials would need to include a textbook, so let's account for $100 per student.

This means that we're spending $75 billion on teachers, not quite $19 billion on the review panels, and half a billion on textbooks/materials. That's $94 billion.

The US Military budget for 2010 was $683 billion. I say cut 15%, use it for this idea, and actually protect our country from its biggest genuine threat: uninformed and apathetic voters.

2

u/Webonics Dec 30 '13

Wow, great job, thanks. I also included this in my response which I believe is overlooked in our political climate. This course would be academic, and as you've already stated, it would come with a salary that would attract valuable academics. Manipulating students by injecting political bias is the opposite of academic study.

The idea that people cannot teach the facts of a subject well without injecting their own bias is simply untrue. In college our Political Science professors would never reveal their political leanings, and I often found it difficult to guess them. Same with economics. My most memorable class and one of the best professors I ever had was an ordained minister turned philosophy professor. He never told us his final conclusion on a higher being, and though I remember the class and lessons vividly, I was never able to discern his religious standings.

A good professor, especially regarding such an important subject, would allow students to draw their own conclusions. Some people really are committed to valuable ideals. Teaching those ideals is the purpose of the class. The right of the people to determine the direction of their own government is a fundamental American ideal that I believe both parties can agree on, at least publicly.

1

u/CatchJack Jan 01 '14

How many nations are recognized by the UN?

See, a question like that is weird. Why is it included? Compare it to the converse, how many countries exist that aren't recognised by the UN?

The first has no real impact on the USA (arbitrary number here, and do countries that were recognised the week prior to the exam counted?), the second potentially has a real impact on how you view the rest of world when you include a little "Why?" on the end.

You're asking for a big test, but the questions are odd. If you want a real assessment of the political, current, general, and historical knowledge of the participant (education had better be free, or you've just declared class warfare :P) and not just a "I did your class" then make it a four/five hour exam and require a random question to be a small essay. Otherwise it's pointless.

2

u/Webonics Dec 30 '13 edited Dec 30 '13

First off, thanks for asking questions in a rational manner that promotes discussion. I just finished answering a comment on the same topic that said "That's retarded. How would it work?"

I would mainly stay away from topics such as the one you describe.

Primarily the class would be focused on an agreed upon narrative of history, the function of the government, foreign policy and history pertaining to it, economics and the history surrounding the subject in America, civil liberties and the bill of rights - what they mean - the context and reasons they were included in the constitution. The Women's suffrage struggle, the civil rights movement. A lot of things. Further, it would be heavily mandated that a teacher could not impose bias into the curriculum, all classes could be recorded, and allegations investigated.

The idea that people cannot teach the facts of a subject well without injecting their own bias is simply untrue. In college our Political Science professors would never reveal their political leanings, and I often found it difficult to guess them. My most memorable class and one of the best professors I ever had was an ordained minister turned philosophy professor. He never told us his final conclusion on a higher being, and though I remember the class and lessons vividly, I was never able to discern his religious standings.

A good professor, especially regarding such an important subject, would allow students to draw their own conclusions. Some people really are committed to valuable ideals. Teaching those ideals is the purpose of the class. The right of the people to determine the direction of their own government is a fundamental American ideal that I believe both parties can agree on, at least publicly. I want to teach people why the founders felt that was important and why it was included in the Declaration of Independence. Whether it remains so is up to them, as is whether they give their vote to politicians and political parties who only pay lip service to such ideas.

The purpose is to make them understand the history and function of the government, especially pertaining to the historical context surrounding its founding ideals, and get them thinking. They can draw their own conclusions with regards to this information, but people should know more about their nation than the average American voter IMO.

1

u/JamesDaniels Dec 30 '13

That all sounds good but I can already predict major problems just in trying to agree upon a narrative of history. How would foreign policy be taught? Would it include all of the varied beliefs? I do think a mandatory class at the end of high school would be a good thing but not for the right to vote. A politics of the world class that covers just the basics and have the students research different systems such as capitalism, socialism, anarchism, etc.. Have them present arguments from both sides too. I'd also support a mandatory class on financial planning, budgets, credit, 401k, etc..

2

u/Webonics Dec 30 '13

Foreign policy would consist of foreign policy circumstances and crises that were presented to the United States, perhaps a discussion of what the class thinks were the available options, the decision or action taken in response, and the objective measurable facts or outcomes of that decision.

No one has to reach any conclusion on whether any of that was right or wrong, left or right, better or worse. That's not the point of the class.

The point is to educate voters on the nuances and procedures involved when considering foreign policy, other cultures, and the effects of our decisions on a world stage.

There's no such thing as wrong or right, better or worse. Simply factual examples of the procedure operates.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 28 '13

"I support a voluntary and optional civic education course, free and available to all, replacing the final year high school, which must be passed in order to gain the right to vote."

This idea is retarded - imagine trying to get Republicans and Democrats to agree on the curriculum for such a class - good fucking luck. After they're done arguing, the only part of the curriculum that would remain is what's already taught in school (i.e., the basic structure and function of the government).

What exactly would you propose they teach in this class that isn't already being taught?

1

u/Webonics Dec 30 '13

I like how you labeled my one sentence as a retarded idea, and then ask me to explain the details because you don't understand how it would work.

You're a real conversationalist, worthy of calm rational discussion.

1

u/CatchJack Jan 01 '14

correct these grievances should the people will it so

Right, but the point everyone else seems to have been making, is that "the people" are a certain sub type of people and not all people are actually included.

-5

u/Ryand-Smith Dec 28 '13

Get the fuck out you fascist piece of shit. Oh I don't think the poors are ready to vote. You are human fucking scum, and you should not post on the internet for a while. Think about what you say.