Customer Reviews

Government in the Future (Open Media Series)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is actually from a speech he gave in 1970 but in written form. Basically Chomsky provides a framework consisting of four "idealized [ideological] positions" concerning governance which he compares and contrasts. The four are classical liberal, libertarian socialism, state socialism(Bolshevism) and state capitalism. He defends the libertarian socialist position and argues that it is the proper and appropriate form of governance because he sees it as the natural extension of classical liberal ideas, with its conception of human nature: that a fundamental element of our nature is the need for creative work and inquiry. He argues that in order for this conception of human nature to be realized, a high degree of freedom is required so that people can animate, explore and test their inborne creative faculties. This translates to the necessary dismantling of the state and economic system which should be supplanted with systems that maximize and strengthen this "idealized position".

He makes a very good argument as to why we should do away with our current systems, but what the reader must always keep in mind is the perspective from which he analyzes and judges the world. Whether you agree with him or not ultimately depends on your own conception of humanity.

All in all, I highly recommend this to anyone who is interested in political philosophy or just politics in general.

A small book of only 67 pages from a talk given in 1970 and yet valuable, relevant, undated information.

In this book Chomsky goes into four main avenues of government This is not a perfect interpretation.

1. Classic Liberalism - a tamed down version of the dog eat dog, Laissez-Faire economics, which is small government or non-government intervention in a capitalist society, but here minus the rugged individualism and wage slave labor. So it's sort of a combination of the Laissez faire liberty with the civil libertarian of individual social freedoms which are, not obstructed by entrepreneurial capitalist greed of free market fundamentalism.

2. Libertarian Socialism - anarchism, council communism - here the working class becomes the government, but not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but rather a democracy of the proletariat, councils and committees vote on issues, not elected representatives who act as the decision makers. There is no state ownership and authoritarian domination but self governing through democratic means. Some anarchism wants to do away with the political organization of the state, where as here the commune exists All of this is experimental and is believed to be achieved only by revolution and only when the conditions are ripe.Only by active participation of the masses in self-government and social reconstruction could bring about what Rosa Luxemburg described as the complete spiritual transformation in the masses degraded by centuries of bourgeois class rule, just as only their creative experience and spontaneous action could solve the myriad problems created in libertarian socialist society. Here there would be no vanguard party here but equalitarian participation through technology and education.

3. State Socialism And 4. State Capitalism

It is here the range of decisions that are in principle subject to public democratic control are quite narrow, from the political decision makers and central institutions as well as the centers of private power which exert an inordinately heavy influence through media, thought control of political organizations by biased concentrations of private power and autocratic institutions. Democracy is limited mainly to elections which subsequently can by pass public opinion in decision making and use means of control or propaganda to influence public policy. Centralization of power becomes dominant over democratic decision making., from the top down as opposed to the bottom up.

"American society is indeed open and liberal values are preserved. However, as poor people and black people and other ethic minorities know very well, the liberal veneer is pretty thin.. . . . Roughly speaking, I think it's accurate to say that a corporate elite of managers and owners governs the economy and the political systems as well - at least in a very large measure. p. 64 It is here that the deciding of issues by the electorate is secondary to the election of the men who are to do the deciding. where the political parties act in concert in competitive struggle for power. If that weren't so, it would be impossible for different parties to adopt exactly or almost exactly the same program.(Joseph Schumperer).

How unfortunate that, busy with business as usual, we don't devote more time to discusssing with those around us how our economic and political life could be. Perhaps it is too enjoyable to sit back and watch "American Idol".

Chomsky at his most provocative:

* Can we make modern society democratic?
* Can the U.S. population join in the push for change along with people in the rest of the world? Is it willing to take a chance to disturb the status quo? Can it seem the point of that, even with the inevitable errors along the way? Or have we been lullued into sheepish acceptance of authority and the way things are?
* Has hyping the need for the war machine indeed become the way to win our tax dollars and support for aggression? Does the war machine require the kind of efficent, centralized managment that corporate executives and lawyers best provide? Does the focus on war damage our cultural and moral life? Do the corporate executives bring with them a mindset that is profoundly anti-democratic, anti-libertarian, anti-worker?

This book may be short on pages but it's long on issues you can think over and discuss with others. The libertarian socialist position Chomsky favors may not work but responding to its challenges may lull you out of sleep. Our capitalist ways seem horribly incapable of addressing the crises of sustainability that have begun. Now is the time to turn off "American Idol" each week and instead read this book and talk with others each week about it. No one person can change the tide: not until each of us is an "American Helper" is their hope for our country or the world in the crises ahead.

Great speech. Hear the audio version at zmag.org (click on "audio")

As a new reader to Chomsky, I had previously read "9/11", and found it to be rather repetitive and confused. Yet "Government in the future" was the exact opposite, a simple, powerful read. In this small, short, book, Chomsky provides his very educated opinion on four different ways of thought. And he shares his personal opinion on how the government should be run, so that the people have the power. A very powerful read. Highly recommened as a first Chomsky read.

Based on a talk Noam Chomsky originally gave at the Poetry Center of New York City in 1970, Government in the Future is a fierce political manifesto discussing how society should best be structured to maintain democratic control. Urging fellow intellectuals to rethink the balance of societal, political, governmental, and corporate power, Government in the Future clearly foresaw issues that are as critically important today as they were when they loomed over thirty years ago. Notes point out references to the main speech and indirectly suggest supplementary texts for readers interested in learning more. A brief yet motivational and persuasive call to heed the problems of modern society and take action.

Although not his most groundbreaking work, Chomsky's "Government In The Future" is a quick and interesting read. An edited transcription of a speech he made in 1970, it's ideas and complaints against capitalism and military economy are still extremely relevent. In addition to his timeless arguments, Chomsky also takes a moment to briefly spell out exactly what he means when he calls himself an anarchist, and then takes time to flesh out the four different kinds of government that we may see in the future, addressing counterarguments to ones he favors with such promptness that even Plato would have to appreciate.

The only problem with this pamphlet is his massive reliance on other philosophers. While definately respectable in academic circles, his references to philosophers and thinkers of various stripes and centuries may alienate the casual reader.

It's a quick read, though, and relatively easy to understand.

I think this is one of the best talks Chomsky has ever given...not to mention one of the most coherent and thoughtful explanations of anarchism. I wish it was 3 times as long.

Based on a talk Noam Chomsky originally gave at the Poetry Center of New York City in 1970, Government in the Future is a fierce political manifesto discussing how society should best be structured to maintain democratic control. Urging fellow intellectuals to rethink the balance of societal, political, governmental, and corporate power, Government in the Future clearly foresaw issues that are as critically important today as they were when they loomed over thirty years ago. Notes point out references to the main speech and indirectly suggest supplementary texts for readers interested in learning more. A brief yet motivational and persuasive call to heed the problems of modern society and take action.

Ah, my favorite ultra-liberal MIT professor. While I admire his academic work in the linguistics field I find him lacking when he ventures into the political realm. Would that he would apply the same scientific rigor towards this governmental analysis, but sadly not. He picks and chooses examples that support his point, dismisses without substantiation counter points and his syllogisms once begun are conjoined with weak emotional links such as: "I feel," and "I think." His lack of citation of The Wealth of Nations is dumbfounding especially since he quotes many peers from the same period.

He views corporations as bodies of consolidated power from which voters have been disenfranchised. This seems strange for a few reasons, but most importantly: Anyone can buy shares and vote on the election of corporations' board of directors with far greater regularity than most governments; companies compete with each other in the marketplace rising and falling from positions of eminence as a direct result to how well they satisfy their customers, contrary to the perpetuity of government notwithstanding its efficaciousness.

While this is a quick read, and interesting due to its author, the reader would be much more suited by spending their time reading other, better, sources.