Not being American, I've been really taken aback by the insularity of a lot of American discourse. They really have internalised, consciously or unconsciously, American hegemony as an immutable fact of the world – which is baffling given the result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Imperialism can come from any country, and in fact middle powers are often little hegemons in their own region. Many countries can be imperialist, and sometimes seemingly unlikely ones – Rwandan intervention in its region's many conflicts can definitely be characterised that way.
Most of all, though, it seems like a belief that other countries cannot exist except as a relation to America, as a reflection of some part of it. The role of Europe is totally ignored, even though the path to development EU market integration provides is the biggest reason not to get sucked into Russia's impoverishing orbit. Ukraine's decision isn't seen as about its future, or about the obvious misery in Donetsk and Luhansk since 2014, but essentially a vote on how they feel about America. Surrendering would be anti-American, and therefore good, so fighting for your life must be evil. It's an insane point of view, and a morally bankrupt one at that.
It's shocking that so few people seem to be against both Russian and American aggression, when 'countries should not invade one another' seems like a pretty simple moral principle.
Apr 17, 2022·edited Apr 17, 2022Liked by Noah Smith
Yeah, it’s important to note that the left’s follies aren’t isolated incidents. The same anti-liberal priors that turn them into anti-anti-Russian-invasion activists when looking abroad *also* turn them into conspiracists at home.
"This is not to say, of course, that the socialist Left has been as bad as the Trumpist Right in this episode. It has not. "
It is this sort of soft spot for the far-left that enabled its rise. "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."
Ultimately it all boils down to the fact that the legacy of the Soviet Union has not been unequivocally repudiated like that of Nazi Germany. Therefore, in the post-1945 marketplace of ideas, the left has a default advantage over the right, and the far-left doesn't get you banned from Twitter like the far-right does. After all the Soviets sent the Sputnik to the space, while Nazi Germany only made V-2 rockets...
American socialist think they like socialism because they don't know wtf it means in reality. Place an American socialist in Cuba or Venezuela for a month, bring them back and see if they're still in favor.
> is why I’m taking the time to vent my exasperation with socialists instead of ranting on and on about why Tucker Carlson & co. are bad.
TRUE! But I would also like the Tucker Carlson & co. are bad post. Tucker Carlson & co. are both stupider and worse than what you see from the left and it's good to leave a marker explaining that for posterity.
I think you might be underestimating how broken sunrise is. Number 7 on their list of principles is just nuts:
"Any group of 3 people can take action in the name of Sunrise. We ask for advice — not permission — from each other to make this happen. To make decisions, we ask ourselves, “does this bring us closer to our goal?” If yes, we simply do the work that is exciting and makes sense."
That's not how you structure a broad based community and consensus driven organization seeking solutions. That's how you structure an attack platform to allow small groups to attack their enemies and cause chaos.
As an American socialist since 2014 who excitedly watched our movement accelerate in 2016, this article genuinely stings. You’re right American socialism has gone completely off the rails and all I can feel is frustration and despair.
Devil's advocating for a moment (though I largely agree with your critiques of socialists...)
1) the idea that this war in Ukraine must end with concessions to Russia to give Putin a way out is widely held by the foreign policy establishment and IR realists. Its not a uniquely chomskian or socialist view. This stems from the belief that if Putin is given no path to save face in Russia, the threat to his life/power within Russia is so great that it will make him so desperate as to risky anything - including nuclear war - to save himself. You may want to reconsider whether this is actually evidence of chomsky representing socialist foolishness - or its actually an example of a socialist demonstrating the capacity for genuine IR realism.
2) Your criticism of socialists' theory of change being poor, I think, is completely off the mark. Build Back Better is basically the Green New Deal rebranded as reasonable, moderate, liberal politics. Socialists and Sanders shifted the Overton window of the Democratic party and the national conversation so much that all but a handful of the most conservative Democrats are now going to bat for ideas that they would've called radical or socialist in 2015. This didn't result in BBB passing or any legislative victories at scale, yet, but the first step is getting your entire party to stand behind your platform to the degree that they don't even call it socialist anymore - which has happened in at least some of the issue areas that Sanders put on the map in 2015. This is the other part that you miss when you talk about Sanders losing in 2020 to Biden as a failure - in large part he lost because the entire presidential field had shifted its policy platform so far left that many voters saw far fewer reasons to vote for sanders. This means that the theory of changing of shifting the Overton window and asking for the moon actually worked- though I think we see now where it has hit its limits.
3) Robinson/Chomsky form one faction or perspective among socialists - and it is a minority perspective (though frankly the one I have the most sympathy for). Most socialists hold up Chomsky's Cambodia comments, just as you have, as a reason he should never be taken seriously - usually in response to him and Nathan arguing that socialists should align with and vote for Dems to prevent Republicans taking power. Chomsky made a grave error with Cambodia and has acknowledged
that. You, as a supporter of the Afghan war, have also made a grave error yourself that you still haven't acknowledged. People who comment on foreign policy make big mistakes and it sometimes takes them decades to unwind their thinking to be able to see how their entire ideology led them to make such those errors. I think some forgiveness is in order.
1. Chomsky is an American citizen. Ukraine is demanding American funding, weaponry, and support. That makes it 100% Chomsky's business. That's how democracy functions. Indeed, Chomsky has precisely as much right to weigh in as you do. So what's your complaint?
2. Chomsky is not a socialist. Do two seconds of research.
3. Lots of Americans have picked up rifles to go fight. Why haven't you, Noah?
It's worth noting that Chomsky has pointed out that it's up to Ukrainians. What Chomsky said separately in a Jeremy Scahill interview and I think Scahill says as well, is basically the same as what Zelensky says. There will end up being some kind of negotiated settlement. The U.S. should support it.
The same position Chomsky holds with respect to Israel/Palestine.
Feeling it necessary to add that
1) Chomsky is not nor has ever been a Khmer Rouge apologist. Reading what Chomsky has written, not removed from context makes that clear. This is a favorite fabrication of propagandists
2) Not clear how Noah can say Chomsky's opinion matters zero and yet not look in the mirror to realize that Noah Smith's opinion matters zero. Both are true with respect to what Ukraine should do. Except Chomsky seems to at least respect Ukrainians.
What really strikes me about this is that like the right wing populists, the socialists in America don't care what their leaders say. Bernie Sanders, by far the most prominent socialist politician in America, has pretty sensible views on a lot of these issues, but the DSA/Sunrise Movement/NIMBY types don't care. He's not so much a leader they listen to as a vessel for their (inchoate, underbaked, and often risible) political fantasies.
In terms of numbers, Bernie Sanders represents the vast majority of people who identify as democratic socialists and his views on Ukraine and other issues are quite sensible.
A lot of people associate democratic socialism to DSA but the fact is that DSA in 2022 is the far-left wing of a broader democratic socialist movement.
Even within DSA there are people who represent a more sensible point of view.
"“NATO ... is protecting millions of people from potential Russian invasion. Calling this ‘NATO expansion’ while just typing in the comfort of your home in New York or London” means you have not understood the perspectives of people in Eastern Europe."
"Far from propping up the military-industrial complex—as NATO is often accused of doing—mutual defence and the guarantee of peace have allowed defence spending to be dramatically decreased throughout Europe..."
There are also writers that are DSA adjacent like Ryan Cooper and David Klion who consistently have sensible views on Ukraine and other issues.
Re Gilens & Page not really saying what people think it says:
I would reply that the linked article doesn’t really stand as a refutation of Gilens & Page, because it doesn’t successfully refute the idea that our government operates in the interests of those entities that pay for their preferred legislation.
The linked article is essentially saying that no, we’re not run by rich powerful interests, because see here, Skippy: the middle class and poor agree with the rich on the vast majority of topics and issues!
That right there should raise some questions in anyone with modest critical faculties: “Hm, given their interests are so vastly different, what is causing the middle class and poor to agree with the rich on the vast majority of topics?”
It couldn’t possibly be related to the intense marketing of ideas, the information environment in which we live and breathe, which is run by large profit-seeking entities and their marketing campaigns, is it?
We live in an information environment where the majority of Americans, who want health care for everyone (like in Europe, say, or….basically everywhere else), are easily led to believe Obamacare was a good thing and a “compromise” and a “step in the right direction” instead of a giveaway to parasitic insurance companies who do f*ck-all for anyone’s health or well-being.
Yes, and it really doesn’t matter if you can point to a scrap that your family received from Obamacare and which you perceive as a benefit—for example, many middle class insured people point to the fact that they can keep their working-poor kids on their health plan till age 26. Yes that’s a good thing. It’s better than a poke in the eye.
And yet it didn’t solve the problem — a problem which most other countries have seemed to address — that health care is a right, not a frill, and profit-seeking middle-men like insurance companies are gobbling up resources that could be better spent providing health care for everyone, including the 27-year-old children of the American middle class, and including, say, the Walmart worker who is forced to buy subsidized “affordable” health insurance that covers so little as to be useless.
It’s really a marvel to watch how eagerly Americans slurp up the propaganda on offer. Yay, Obamacare.
But more to the point— the linked article which supposedly rebuts Gilens & Page sets up a straw man — because I don’t think anyone seriously supposes that America is run by individual rich people (although I suppose a few multi-billionaires have come to wield outsized amounts of personal power: ooh what is that fascinating and wacky rapscallion Elon Musk up to today?).
Sure: individual rich people — doctors and lawyers and run-of-the mill executives—if you were to poll them, might indeed think (for example, as the linked article states) that public funding of elections is a good idea.
But you know who _doesn’t_ want public funding of elections? The immortal corporate “persons” who currently pay for elections. That’s more to the point. That’s why you’re not going to ever see any of our legislators seriously entertain the notion of public funding. It’s _not_ because they’re “promoting the interests” of voters of more modest means who fear their taxes will go up if they have to pay for elections on top of everything else.
America is run not by our run-of-the-mill rich people but by large corporate entities and (for lack of a better word) “the deep state”— the entrenched and powerful entities that persist in pursuing their interests from election to election, and which run the very information campaigns whereby we miraculously find that rich, middle-class and poor “agree” on the vast majority of issues, making it rather easy for large corporate entities — immortal “persons” who write the legislation that our legislators rubber-stamp — to run the show. Not individual “rich people” and what they might want.
To put it another way: My doctor and his rich friends are not running the government. Blackwater is. Amazon is. The CIA is. Each large organization is run in its own interests, which are not identical with the interests of the individual people who keep the organizations running.
Justin Amash has described this phenomenon quite well. The members of Congress might indeed be mostly individual “rich people” but more to the point, they are compliant careerists who vote the way they’re told to vote, and the way they’re told to vote is to “dance with the one that brung ya.” One of our two powerful parties selected them and brought them before the voters (who are successfully indoctrinated to believe they must select one or the other, lest they “throw their votes away”), and the two powerful parties are funded by the same large entities that want what they want— more profits, more power, because their existence requires that they pursue profits for their shareholders — and so they write legislationfor Congress, and Congress votes for it. That’s why Amash got fed up and left.
But the voters are pacified by (1) the romantic notions they learned from Schoolhouse Rock and their high school US history class about how our government supposedly works (and make no mistake— centuries ago, our government was a bold, exciting, innovative experiment); and (2) information campaigns that make them think what they’re getting is what they wanted all along— or if it’s not what they wanted, it’s because those dastards in the “other party” are standing in the way and must be defeated. Then we’ll finally get somewhere!
Anyway— if it’s true that we find that rich, middle-class, and poor Americans all agree on the majority of topics, this is not a big surprise. But is this supposed to mean that the large corporate persons, who are manifestly running the show, are not really running the show, because most Americans are malleable and receptive to information campaigns?
Pfft. It’s hard to discuss this stuff because our underlying assumptions seem to be so vastly different that it would be hard to establish some common ground to proceed from.
Not being American, I've been really taken aback by the insularity of a lot of American discourse. They really have internalised, consciously or unconsciously, American hegemony as an immutable fact of the world – which is baffling given the result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Imperialism can come from any country, and in fact middle powers are often little hegemons in their own region. Many countries can be imperialist, and sometimes seemingly unlikely ones – Rwandan intervention in its region's many conflicts can definitely be characterised that way.
Most of all, though, it seems like a belief that other countries cannot exist except as a relation to America, as a reflection of some part of it. The role of Europe is totally ignored, even though the path to development EU market integration provides is the biggest reason not to get sucked into Russia's impoverishing orbit. Ukraine's decision isn't seen as about its future, or about the obvious misery in Donetsk and Luhansk since 2014, but essentially a vote on how they feel about America. Surrendering would be anti-American, and therefore good, so fighting for your life must be evil. It's an insane point of view, and a morally bankrupt one at that.
It's shocking that so few people seem to be against both Russian and American aggression, when 'countries should not invade one another' seems like a pretty simple moral principle.
Yeah, it’s important to note that the left’s follies aren’t isolated incidents. The same anti-liberal priors that turn them into anti-anti-Russian-invasion activists when looking abroad *also* turn them into conspiracists at home.
"This is not to say, of course, that the socialist Left has been as bad as the Trumpist Right in this episode. It has not. "
It is this sort of soft spot for the far-left that enabled its rise. "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."
Ultimately it all boils down to the fact that the legacy of the Soviet Union has not been unequivocally repudiated like that of Nazi Germany. Therefore, in the post-1945 marketplace of ideas, the left has a default advantage over the right, and the far-left doesn't get you banned from Twitter like the far-right does. After all the Soviets sent the Sputnik to the space, while Nazi Germany only made V-2 rockets...
American socialist think they like socialism because they don't know wtf it means in reality. Place an American socialist in Cuba or Venezuela for a month, bring them back and see if they're still in favor.
> is why I’m taking the time to vent my exasperation with socialists instead of ranting on and on about why Tucker Carlson & co. are bad.
TRUE! But I would also like the Tucker Carlson & co. are bad post. Tucker Carlson & co. are both stupider and worse than what you see from the left and it's good to leave a marker explaining that for posterity.
I think you might be underestimating how broken sunrise is. Number 7 on their list of principles is just nuts:
"Any group of 3 people can take action in the name of Sunrise. We ask for advice — not permission — from each other to make this happen. To make decisions, we ask ourselves, “does this bring us closer to our goal?” If yes, we simply do the work that is exciting and makes sense."
https://www.sunrisemovement.org/principles
That's not how you structure a broad based community and consensus driven organization seeking solutions. That's how you structure an attack platform to allow small groups to attack their enemies and cause chaos.
As an American socialist since 2014 who excitedly watched our movement accelerate in 2016, this article genuinely stings. You’re right American socialism has gone completely off the rails and all I can feel is frustration and despair.
Devil's advocating for a moment (though I largely agree with your critiques of socialists...)
1) the idea that this war in Ukraine must end with concessions to Russia to give Putin a way out is widely held by the foreign policy establishment and IR realists. Its not a uniquely chomskian or socialist view. This stems from the belief that if Putin is given no path to save face in Russia, the threat to his life/power within Russia is so great that it will make him so desperate as to risky anything - including nuclear war - to save himself. You may want to reconsider whether this is actually evidence of chomsky representing socialist foolishness - or its actually an example of a socialist demonstrating the capacity for genuine IR realism.
2) Your criticism of socialists' theory of change being poor, I think, is completely off the mark. Build Back Better is basically the Green New Deal rebranded as reasonable, moderate, liberal politics. Socialists and Sanders shifted the Overton window of the Democratic party and the national conversation so much that all but a handful of the most conservative Democrats are now going to bat for ideas that they would've called radical or socialist in 2015. This didn't result in BBB passing or any legislative victories at scale, yet, but the first step is getting your entire party to stand behind your platform to the degree that they don't even call it socialist anymore - which has happened in at least some of the issue areas that Sanders put on the map in 2015. This is the other part that you miss when you talk about Sanders losing in 2020 to Biden as a failure - in large part he lost because the entire presidential field had shifted its policy platform so far left that many voters saw far fewer reasons to vote for sanders. This means that the theory of changing of shifting the Overton window and asking for the moon actually worked- though I think we see now where it has hit its limits.
3) Robinson/Chomsky form one faction or perspective among socialists - and it is a minority perspective (though frankly the one I have the most sympathy for). Most socialists hold up Chomsky's Cambodia comments, just as you have, as a reason he should never be taken seriously - usually in response to him and Nathan arguing that socialists should align with and vote for Dems to prevent Republicans taking power. Chomsky made a grave error with Cambodia and has acknowledged
that. You, as a supporter of the Afghan war, have also made a grave error yourself that you still haven't acknowledged. People who comment on foreign policy make big mistakes and it sometimes takes them decades to unwind their thinking to be able to see how their entire ideology led them to make such those errors. I think some forgiveness is in order.
1. Chomsky is an American citizen. Ukraine is demanding American funding, weaponry, and support. That makes it 100% Chomsky's business. That's how democracy functions. Indeed, Chomsky has precisely as much right to weigh in as you do. So what's your complaint?
2. Chomsky is not a socialist. Do two seconds of research.
3. Lots of Americans have picked up rifles to go fight. Why haven't you, Noah?
It's worth noting that Chomsky has pointed out that it's up to Ukrainians. What Chomsky said separately in a Jeremy Scahill interview and I think Scahill says as well, is basically the same as what Zelensky says. There will end up being some kind of negotiated settlement. The U.S. should support it.
The same position Chomsky holds with respect to Israel/Palestine.
Feeling it necessary to add that
1) Chomsky is not nor has ever been a Khmer Rouge apologist. Reading what Chomsky has written, not removed from context makes that clear. This is a favorite fabrication of propagandists
2) Not clear how Noah can say Chomsky's opinion matters zero and yet not look in the mirror to realize that Noah Smith's opinion matters zero. Both are true with respect to what Ukraine should do. Except Chomsky seems to at least respect Ukrainians.
Lost a lot of respect for Noah Smith today.
What really strikes me about this is that like the right wing populists, the socialists in America don't care what their leaders say. Bernie Sanders, by far the most prominent socialist politician in America, has pretty sensible views on a lot of these issues, but the DSA/Sunrise Movement/NIMBY types don't care. He's not so much a leader they listen to as a vessel for their (inchoate, underbaked, and often risible) political fantasies.
In terms of numbers, Bernie Sanders represents the vast majority of people who identify as democratic socialists and his views on Ukraine and other issues are quite sensible.
A lot of people associate democratic socialism to DSA but the fact is that DSA in 2022 is the far-left wing of a broader democratic socialist movement.
Even within DSA there are people who represent a more sensible point of view.
For example there is the DSA North Star Caucus:
https://twitter.com/DSANorthStar/status/1499136328729960450?t=Zhs_0l3syshJaPlMmRyWfg&s=19
https://twitter.com/DSANorthStar/status/1511042581446205450?t=s9wJLAENf4zBJDrvAjL78A&s=19
"“NATO ... is protecting millions of people from potential Russian invasion. Calling this ‘NATO expansion’ while just typing in the comfort of your home in New York or London” means you have not understood the perspectives of people in Eastern Europe."
There are DSA members like James Hughes:
https://twitter.com/citizencyborg/status/1508854667052154881?t=s20lkUHEGc0XKnPpoQebzQ&s=19
"Far from propping up the military-industrial complex—as NATO is often accused of doing—mutual defence and the guarantee of peace have allowed defence spending to be dramatically decreased throughout Europe..."
There are also writers that are DSA adjacent like Ryan Cooper and David Klion who consistently have sensible views on Ukraine and other issues.
Noah, I'd be very keen to hear your thoughts on European socialism a la Piketty
"simply de-emphasized by the Biden administration and the Democratic Congress, and no one except socialists seemed to care."
My aunt who can't afford insulin certainly cares Noah
And in one article, you once again leave me wondering why I still click on your offerings when they hit my inbox.
Re Gilens & Page not really saying what people think it says:
I would reply that the linked article doesn’t really stand as a refutation of Gilens & Page, because it doesn’t successfully refute the idea that our government operates in the interests of those entities that pay for their preferred legislation.
The linked article is essentially saying that no, we’re not run by rich powerful interests, because see here, Skippy: the middle class and poor agree with the rich on the vast majority of topics and issues!
That right there should raise some questions in anyone with modest critical faculties: “Hm, given their interests are so vastly different, what is causing the middle class and poor to agree with the rich on the vast majority of topics?”
It couldn’t possibly be related to the intense marketing of ideas, the information environment in which we live and breathe, which is run by large profit-seeking entities and their marketing campaigns, is it?
We live in an information environment where the majority of Americans, who want health care for everyone (like in Europe, say, or….basically everywhere else), are easily led to believe Obamacare was a good thing and a “compromise” and a “step in the right direction” instead of a giveaway to parasitic insurance companies who do f*ck-all for anyone’s health or well-being.
Yes, and it really doesn’t matter if you can point to a scrap that your family received from Obamacare and which you perceive as a benefit—for example, many middle class insured people point to the fact that they can keep their working-poor kids on their health plan till age 26. Yes that’s a good thing. It’s better than a poke in the eye.
And yet it didn’t solve the problem — a problem which most other countries have seemed to address — that health care is a right, not a frill, and profit-seeking middle-men like insurance companies are gobbling up resources that could be better spent providing health care for everyone, including the 27-year-old children of the American middle class, and including, say, the Walmart worker who is forced to buy subsidized “affordable” health insurance that covers so little as to be useless.
It’s really a marvel to watch how eagerly Americans slurp up the propaganda on offer. Yay, Obamacare.
But more to the point— the linked article which supposedly rebuts Gilens & Page sets up a straw man — because I don’t think anyone seriously supposes that America is run by individual rich people (although I suppose a few multi-billionaires have come to wield outsized amounts of personal power: ooh what is that fascinating and wacky rapscallion Elon Musk up to today?).
Sure: individual rich people — doctors and lawyers and run-of-the mill executives—if you were to poll them, might indeed think (for example, as the linked article states) that public funding of elections is a good idea.
But you know who _doesn’t_ want public funding of elections? The immortal corporate “persons” who currently pay for elections. That’s more to the point. That’s why you’re not going to ever see any of our legislators seriously entertain the notion of public funding. It’s _not_ because they’re “promoting the interests” of voters of more modest means who fear their taxes will go up if they have to pay for elections on top of everything else.
America is run not by our run-of-the-mill rich people but by large corporate entities and (for lack of a better word) “the deep state”— the entrenched and powerful entities that persist in pursuing their interests from election to election, and which run the very information campaigns whereby we miraculously find that rich, middle-class and poor “agree” on the vast majority of issues, making it rather easy for large corporate entities — immortal “persons” who write the legislation that our legislators rubber-stamp — to run the show. Not individual “rich people” and what they might want.
To put it another way: My doctor and his rich friends are not running the government. Blackwater is. Amazon is. The CIA is. Each large organization is run in its own interests, which are not identical with the interests of the individual people who keep the organizations running.
Justin Amash has described this phenomenon quite well. The members of Congress might indeed be mostly individual “rich people” but more to the point, they are compliant careerists who vote the way they’re told to vote, and the way they’re told to vote is to “dance with the one that brung ya.” One of our two powerful parties selected them and brought them before the voters (who are successfully indoctrinated to believe they must select one or the other, lest they “throw their votes away”), and the two powerful parties are funded by the same large entities that want what they want— more profits, more power, because their existence requires that they pursue profits for their shareholders — and so they write legislationfor Congress, and Congress votes for it. That’s why Amash got fed up and left.
But the voters are pacified by (1) the romantic notions they learned from Schoolhouse Rock and their high school US history class about how our government supposedly works (and make no mistake— centuries ago, our government was a bold, exciting, innovative experiment); and (2) information campaigns that make them think what they’re getting is what they wanted all along— or if it’s not what they wanted, it’s because those dastards in the “other party” are standing in the way and must be defeated. Then we’ll finally get somewhere!
Anyway— if it’s true that we find that rich, middle-class, and poor Americans all agree on the majority of topics, this is not a big surprise. But is this supposed to mean that the large corporate persons, who are manifestly running the show, are not really running the show, because most Americans are malleable and receptive to information campaigns?
Pfft. It’s hard to discuss this stuff because our underlying assumptions seem to be so vastly different that it would be hard to establish some common ground to proceed from.