Consent, etc.: Part II

Marvelous conclusion to the discussion of Friedman and Chomsky. After reading selections from Friedman on Chile, free markets, and foreign aid, one student pointed out (correctly) that both Chomsky and Friedman are, in the end, after the same thing: a reduced government foot print and honesty in government and business. What the students and I have agreed is fascinating is that the discontent about the relationship about the government, business, and consumer/worker citizens is increasingly centered on the nature of the corporation - not the nature of man and by extent the nature and role of government: The power, influence, and global reach of the corporation has made the discussion as unavoidable as the discussion on the nature of man in 1790.

And, yes, considering Chomsky's focus on Chile and Mexico as well as Friedman's, I think this IS a pertinent post for the Reflections on Latin America.

Consent Without Consent: Part I

Students in my World History course told me today that 1) businesses have too much influences in foreign nations - that corporations should not be involved in things like Guatemala in 1954 or Chevron/Texaco in Ecuador over the last 50 years. They also told me that 2) a corporate CEO or business leader is the ideal leader of the United States because they "know how to run things." This discussion was in the context of having read Profit Over People by Noam Chomsky (and they are reading Milton Friedman for Thursday). They found Chomsky too nihilistic (and they blanched when I mentioned that the Maoists had the same critique) as well as too strident in his assertions that corporations are not democratic or "of the people." People, after all, are shareholders.

But what most surprised me was their agreement that the US and corporations "did Latin America wrong" via neocolonialism and neoliberalism but then followed up that point of view by saying that corporations did no such thing in the US. Moments like Homestead and the Ludlow Massacre were the fault of labor for getting greedy, labor contributions to corporations are "manipulating the system" while corporate contributions are an expression of free speech, and that 80% of campaign contributions come from one quarter of one percent of the richest Americans just shows that most Americans are too lazy to participate in politics - that is why the business people run things, they are the "go getters." Democracy, they argued, is a sure road to dictatorship, said one student. I look forward to part II of this conversation.

Interesting Resource: Chomsky on Latin America

Anti-Imperialist / anti-corporate capitalist Noam Chomsky makes for an interesting - it at times repetitive - read. And while he isn't quite the engaging speaker as Howard Zinn, he isn't half bad. This presentation by Chomsky discussing the US in Latin America is a little dated, but great for sharing with folks for a basic primer on the subject. I have mixed feelings about Chomsky who often thinks of issues in creative ways, but sometimes to the detriment of any sort of compromise in policy. At any rate... if you (you know, the two or three people that stop in here) have the time, watch this or pass it on to friends with questions.