In my mid-twenties, I discovered the political work of American linguist Noam Chomsky with delight. My reading of his essay The underside of Uncle Sam’s politics (Écosociété, 1996) blew my mind. I already knew, of course, that the United States was not doing anyone a favor on the international scene, but there was something luminous about the radical critique of American imperialism that Chomsky was engaging in. It became difficult, after that, to see the country of Kennedy and Reagan as a beacon of freedom.
I therefore read, then, with enthusiasm, other works by this militant master, in particular his excellent Propaganda, media and democracy (Écosociété, 2000), a scathing critique of media propaganda in the service of capitalism and its barons. Reading Chomsky opened his eyes.
Eventually, however, I got tired of it. Chomsky published too much and repeated a lot. Even more, over time, I realized that he did not shine with his sense of nuance. I kept a grateful memory of my first bookish encounter with him, but I distanced myself from it, especially after having read the acid portrait that the iconoclast Tom Wolfe devoted to him in The kingdom of language (Robert Laffont, 2017), a sprightly essay depicting Chomsky as a careerist of the caviar left.
When I received A life of activism (Écosociété, 2022, 208 pages), Chomsky’s new collection of interviews, I nevertheless had a taste for reading it. Out of nostalgia, perhaps, but above all out of curiosity, to see if the man, long presented as one of the most influential intellectuals in the world and now 93 years old, had refined his speech. I was not deceived.
Chomsky never hid his penchant for anarchist thought, which explains his fierce criticism of political elites, especially Americans, and against capitalism, as well as his condemnation of the draconian Soviet system. His positions sometimes gave the impression that he despised parliamentary democracy and reformist commitment and only supported extreme left-wing social movements.
In A life of activism, where he looks back on his political career, we discover it much more nuanced than that. He insists, first, on his rejection of violent action, always counter-productive for the left, according to him. Studies, he says, “have shown that nonviolent social movements are the most successful in achieving their goals, by far.”
Chomsky, who has widely denounced the media propaganda orchestrated by currents of the political right, also rejects censorship emanating from the left. To prevent a conservative speaker from speaking out, he says, is doing a favor to the right. Likewise, he disputes the relevance of the unbolting of the litigious statues in the public space. It is better, he suggests, to fight for the erection of counter-statues, a far more effective strategy for raising awareness. The militant, he believes, must be a pedagogue, not a breaker.
When one reads Chomsky, it is easy to know what he opposes — imperialism, capitalism, the power of the big over the small — but it is more difficult to get an idea of what he proposes as Alternative solution. The American right regards him as the devil, but even on the left he is not unanimous. Anarchist militants reproach him for his lack of radicalism and qualify him as a banal reformist because he often applies Aristotle’s maxim according to which “between two evils, one must choose the lesser”.
In recent years, for example, the intellectual has applauded the reforms of Evo Morales in Bolivia (2006-2019) and those of Lula in Brazil (2003-2011). In the United States, even if he considers that the Republican and Democratic parties are the two faces of American imperialism, Chomsky nevertheless does not hesitate to support the Democratic candidates in the name of his idea of the lesser evil. However, he would like to reiterate that, for the left, the electoral process is secondary to involvement in popular social movements and trade unions.
Chomsky, finally, recognizes the importance of the identity struggles dear to the new left – feminism and anti-racism, in particular –, but he deplores the fact that they have taken precedence over the class struggle, which is more unifying and more inclusive.
There are, he says, major issues that affect all justice activists: global warming, the threat of nuclear war, the rise of right-wing radicalism in the United States and elsewhere, and the impoverishment of the working population. . The future of the left, according to him, is first there.
I did well, finally, to read Chomsky again. It is aging well, I think.