[lbo-talk] Chomsky: Israel Lobby ?

Julio Huato juliohuato at gmail.com
Thu Mar 30 12:35:03 PST 2006


The way I understand it, Doug is blasting the belief that an Israel lobby makes the U.S. government pursue a foreign policy in the Middle East contrary to its interest. I don't really get into whether the Israel lobby exists as described and whether it has so much influence over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East as to determine it.

But I think there is a larger and legitimate point though. Or I ask: Is it possible for the U.S. government to pursue a foreign policy in the Middle East that is somewhat consistent with the (more short run) interest of a coalition of "special interests" -- big oil, military contractors, and radical Zionists -- and yet *increasingly* contrary to the (more long run) interest of the U.S. capitalists taken as a whole? My answer is yes. What we are currently witnessing in the region seems to conform.

Carrol rushes to hitch his wagon to Doug's views, but what he (Carrol) claims is entirely different. He (Carrol) wrote:


> Anyone that argues that _they_ know the true interest of the u.s.
> ruling class and can judge u.s. actions by measuring them against that
> "true interest" is sending discussion on a deadend path.

Quotation marks notwithstanding, the "true interest" of the ruling class exists at a point in time. It's not a metaphysical entelechy beyond the reach of human cognition. As Joanna noticed, by representing the capitalist interest as unknowable in principle (or unknowable by individuals, but knowable by consensus by the "ruling-class controlled media"), Carrol is the one who's sending the discussion "on a deadend path."

Questions: Is it not in the interest of the U.S. capitalists taken as a whole to create legal and political conditions that enable them to reproduce and expand their capital? Consider history: Haven't the capitalists benefit greatly from those conditions having been established at a national scale in, say, "Western" societies? In an era of increasing global expansion of capital, isn't it reasonable to expect that the capitalists in the country still with the highest productivity level understand that, if these legal and political conditions are extended globally, they stand to benefit the most?

Didn't the share of revenues from international transactions increase substantially for U.S. firms in the 1990s -- particularly for U.S. firms other than oil companies, military contractors, or companies that deal with Israel? Isn't this the bulk of U.S. capital? As the interest of U.S. capital -- other than the listed "special interests" -- in global business increases, wouldn't they benefit from a modicum of lasting stability and order in the Middle East -- particularly as the possession of WMD in the region gets to be more likely by the day?


> A consensus within the u.s. ruling class (exhibited especially in all
> the ruling-class controlled media) clearly holds that supporting Israel
> is in their class interest. They may be right or wrong, but it is
> arrogant for anyone pundit to set up his/her individual judgment against
> that consensus.

It's curious how dogmatism from the left and from the right end up at the same place. Carrol's argument reminds me of the most extreme versions of the "efficient markets theory" in finance: Don't be a "pundit." Don't even look at the fundamentals of a company. Its price is whatever the market says it is. Who are you to second guess the market? Just read the price off the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

How does real individual investors react to this pearl of wisdom? Judging by what can be observed, they seem to say: "Hell -- I'll make my own fucking call! I'll decide whether I imitate the market or not.

After all, the market is just a bunch of people like you or me. If I have a strong interest in a particular stock, I'll make my own calculations and decide on my own what the 'correct' price is."

But the fact is that there's no perfect consensus "in all the ruling-class controlled media" about what foreign policy is best in the Middle East. Just like there is no perfect consensus in Congress.

I was just reading yesterday some speeches made at the congressional International Relations Committee. There's a lot of second guessing going on.

But trying to understand what the interest of the enemy is isn't arrogance. In a world that can easily go in a tailspin, it is a survival instinct. Carrol seems to believe that individuals don't count. He may be right, but he should speak for himself.

Julio



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list