Conor McGuire
One of the main characters on twitter today was, Noam Chomsky ? Indeed, Twitter eventually comes for everybody. But I think people have lost sight of what Chomsky stands for, and what he is saying. Many people have unearthed quotes, articles, and so on, aimed to align him with some of the more problematic characters who signed off on the letter published by Harpers today, “Letter on Justice and Open Debate,” and I’d just like to maybe lay out Chomsky’s logic a little bit, discuss where people got him fucked up, and where Chomsky himself got things a little fucked up.
There is a productive conversation about how free speech is utilized, but in any case, Chomsky has long held the position that fighting against censorship, and fighting for free speech, is no half measure ordeal. To indulge in any measure of censorship is to start on a slippery slope, one that can be utilized by Fascists. It should not be lost on us that although the letter is ostensibly a call to disband “cancel culture,” the letter also notes, “the forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy.” Which is to say, the letter correctly points out the right may potentially co-opt “cancel culture,” as a means to implement their own forms of censorship.
One can be very cynical about this letter. One could easily say this letter is simply an expression of members of the Ruling Class joining together to kind of quell emerging ideologies arising from the proletariat’s depravity. The Ruling Class as here dismissing genuine instances of the proletariat pointing out contradictions in bourgeois ideology as “cancel culture,” as a way to keep in power the prevailing ideology that enables such depravity and exploitation to occur in the first place. Something like that, or maybe on a more basic level, this is just the Ruling Classes saying I do not want to be criticized for not respecting your peasant opinions … But for the moment, again, i am simply trying to lay out Chomsky’s logic. But we will return to this point later ..
Nevertheless, in a more self aware sense, if the left were to embrace “cancel culture,” or censorship, this would be incredibly ripe fodder for the Right. This is what I anticipate to be the spirit in which Chomsky signed the letter. For example, he long championed Julian Assange’s right to free speech, someone who is currently seeking Asylum in Ecuador amid extradition to the US for leaking information. Assange’s work directly challenged systems of power. This of course was enabled by free speech, and therein is incredibly important. There have been unsavory aspects of Assange that people have brought to light, which is fair, but the principle that Assange, and whistleblowers more generally, are able to express their free speech is an important principle that must be protected. This is, in large part, from where Chomsky is operating.
The critical dynamic is this, if the left positioned themselves as championing “cancel culture,” or censorship, then the right could position themselves as the liberators of free speech. Meanwhile, in actuality we know from history the right would only use this positionality as a guise to enact their own repressive measurements of censorship.
Again, championing free speech is not only an ideal, but a material politic insofar as rhetoric can become policy, become actualized within The State’s apparatus. It’s important that the apparatus is in service of protecting free speech, rather than exercise censorship. An example of the latter, An international apparatus has been coordinated to bring Assange to “justice” for utilizing his free speech — this is troublesome.
I would also like to talk about one of these articles being offered as proof Chomsky is a Liberal Hack, out of step with the people, and all that — which is nonsense. Often cited today is this article by Maya Oppenheim titled Noam Chomsky: Antifa is a gift to the far right and US state repression. And frankly, some of y’all need to be told this .. some of you don’t know how to read. Oscar Wilde once said “a true friend stabs you in the front,” so please do not fret if you feel attacked. I poke you out of love :)
Here is one of the popular block quotes from Chomsky thats in circulation,
“Associated with the loose antifa array are fringe groups that have initiated the use of force in ways that are completely unacceptable and are a welcome gift to the far right and the repressive forces of the state, while also providing some justification for the absurd claim that antifa is comparable to the far-right forces.”
Chomsky here is telling us certain “fringe groups” who claim to be associated with Antifa “initiated the use of force in ways that are completely unacceptable.” We need to stress here that Chomsky does not believe Antifa itself used this force, but instead it was groups “associated” with Antifa. Here, it’s important we do not stress this association, if acknowledge it at all. Moreover, it’s these fringe groups, who, again, do not represent Antifa, that provide “some justification for the absurd claim that Antifa is comparable to the far right forces.” Here we should ask who is making this “absurd claim” ? It’s not Chomsky — its the “far right and the repressive forces of the state” who are making this claim, and see this as an opportunity, as a “gift”. So what is the gift ?
What Chomsky is proposing here is not a criticism of the strategies of those who earnestly participate in the Antifa movement, which many wrongfully interpret as Chomsky’s intent, but more so proposing an objective fact. The movement has been co-opted as a vehicle for far right, and State propaganda which allows for the State repressive apparatus to justifiably widen, and enact, it’s violent capabilities. That propaganda hinges on a mischaracterization of the movement.
It is important that we note Antifa is a largely peaceful movement. But also keep in mind that its depiction may be more consequential. Which is to say, whether or not Antifa is a violent group is less important than whether or not the State can convince people, through propaganda, that they are indeed a violent group. This claim, substantiated by propaganda, would justifiably call for more repressive measures being used by the State.
This is not an abstraction. The violent clearing out of peaceful protestors from the streets in front of the White House during Trump’s speech on Law & Order from the Rose Garden, is only possible because of this Antifa classification, because of this propaganda. The only people that were cleared out that day were violent Antifa forces, right? This propaganda provides a justification for demanding Law & Order; for increasing, rather than shrinking, police budgets in cities that have been “under siege” from Antifa forces. Furthermore, it’s important to keep in mind how the term is utilized. It has affectively become a blanket statement describing “unruly” citizens. Whether they are “looters,” “anarchists,” peaceful protestors, or an old man in Buffalo, all of these people fall under the classification of Antifa. Indeed, seemingly anyone can be classified as such at any time in order to justify when the repressive apparatus enacts violence — this classification serves to justify broad repressive practices and their development.
Quickly, regarding the strategies of Antifa, and whether or not Antifa connotes violence in its name, meaning is Antifa a provocative organization, one could make an argument. But that conversation is probably not all that consequential, for if it wasn’t Antifa being used as a vehicle for State propaganda, then the Administration would have co-opted some other movement. IDK say, #BLM, #DefundThePolice, or what have you. So, when Chomsky calls this a “gift” he is right insofar as some “fringe people,” who are not actually part of Antifa, provided an opportunity for the right, and the State, to mischaracterize the movement as especially violent — an opportunity they took advantage of, yes. Nevertheless, the same potential for mischaracterization and distortion is present within these other movements. More on this later…
In summation. Chomsky believes the Left “buying into” cancel culture would be affirming a right wing provocation that says it is actually the left who want to censor free speech. Therein, the right would be justified in indulging in their own incredibly repressive practices of censorship under the guise of liberation. Moreover, on this point of violence. Chomsky clearly believes in nonviolent protests, and seems to believe that violent protests again would affirm this right wing provocation that says it is actually the left who are the violent ones, which would allow them to then indulge in fantasies of a grossly repressive State apparatus. And more, and this is an minor but important distinction, I don’t think Chomsky is criticizing Antifa here of being violent. Rather he is simply acknowledging, for reasons outside of that groups control, the group was easily rendered into a violent perception; and the right has jumped at the opportunity to represent the left as such for propaganda purposes as a means to advance their political project. This is simply a recognition of what has happened.
The crucial point here is that this is a battle of appearances. The right has manipulated and distorted these movements into propaganda used to justify the increase of Repressive measures and practices amidst new emerging ideologies. All of this is in service of consolidating, and sustaining, State Power that recognizes these new emerging ideologies as a threat. This is what I mean when i say if it were not Antifa, it would have been another group that would have been mischaracterized, and rendered into propaganda. In other words, The State needs to appropriate, or produce, images of “unruly people” who bring about social destruction in order to justify enacting and enlarging its Repressive Apparatus — and it should not be lost on us that it is in fact the Repressive Apparatus itself that has brought about this social destruction in the first place. It is this reality that needs to be represented. Indeed, this is the reality these social movements are constantly trying to represent, and time and again those efforts become co-opted, or simply repressed, by the State. And more, and this is critical, this whole dynamic illustrates the reality that Rhetoric has a material aspect insofar as it can be parlayed into actualizing, and critically, justifying, how the State Apparatus functions. Those functions are brought to fruition through rhetoric, which is underpinned by an appropriation of these images of social destruction.
On this point, to bring this piece full circle, we should be skeptical of the Ruling Class, on the Left, trying to dismiss proletariat dismay with the bourgeois as unfounded instances of “cancel culture”. Maybe we could even say this too is a manipulation and distortion of appearances. For, the people who have signed this letter are without a doubt members of the Ruling Class, they are public intellectuals atop prestigious institutions, and so on. We should never be confused that the distinction between public and private is a subtlety between parties within the same Ruling Class. The State is always in service to the Ruling Classes, they are ostensibly one and the same. Therefore, when somebody like JK Rowling, who has signed this letter, expresses her right to violently deny the humanity of trans people under the pretense of expressing free speech, we need to seriously consider how free speech functions in service of the Ruling Classes. It is in part a declaration that she does not care about these people under the guise of asserting her right to free speech, which is just morbidly disingenuous and disrespectful. But when uttered from her class position, I argue it is something more — the state of depravity that many trans people, and many Black people and POC, are in can be accounted to the rhetoric of deplorable people within the Ruling Class. These repressive practices against these disenfranchised people are no more than an expression of the ideologies of the Ruling Class. Those practices can not continue, would not occur, if that were not true. Indeed, “free speech” can be co-opted by both the left and the right as a way to maintain the order of things, an order that sustains these people’s position atop society, an order they are invested keeping in place.
Here, returning to our earlier point of the problematic nature of the letter, one may fairly criticize Chomsky. Though, i believe he earnestly professes the dire importance of protecting free speech because it is an instrument to combat State Power, that message becomes incredibly depreciated when voiced alongside people like Rowling. Alongside people who use free speech as a guise to protect, and propagate, their own bigoted ideologies as a means to consolidate State Power, and to protect their own class position. Needless to say, for the Ruling Class’ position to remain stable they must keep the exploited in their state of depravity. Their vile rhetoric is an instrument to materialize these societal circumstances. Ultimately, though Chomsky signed this letter in good faith, that message itself has become distorted, and co-opted, by the Ideological State Apparatus of the Left. The question that arises from this dynamic is this — For Chomsky, is it worth being co-opted by the more problematic left so long as this keeps the incredibly more sinister Right at bay ?
Nevertheless, The battle of appearances is an idea that has been increasingly circulating in discourse, and there is no easy answer here. But the increasing circulation of images amongst everyday people taken by everyday people, and the increasing amount of organized movements, are encouraging steps in refamiliarizing, and disillusioning ourselves from these distorted images, and misconstrued social relations. At bottom, this battle of appearances is one in being able to recognize the conditions of our everyday lives, which again, have become distorted by various ideologies within the Ruling Class, from both the left and the right, yes. If we are able to dismantle these modes of distortion, and these repressive apparatuses, we could begin a process of realigning ourselves with a reality that has some fidelity to how we actually live our lives amongst one another.
Works Cited.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/noam-chomsky-antifa-us-alt-right-us-state-donald-trump-white-nationalist-a8044526.htmlhttps://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
This post was edited around 7 p.m. on July 8th