The Problem with Chomsky

Max Sawicky sawicky at epinet.org
Sun Dec 19 09:33:05 PST 1999


. . . max can write, without offering any kind of substantiation as i asked, "The elimination of limits to migration increases the bargaining power of capital relative to labor. . . .

[mbs] isn't this obvious? how could it be otherwise?

. . . Control of migration has the reverse effect. The latter should be our goal", and later imply that there are no damaging consequences from aligning with buchanan. well, i can understand why he would not think there are, given those previous comments on migration being responsible for the decline in bargaining power; but i do. max has also been particularly vocal on the issue of 'those anarchists'.

[mbs] NOWHERE can you find me claiming that migration is 'responsible' for the decline in bargaining power. It could be a factor, and in principle it certainly should be. The biggest factor is mobility of capital. You keep coming back to immigration as if it is one of the major issues of our time. I don't see it.

I don't think I have made much of a fuss about anarchists. I said what I thought about their roles in Seattle and left it at that. I don't think they are going anywhere politically, so they are not worth that much attention IMO.

Your terminology of "align with the right" is a little loose. I was more precise about what, how, and when. Fact is right now the anti-global right and left are both dwarfed by forces of neo-liberalism. So tactical coordination is essential.

This speaks to a more general fussiness that I can see from pro-trade lefts. Other people get upset about some babble from Hoffa Junior and other politically incorrect statements from workers. One of the first debates I got into on PEN-L was about the issue of dishonesty in politics. Assorted lefts voiced concerns. I was pretty surprized as a newcomer. There seems to be a strong Boy Scout factor among academic lefts -- a wish for progressive politics to be more beautiful and enobling than it is reasonable to expect. Call it the no-omelette, sunny-side up position.

. . . to put it as plainly as i can: all the hand-on-heart stuff about the need for unity is a corollary of a refusal to separate oneself from the right.

[mbs] I've explained repeatedly why the logic of the progressive side of anti-globalism is inherently opposed to the right, and why an imminent separation is inevitable. So I won't rehash.

cheers, mbs



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list