Noam Chomksy on Kosovo (FWD)

[Henry C.K. Liu]

The intellectual left is constantly at an disadvantage because it has to depend
on hard data provided by the rightist government who alone can afford to collect
them.  The collector of data has an inherent advantage in conceptualizing and
manipulting the statistical world to his ideological advantage (first observed by
another Max - Weber.)  The left is thus left with the defensive option to
puncturing through loop holes and inadvenrdent inconsistencies to make its
points, lest it be dismissed as being blind to reality.
Take for example Max's seemingly air-tight data on the fall of defense
expenditure as percentage of GDP. What the data really show is the pervasive
militarization of the civilian sector because the real growth in the GDP is in
the high-tech sector where much military purposes are privatized.  Soon, America
will have a privatized army, a privatized intellegence sector, privatized R&D and
procurment, etc., and Max will point to the shrinking Federal Budget and rejoice
at the triumph of peace while the entire economy is put on a war footing.  The
proof for this trend is the conflict between natuional security and free trade
opposition to export restrictions to so-called "dual use" technology in the
private sector.
The trade dispute between US and China is largely one of the US not wanting to
sell China what China wants to buy - high tech.  It is a hidden form of embargo
which, strictly speaking, is an act of war.
The fast growth of the field cryptology and its export potential is a major
national scurity issue.  The mere downloading of the most advanced Netscape
browser from an overseas location or by a non-citizen requires on-line
registration with the FBI.
If Marx had accepted and worked only with data defined by the establishment, he
would have gotten nowhere conceptually.

Henry

Doug Henwood wrote:


> Apsken at aol.com wrote:
>
> >Max Sawicky wrote,
> >
> >"(Of course, our "revolutionary defeatists" would have nothing but contempt
> >for any pretension of international capitalist law.  They have no business
> >invoking Chomsky for support.)"
>
> [...]
>
> >I haven't seen Max protest when Doug Henwood gives thumbs up to his work, so
> >the hypocrisy of his (Max's) latest attack on Marxists is evident.
>
> Don't know if it's hypocrisy, but it's pretty hard to understand. Chomsky
> is too hostile to Marx for my taste, but that aside, I can't think of a
> U.S. political intellectual I admire more. But I can't imagine Chomsky
> being any more sympathetic to international *capitalist* law than any
> Marxist - in fact, given his anarchic preferences, he'd probably be more
> hostile to the idea philosophically than a lot of Marxists might be. And I
> can't imagine any reason why "revolutionary defeatists" (who, as far as I
> know, are mainly interested in defeating U.S. imperialism over the long
> term, though they might disagree on the details - what other defeatism are
> they guilty of, other than a justified discouragement about the prospects
> for revolution in 1999?) shouldn't turn to Chomsky for support; what other
> radical analyst has documented the crimes of the United States more
> effectively over the last 30 years than Chomsky?
>
> Max seems to have a psychological need to cast himself as the sane guy
> surrounded by wackos. But face it, Max, most of your Beltway neighbors
> think your politics are pretty wacky too.
>
> Doug