Ken said:
> That is nonsense, and he knows it, not having been born
yesterday, and in his own realm being the most resolute
practitioner of pursuing political ends alongside those whose
politics he regards with contempt.>
I'm not sure who "he" refers to. If it refers to Chomsky, I'd say Noam deserves more credit for intellectual honesty.
Here Ken tries to hide behind his Bolshevism::
> Thus Max intends this repeated taunt as a fashionable form of
redbaiting,
seeking to split the antiwar into reasonable/liberal and
revolutionary camps, and to demonize the latter in the eyes of
the former, in order to weaken us all, whereas those on the left
always seek to build the broadest front against imperialism. >
But most Bolsheviks supported *the* war against fascism. It was only some misguided Trots and pacifists who were confused about it, and evidently still are.
As for splitting, we all know it's in the eye of the beholder. I would like to isolate the lunacy of those who cannot pass the Hitler Test, typified by the doctrine of revolutionary defeatism or, for that matter, by the Spart treacle Doug posted yesterday. To describe this as anti-communist red-baiting is a peculiar inversion of the history of the left, since the ranks of those who couldn't figure out why it was worthwhile to support the Allies against the Axis were always a tiny, albeit courageous minority.
I have no optimism for the political future of my own peculiar views on this. I fully expect most of what passes for the left to go along with revolutionary apathy, as well as playing opportunistically to isolationist and racist currents among the general public, and abetted by the likely incompetence and inconstancy of U.S./EU policy.
As for demonization, some here expect to get away with all manner of slurs against those with whom they disagree, but scratch them with, in this case, nothing more than a political attack exploiting their own phraseology, employing no greater pejorative than terms like "confused," and well its just boo hoo hoo.
> Thus, for example, during the Vietnam War we instigated and
encouraged and
abetted every form of resistance, and did all we could to
undermine the effectiveness of U.S. armed forces. GIs deserted
for every sort of reason,
from heroic to cowardly and everything in between. We assisted
them all, not
because we adored cowards, but because our project was getting
the U.S. out of Vietnam. Cowards we shipped off to Canada or
Sweden . . . >>
This is kind of special, isn't it? Anti-war deserters and expatriates as cowards? Here we must be dealing with a truly heroic figure. And if we forget we will be reminded.
> as quickly as we could, though even that entailed risks and
cost precious resources. Heroes were put to work in the movement,
either underground or with new identities, or sometimes, as they
wished, in public protests that resulted in their loss of
personal freedom for extended periods.>
Here's a news flash for anyone too young to have been around then: it wasn't that bad. You could be actively anti-war and not worry too much about getting shipped off to an internment camp, though the possibility was periodically discussed, often with the aid of pharmaceutical enhancers.
> Every mass mobilization against the war included marchers and
banners and
podium speakers from a spectrum of contrasting, sometimes
conflicting, antiwar positions.>
Ho hum.
> The same principle holds here. Noam Chomsky's reasons for
opposition to the U.S./NATO war against Serbia are not mine, but
I hope he reaches and persuades millions, and to the extent he
does, I salute him. Nor were the faith-based pacifists who
performed some of the most effective opposition to the U.S. wars
in El Salvador and Nicaragua motivated my the same principles as
the Marxists with whom they joined hands, but we all recognized
and thwarted attempts to divide our efforts as Max now tries to
do.>
You only salute him because he validates your position. He's just another useful idiot. What's really important is the way he gets there, with which you have nothing in common, not where he ends up.
It's hard to practice entrism and third-periodism at the same time, isn't it?
> For his part, Chomsky has a pretty good record of solidarity,
without applying the kind of red/non-red test that Max urges his
disciples to employ. >
You don't have the franchise on red. The only test I proffered was the Hitler Test. In your honor, I will reconstruct it as the Little Rock Test. Should civil rights partisans, of which you were one, have supported the introduction of Federal troops into Southern states for the sake of forcing integration of public schools? The undeniably capitalist state, fronting for hypocritical, fully racist northern states, freighted with all sorts of malign economic interests . . . Which side are you on?
> Furthermore, Chomsky knows well, and doesn't hesitate to point
out, that the most dangerous threat facing the people of the
entire world is the ruling class and government of the United
States. Our pro-war liberals never address that problem.>
Yes I just love that war stuff. Gimme more war . . . bullets, bombs, the whole shootin' match. Glad you're against demonization. Are my horns showing?
I might talk more often about "the most dangerous threat facing the people of the entire world" if I thought there was some way of dealing with "it" in those terms, rather than on a less grandiose, self-important level.
> 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.>
I defy anyone to find one negative word in any post I have ever written about "marxists," "communists," or "socialists," though I've made clear I am none of the above. I'm even nice to Trots; would have to be, since I was one.
Attacking Henwood is another matter. I make it my business to do that at least once a month. Keeps him sharp.
Since my work is free of ideological distraction, it has natural, universal appeal ( :-) ). I sup with communists, socialists, anarchists, social-dems, liberals, populists, and free-thinkers of all types. Always have. You see, Ken old boy, most people think they are doing the right thing. So usually what they have to say is of some interest. It's the ones soaking in the uniqueness of their own righteousness who can be hard to take.
Now, to keep up my Henwood quota, Doug said:
<< . . . 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 . . . >>
Surely you're aware of the underlying controversy on the left -- whether to oppose war engaged in by capitalist powers under every circumstance? It's quite a bit more specific than merely being against imperialism.
It may be arcane and obnoxious to invoke WWII in the present context, but it does illuminate a gaping flaw in the logic of principled, consistent "revolutionary defeatism." Especially when its partisans still can't admit the doctrine was wrong in at least one, spectacular instance, notwithstanding the benefit of 50 years of hindsight. If you don't like the Hitler Test, try the Little Rock Test, new improved edition.
> . . . 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. >>
Don't I know it. But if I thought most people on this list were wacko, I wouldn't be around. Or I would bother some other lists I could name where the sap runs thick. I don't even think Ken is wacko. I just think he's reflexively espousing a bankrupt doctrine in this matter. I don't think the left needs reflexivity just now. It needs to be able to relate the background to all this, as Chomsky has done, which is more important in its own way -- as Ken alludes, and it needs to put aside its political prejudices when they stand in the way of the moral center of the case.
mbs