>On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:18:37 -0500 Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
>writes:
> >Rob wrote:
>
> >
> >Given his own practice, Foucault fails to justify his 'theoretical'
> >call to
> >dispense with the science/ideology distinction.
> >
> >Without the science/ideology distinction, what's the reason to prefer,
> >say,
> >Gabriel Kolko's or Noam Chomsky's account to Henry Kissinger's or
> >Robert
> >McNamara's with regard to the Vietnam War? Because the reader thinks
> >the
> >Vietnam War was morally wrong? What makes it morally wrong?
>
>There would be no reason at all. And since people like
>Kissinger or McNamara have much power on their side
>than do people like Kolko or Chomsky why shouldn't the
>perspectives of a Kissinger or a McNamara prevail over
>those of a Chomsky or a McNamara?
I mystified by some of the arguments carried on in the name of Marxism. What patience would Old Whiskers have had for arguments about choosing between moral rights and wrongs? Didn't he say somewhere of the class struggle that between two such enemies there is no right & wrong, that only force prevails?
Doug