Well, the point of my article was (years ago--a sidebar to an article about Holocaust Denial on campus) to independently go back and see if Chomsky's critics and Chomsky's claims stood up to independent verification. For the most part Chomsky's claims won out, but not entirely. So there was a purpose in refuting most of his critics but exploring where there were some legitimate criticisms.
For me the main issue is that there are some people on the left who have embraced both Holocaust revisionism and antisemitic conspiracy theories, and that this is an important piece of information for the left to chew on.
So, in fact, the discussion we have been having has for the most part been an attempt to fine tune the actual legitimate parameters of the critique of Chomsky. Therefore just saying read Chomsky's defense of insufficient. Because Faurisson was not a relatively apolitical liberal, and Chomsky was being scammed in an elaborate behind the scenes operation coordinated in part by the denial-mongering antisemitic Institute for Historical Review.
So there is something we can learn from this discussion that we can apply to dealing with the handful of leftists who start down the road to antisemitic conspiracism in their critiques of Israel and Middle East policies or corporate globalization. Sorting this out can be painfuland seem not a priority, but I think it needs to be someplace on the agenda. Elements of the extreme right very much want to recruit from the left, and they often start with anti-elite conspiracsm and then shift into antisemitic conspiracism. This is happening all over the US and Europe.
See:
http://www.publiceye.org/Sucker_Punch/Anti-Globalism.html
and
http://www.savanne.ch/right-left.html
(sorry for snapping)
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of dave dorkin
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 10:16 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Alterman on Chomsky
>
>
> Hi Chip
>
> I followed the posts a bit but must admit that the
> significance eludes me. The main complaint seems to be
> that some feel that Chomsky's move may or may not have
> been principled (I feel it was but feel that no one
> will be convinced either way with the type of evidence
> offered) and that either way he should have known
> better and should admit to it. Doesnt seem like a big
> deal to me; quite possibly he made a principled
> decision with which some wouldnt have agreed. Give him
> the benefit of the doubt on the basis of his history
> (or not) and then maybe say he has a different
> approach than some. Period. I dont frankly see much
> point to your article on him though I appreciate work
> you have done in the past and I feel that his article
> in the Nation is entirely coherent and defensable.
> Further, no one apologises for free speech support for
> former East European dissidents who have made and make
> racist or fascist statements etc...why not? Should
> they have known with absolute certainty about the
> speaker in that and all the other cases regarding free
> speech and how much time do they have to spend on
> follow ups etc? I dont think that is the point of this
> debate such as it is
>
> Perhaps there are as they say, two weights and two
> measures here...
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
> http://launch.yahoo.com