An analysis of the Chomsky/Bennet Debate

kelley at pulpculture.org kelley at pulpculture.org
Thu May 30 20:18:18 PDT 2002


At 10:03 PM 5/30/02 -0400, Joe R. Golowka wrote:
>http://www.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=183405&group=webcast

the author is not bad. but truly political naive to type this:

"Chomsky did well to refuse to answer the question â??Why do you continue to live in a terrorist stateâ?? the first time it was asked. However, he gave in the second time, saying, â??I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop.â?? I think this was a mistake. He should have said, â??The issue we are discussing is not where I choose to live, but the fact that the US is committing horrendous terrorist acts which should stop.â?? Once you give in on the patriotism, you have ceded ground, logically. You embrace a fallacy, which asserts that in order to participate in this discussion, you must LOVE America, otherwise you disqualified."

what horseshit. the only reason chomsky was invited on as a guest is precisely because NOT there to debate whether the US is a terrorist state. he was there to defend what motivates his criticism of the US as a terrorist state. he was there precisely to answer the question: why are you a critic of the US? why do you focus on the US and only the US?

so yes, get it off the question, "why do you choose to live here." but be honest in the maneuver answer the question that people do what to hear an answer to. because those people have criticisms of the US state too and they want a model for thinking about that. chomsky had the opportunity to be an alternative model to the anti statist libertarian and populist tripe that captures the imaginations of more people than the libertarian socialist left does.

that is why he was there. the debate was not about examining the argument that the US is a terrorist state. that cannot be argued, as the author knows, in three minutes. what can be put forth is a reason why someone should think critically about bennettbarf et al and why in their desire to become more aware of the world around them, they should listen to chomsky and not the libertarian party candidate who also is opposed to the war and who is also opposed to US imperialism.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list