(no subject)

Dddddd0814 at aol.com Dddddd0814 at aol.com
Wed Oct 23 17:41:56 PDT 2002


<<Well, I am not taking sides on Chomsky, however I would say that this tactic of "shifting topics" is a cheap tactic that some on the Left use to evade criticism.

We have perfect examples of this cheap rhetorical trick on this board. If you criticize North Korea, Iraq or the Taliban, Yoshie will not respond to your criticism, she will cite an instance where the US has done the same or worse. It's not that the instance that she cites is wrong, but she uses it as a decoy to deflect criticism of her darling regimes. Likewise, if you criticize Answer, she will not respond whether your criticism is right or wrong, she will simply accuse you of being sectarian. -Thomas >>

Thomas, I see what you are saying, but I don't think it's a "cheap tactic" to criticize U.S. foreign policy as opposed to the policy of the U.S.'s official enemy. I think there's a broader perspective here, and that what's truly "cheap" is the way the U.S. uses the capitalist media outlets to lambast these "enemies" on a moral basis. Stalinist and Popular Front-ists like ANSWER, WWP, RCP, etc., along with folks like Chomsky and Zinn, seem to me to be pointing out that if one is going to take a moral high ground, one has to apply the criticism equally to all regimes.

BUT, I also agree with your criticisms of ANSWER, in a sense, because after all it is bullshit to base a "movement" on moral-- as opposed to objective and scientific-- criticism. Morality, as we know, is always debatable and subjective and is employed by whatever class is in power to help ensure that class's supremacy. The point, from my view as a Marxist, is to analyze problematic events from the perspective of historical materialism, seek out the root social and economic reasons why they occur, and attack the problem from there-- at the root. "Never again" should really mean "never again", not just in the limited, vested sense that capitalists mealy-mouth it.

This has been my problem with the manner in which the Holocaust is spun by the state apparatii of the U.S. and Israel. If one follows the official lines emanating from these states, one can only oppose the Holocaust on a subjective moral basis, i.e., that it was "bad" and "evil." But morality, as opposed to even crude scientific analysis, puts one on a slippery slope and we are seeing very clearly now how the Holocaust is being used by Bush, Sharon, Netanyahu, etc. to justify a new genocide against Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians, and South Asians.

My grandmother, a Jewish holocaust survivor, always seemed to be dependably uncritical of Israeli policy. But with the recent wave of attacks on Palestinian villages she has changed her mind. She told me on the phone the other day that she felt that the suffering of her and others was being used to justify more repression.

So, anyway. Obviously I don't agree with the tactics of ANSWER, et al., because they have nothing to do with the working class as a class, except in rhetoric. But, when they are not caught up in their preaching and dogma, they do make the occasional truthful point about imperialist policy in relation to Milosevic, Iraq, Cuba, etc. I think their critics would do best to challenge the stronger points of their arguments, i.e., the factual bases of their claims. Challenge them where their facts start becoming dogma and encourage them to be a little more detailed and down to earth.

Best, David



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list