[lbo-talk] Chomsky, Zinn and Nader/Camejo

Dwayne Monroe idoru345 at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 25 11:16:06 PDT 2004


Jon Johanning wrote a critique of my previous post in this thread at:

<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040621/013720.html>

=========

All valid points Jon but, to provide the right context, let me be a bit of a phillistine and quote myself:

"[Chomsky and Zinn's notions form] A logical division of labor, even if one disagrees with the underlying assessment informing the idea."

Which, as it happens, I do, at least to some extent. Or, to put it in other words, I can see what appears to me to be the gentlemen's reasoning (as presented by Greg Bates) even while I hold a different view.

What view is that? Well, for starters, there probably are no "safe states" and, as you say, a vote for Nader is not necessarily the way to build a third party alternative.

So what I'll call, for lack of a better term, the Chomsky/Zinn framework is surely logical (one expects nothing less from these luminaries) but not the right approach for the current situation.

.d.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list