<div>On 10/18/06, ravi <<a href="mailto:ravi.bulk@gmail.com">ravi.bulk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> At around 18/10/06 3:07 pm, Angelus Novus wrote: > Michael McIntyre wrote: > >> No more of this, "forget what he says, he >> objectively serves an >> objectionable function" crap. > > The Chomsky worldview summed up neatly.  Forget > objective social structures, ideology, fetishized > relationships, historical context, social interests. > Just the facts please. > > A left that reads Chomsky and Finkelstein rather than > Marx or Lukacs deserves to lose, and lose badly. > Where exactly does Chomsky say forget structures, ideologies, etc? You are open to carry out all forms of analysis as long as you can use some consistent, meaningful language to demonstrate its general consistency and applicability. In its better moments, this is the basic complaint against postmodernism and some parts of sociology.         --ravi </blockquote><div> Here, here , ravi.  But let me get specific.  </div> </div> All one has to do is read "The Manufacture of Consent" or "Power and Ideology: the Managua Lectures" or "The Political Economy of Human Rights" to realize that Chomsky deals with structures, institutions, class, social interest, historical context....  He offers an institutional analysis and an analysis that is quite consonant, though not equal to, class analysis.  I am not sure where Angelus gets his information but it is certainly not from reading Chomsky.  As far as "feteshized relationships" this is a term of art that Chomsky does do without because he believes such notions are either meaningless or exhibit "theoretical" pretensions where theory is not possible.  But then this last point gets into his ideas of the limits of knowledge and the narrowness of science.  Jerry