Chomsky for Kerry

1. Exchange between John Enyang and Noam Chomsky
2. Further griping by (our friend) Gilles d'Aymery
3. Comment by Louis Proyect
4. Conclusions from John Enyang

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Enyang
To: Noam Chomsky
Cc: Marxism list
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 22:18:08 +0900 (JST)
Subject: [Marxism] Re: Anybody but Kerry

Dear Professor Chomsky,

Spare us the cant about the moral superiority of the Democrats (and their
liberal constituency in the US) relative to the heinous and reactionary
Republicans.

The liberal wing of the US ruling class gave us Harry Truman who used
nuclear weapons on the Japanese people to show the world (that is the
re--emergent nations in Asia and Africa, and the Soviet block) who rules
the roost.

Kennedy (another democrat) threatened humanity with nuclear annihilation
to prove the point that the Carribean and socialist Cuba is a US
backyard.

Kennedy, Johnson and McNamara, a trio of democrats, also gave us the 30
year war in South East Asia, a war you admirably opposed and whose
consequences you documented. Versus Lyndon Johnson who campaigned as the
"peace candidate," your "peace candidate" Kerry at least has the honesty
to tell us beforehand that he supports the war against Iraq, only
promising to execute it better than Bush.

The benign and smiling liberal Carter began the arms buildup which was
subsuquently credited to malignant Reagan. Carter and Brzezinski also,
through the CIA and alliances with the most reactionary social groups in
Afghanistan, to used that unfortunate country to  entrap the Soviet Union
in a futile war whose consequences have been almost as disastrous for the
rest of the world as they were to the Afghan people themselves.

Obviously this well known history of the Democratic Party as the more
successful war party in the US has no more bearing today than does the
fact that its present candidate (Kerry) sought in 2004 to secure
republican senator and arch-militarist John "I hate gooks" McCain as his
vice-presidential running mate.

Echoing Ms Thatcher's TINA mantra "There Is No Alternative" you mispose
the question facing humanity as a choice between two war parties of Bush
and Kerry or Rumsfeld and Brzezinski, all of whom unanimously agree that
US hegemony must be preserved at whatever cost (to humanity that is).
Pretending as you do that there is a real division between different
factions in the US ruling class around these issues excludes the only
viable alternative facing humanity at this juncture -- that is a popular
movement against hegemony. Such a movement cannot and will not emerge from
the rotten mileu that is the Democratic Party (or the European Social
Democratic parties either for that matter).

John Enyang


On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Noam Chomsky wrote:

> There is a simple matter of logic.  Either Bush or Kerry will win.  There
> is only one way to stop Bush from winning: to vote for Kerry in swing
> states.  Someone who objects to that is in favor of electing Bush, and
> therefore is supporting the policies of Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz....
>
> Some things can be debated.  Simple logic cannot be.  Those who want to
> extricate from the choices of the real world are permitted to do so, of
> course, but not to pretend to themselves or others that they are taking a
> moral stand.
>
> At 01:12 PM 10/3/2004 +0900, you wrote:
>
> >Dear Professor Chomsky,
> >
> >Yes, were I in favour of electing Bush then it would be correct to
> >conclude that I supported his policies. However, no evidence whatsoever
> >exist to say that I am "in favour of electing" either Kerry or Bush.
> >
> >You on the other hand do in fact support and are willing to elect Kerry.
> >Which means that you support or are willing to see his policies enacted,
> >including muscular internationalism, militarisation of space, increases
> >in military spending -- around which there is a ruling class consensus.
> >You cannot at the same time support Kerry and oppose the ruling class
> >bi-partisan consensus around the key issues of the day. From your own
> >logic, it follows from your support for Kerry, and your willingness to s=
ee
> >him elected, that you support his policies -- not least the continued
> >occupation of Iraq, increases in the size of the US military, and the DP
> >doctrines of muscular internationalism.
> >
> >John Enyang
> >
> >On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Noam Chomsky wrote:
> >
> > > If you are in favor of electing Bush, then it follows that you
> > > are willing to see his policies enacted, including those I
> > > indicated.  There is no red-baiting in pointing that out.  It is
> > > just simple logic.  If you are not in favor of electing Bush,
> > > then you will adopt the "safe states" strategy.  I'm afraid it
> > > is as simple as that.
> > >
> > > The rest I'm afraid is just fantasy.  It has nothing to do with
> > > anything I have written or said, or believe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 05:13 PM 10/2/2004 +0900, you wrote:
> > > >Dear Professor Chomsky,
> > > >
> > > >I refer to your email attached below. Your charge that I
> > > >support the "destruction of the US social security system" and
> > > >"the militarisation of space" etc, bizarre in the extreme. Your
> > > >assertion is not only unfounded; it is eerily reminiscent of
> > > >spurious charges made by many an establishment figure,
> > > >red-baiting liberals among them, who sought to discredit you
> > > >personally, slanderously asserting, for instance, that your
> > > >efforts to place events in Cambodia in an historical and
> > > >political context tarred you as a supporter or at least an
> > > >apologist for "genocide in Cambodia" etc.
> > > >
> > > >Now on the contrary, it is self--proclaimed liberal figures
> > > >such as yourself who, in falling in line behind the war
> > > >candidate offered by one wing of the Washington establishment,
> > > >eviscerate domestic and international opposition to the ruling
> > > >class consensus by giving credence to such meaningless
> > > >differences as exist between "muscular internationalism" vs
> > > >"preemptive war".
> > > >
> > > >I note also that in keeping with your dishonest support for the
> > > >muscular international wing of the U.S. ruling class (a
> > > >grouping that surely does support and implement the policies
> > > >you so dishonestly charged me, and by extension a large part of
> > > >the anti-imperialist left with supporting), you saw more merit
> > > >in biliously slandering me than in addressing the comments made
> > > >by fellow muscular internationalist Barack Obama to the Chicago
> > > >Tribune, threatening war against Iran, Pakistan should his
> > > >party gain power -- as appended in my original email to you
> > > >below.
> > > >
> > > >What a decline for someone of your stature and integrity.
> > > >
> > > >With disgust,
> > > >John Enyang
> > > >
> > > >On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Noam Chomsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Interested to hear that you favor destroying Social
> > > > > Security, OSHA, the limited medical care system, the last
> > > > > vestiges of progressive taxation, etc., and that you are in
> > > > > favor of radical escalation of militarization of space and
> > > > > eliciting the predicted responses from Russia, China, etc.,
> > > > > which are driving the world towards likely nuclear war, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not.
> > > > >
> > > > > At 11:06 AM 9/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Dear Professor Chomsky,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I write to register my disgust and disappointment with your
> > > > > >public support for the war candidate offered up by the
> > > > > >liberal (sic) wing of the US establishment --
> > > > > >transparent despite the fact that you've disguised it
> > > > > >behind the "safe states" strategy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >John Enyang

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gilles d'Aymery <[email protected]>
To: marxism list
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:33:02 -0800
Subject: [Marxism] Chomskian logic

The short exchange between John Enyang and Noam Chomsky was
quite revealing (though not new, by far).

[Chomsky]
Interested to hear that you favor destroying Social Security, OSHA,
the limited medical care system, the last vestiges of progressive
taxation, etc., and that you are in favor of radical escalation of
militarization of space and eliciting the predicted responses from
Russia, China, etc., which are driving the world towards likely nuclear
war, etc.

[my comments]
There is some irony here: Chomsky has often and properly debunked
how the ruling classes make use of fear to advance their interests, time
and again; and here he goes using the same technique. So, to follow
his syllogistic rhetoric one could  posit that:

1) Fear is a mass-controlling tool used by the ruling classes to
advance their interests.
2) Prof. Chomsky uses fear, a mass-controlling tool, to advance his
interests (as he see them)
3) Conclusion?

[Chomsky]
If you are in favor of electing Bush, then it follows that you are willing
to see his policies enacted, including those I indicated.  There is no
red-baiting in pointing that out.  It is just simple logic.  If you are not
in favor of electing Bush, then you will adopt the "safe states"
strategy.  I'm afraid it is as simple as that.

[my comment]
Old French saying: "la logique m=E8ne =E0 tout =E0 condition de s'en sortir=
=2E"

[Chomsky]
There is a simple matter of logic.  Either Bush or Kerry will win.  There
is only one way to stop Bush from winning: to vote for Kerry in swing
states.  Someone who objects to that is in favor of electing Bush, and
therefore is supporting the policies of Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz....

Some things can be debated.  Simple logic cannot be.

[my comments]
Ionesco once said, "take a circle, caress it and it will become vicious,"
which is where Chomsky is trapped...in a vicious circle.

There is no need to be disgusted (though an understanable emotional
reaction) or to attack the good man, or his logic for that matter.

It's his premises that deserve questioning.

As to my response to the conclusion of my own syllogism above, let's
just say that Burdeau defined democracy as the capacity of order to
manage disorder. Managing disorder takes many forms, from "law
enforcers" to anarchist "leaders"...

There seems to be two types of people who truly oppose order.

Those whose voice is largely unheard: They are simply ignored.
Those whose voice reaches a large audience: They end up either in jail
or killed.

Then there are people in between who oppose order to some extent
and who, depending on their intellectual or artisitc faculties, can have
long and prosperous carreers.

Sincerely,
Gilles d'Aymery
Swans Commentary


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Louis Proyect
To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:21:25 -0400

While I think his position on the elections is ill-conceived (but not as
bad as outright supporters of Kerry like the Nation Magazine crowd) and
that his reply to John Enyang was dishonest, he is still one of the most
fearless critics of liberalism in the USA. Let's not forget that in the
months following 9/11, he was practically crucified by some of these
Kerry fans. Here's something I wrote at the time:

Noam Chomsky and His Critics

In the aftermath of September 11th, certain sectors of the US left
buckled under ruling class pressure and turned against Noam Chomsky. His
uncompromising anti-imperialism might have been acceptable during the
1980s when the Sandinistas were under Washington's gun, but in today's
repressive atmosphere no quarter is given to the dissident intellectual.
Of course, no quarter is asked from Chomsky, who remains fearless and
principled as ever.

To the chagrin of ruling class pundits and weak-kneed leftists, a
collection of interviews with Chomsky, which has been published under
the title "9/11," has become a best seller. According to a May 5th
Washington Post article, the book had already sold 160,000 copies and
been translated into a dozen languages, from Korean to Japanese to two
varieties of Portuguese.

In an attempt to warn people away from the book, the Post cites Brian
Morton, supposedly "a novelist and essayist of the left," who regards
Chomsky as an important intellectual whose arguments have suffered a
sclerotic hardening. He says, "Chomsky sees the world in a very stark
way and gets at certain truths in that way, but ultimately his view is
so simplistic that it's not useful. He's become a phase that people on
the left should go through when they are young."

It should come as no surprise that the Washington Post failed to
identify the segment of the left Morton is associated with. As it turns
out, he is an editor of Dissent Magazine, a publication that might be
described as social democracy in a state of advanced rigor mortis.
Irving Howe, the founder of the magazine, was a critical supporter of
the Vietnam War who reserved most of his animosity for the antiwar
movement rather than imperialism. The current editor, Michael Walzer,
stumped for Bush's war against terrorism in the Fall 2001 issue,
stating: "We have to defend our lives; we are also defending our way of
life. Everyone says this, but it is true. The terrorists oppose and hate
our way of life--and would still oppose and hate it even if we lived our
lives far better than we do."

Eric Alterman and Christopher Hitchens, contributors to The Nation
Magazine, a left liberal weekly that has published continuously since
the Civil War, have jumped on the anti-Chomsky bandwagon with a
vengeance. Although the magazine has had a reputation for principled
anti-imperialism in the past, it has shifted noticeably to the right in
recent years. Most would explain this as a function of tail-ending the
Clinton administration.

Alterman, admits on his MSNBC.com 'blog' that Chomsky "did a lot of good
work on East Timor." But when he accused the United States of
"perpetrating a holocaust in Afghanistan" and compared the attack on the
pharmaceutical factory in Sudan with that on the Twin Towers, he went
out of bounds and became "the mirror image of the ignorant jingoism of
Bennett, Krauthammer, Kelly, Will, etc."

full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fascism_and_war/chomsky.htm

--=20
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Enyang
To: chomsky
Cc: marxism list
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:37:49 +0900 (JST)
Subject: [Marxism] Chomsky

Lou Proyect wrote:

> While I think his position on the elections is ill-conceived (but not as
> bad as outright supporters of Kerry like the Nation Magazine crowd) and
> that his reply to John Enyang was dishonest, he is still one of the most
> fearless critics of liberalism in the USA.
> [snip]
> In the aftermath of September 11th, certain sectors of the US left
> buckled under ruling class pressure and turned against Noam Chomsky. His
> uncompromising anti-imperialism might have been acceptable during the
> 1980s when the Sandinistas were under Washington's gun, but in today's
> repressive atmosphere no quarter is given to the dissident intellectual.
> Of course, no quarter is asked from Chomsky, who remains fearless and
> principled as ever.
>
and Ilyenkova:
>
> But I agree with Mark, Josh and others that the proper response to this
> isn't to scream traitor at Chomsky. As Trotsky used to insist, history
> will eventually whack this professor upside the head. Given his past
> history, we have every reason to expect Chomsky will be on the right
> side of the barricades.
>

Josh Saxe, Ilyenkova and Lou are of course right about Chomsky. I would
argue to Chomsky that the ABB position which he shares with Tariq Ali is
damaging to the left, not only domestically in the US but internationally,
since it is bot based on, and fosters liberal illusions about the nature
of Democratic Party.

As I read it, the first and immutable axiom that determines Chomsky's
position on this issue seems to be that the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz axis
controls the Republican administration and that this axis is far more
evil, as it were, than anything a Kerry Administration could or will come
with. Chomsky is of course wrong about this, since as such representative
of the ruling class as William Safire have no trouble recognising, a Kerry
Administration is likely to outflank Bush on the right on issues ranging
from Iraq to the US Social Security system.
(Saffire's column "Kerry, Newest Neocon," New York Times October 4, 2004
can be found at
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/opinion/04safire.html>).

Anyway Chomsky's presumption, or "fact" as he would, is held in good faith
and, as Ilyenkova notes, history will in all probablility whack this
professor upside in the head.

As Josh observes, I could have expressed my opinions to Chomsky with
greater courtesy, but that is another matter...

John Enyang
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://your.ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/