At 21/09/01 21:47 -0500, you wrote:
>I stand by what I've written.
>
>Andrew Hagen
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes it is presumptuous but I see some advantages to that. Certainly there
must be serious debate within the left about the best way forward, even if
it does not have to be totally united to be effective.
The trouble with Andrew's piece was that IMHO it did not really hit the
mark - possibly because the web-site does not permit cut and paste so it is
not easy to have direct quotes - all right Andrew did give one. But
certainly I read it to be a warning that the USA was highly likely to react
with self-righteous revenge in a way that would actually be everything the
terrorists would want.
The trouble with Chomsky as far as I understand him, is more difficult to
pin down. Basically he comes over to me as a moral critic of the USA, a
seer denouncing the evil of his own side. In the broadest terms, I agree if
Andrew says, that Chomsky gives this impression. But it is not a very
realistic basis for developing a real political movement in the USA. It
tends to assume that it is better to be isolated and moral, in your own
terms, than to work with others for a change, perhaps a very radical
change, in the real world.
I do think Chomsky redeemed himself a year or two ago when he actually
called on the USA to intervene somewhere - that was in East Timor. That
gets more into the territory of what a massive global power, (Empire?) can
and should do, somewhat to increase jjustice and peace in the world. That
stand I saw as a materialist and realistic approach to morality.
People who know Chomsky far better than I, may be able to correct me. But
despite the presumptuous of Andrew's challenge, I would like to see more
open and explicit debate about what should be the main direction that the
left should take.
My view is that it should make strenuous efforts to unite the peace
tendencies with the anti-capitalist global tendencies that were fast
developing before Tues 11th.
Chris Burford
London
