Louis Proyect wrote: > You have to see this in terms of the beginning of the McCarthyite era. It was > essential to > consolidate an anti-Communist intelligentsia around projects like the > Congress for > Cultural Freedom, etc.--often with the covert support of the CIA as > documented by > Frances Stoner Saunders. For this project to succeed, it was essential to > involve figures > on the left. Here's what Jim Farmelant said about this on Marxmail. I know > you've seen it, > Julio, but I am posting it for the benefits of others. In my opinion, people > like Timothy > Burke are the Sidney Hooks of today.
If there's evidence that *a particular individual* of *any* political affiliation is an accomplice of the *right wing* lynch mob in its assault against this country's civil liberties, then let *that* be known. Individuals of a Marxist, anarchist, vegetarian, or Fabian-socialist political persuasion could also, in principle, commit similar shameful deeds. So, what should we say about that? That it is in the nature of Marxism, anarchism, vegetarianism, and Fabianism to play the role of accomplices in reactionary witch hunts? I think not. The terms "liberal" and "liberties" have the same etymological root. I know the meaning of terms has evolved a lot, but I don't believe it is part of the public political philosophy of U.S. "liberals" to dismantle freedom of speech for the benefit of the ultra right. Therefore, if particular "liberals" are doing what you claim they're doing, it is not because they're "liberals," it's because they're crooks. For all we know, they might be betraying the principles of "liberalism." So let's attack them as crooks! There are crooks among liberals, but there are also crooks among Marxists, anarchists, vegetarians, etc. And there are also plenty of decent people among them all. A given political philosophy doesn't confer upon anybody a certificate of moral superiority or inferiority. So, alluding to the existence of a *liberal* lynch mob against Ward Churchill is unwarranted, to say the least. Politically, in the circumstances we are in, it is unwise. Let's focus on the real enemy. Anything that diverts attention from the real enemy, anything that divides the forces that -- at least in principle -- could confront the enemy at unison, anything that doesn't help forge a wider unity against these reactionary zealots is letting them off the hook. That's my opinion. Julio
