Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:26:07 -0500
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-I: Zionism, antisemitism and history


Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:

>New York Times in reviewing one of Chomsky's books claimed that Chomsky
>was one of the 7 or so most important social thinkers who ever lived, or
>something to that effect.

The NYT has all its book reviews, daily and Sunday, since 1980 on its web
site. They haven't reviewed one of Chomsky's books since 1986. Here's that
review.

Doug

----

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE BLUES

              Date: April 13, 1986, Sunday, Late City Final Edition
Correction Appended Section 7;
              Page 28, Column 2; Book Review Desk
              Byline: By Alan Tonelson; Alan Tonelson is associate editor
of Foreign Policy
              magazine.
              Lead:

              TURNING THE TIDE U.S. Intervention in Central America and the
Struggle for Peace.
              By Noam Chomsky. 298 pp. Boston: Sound End Press. Cloth, $30.
Paper, $10.

              TODAY, in the flush of the Reagan era, it is easy to forget
America's debt to the New
              Left scholars and writers who have explored the dark side of
American history, politics
              and foreign policy. This loosely knit band of thinkers has
been much less successful,
              however, at turning its findings into a convincing wholesale
indictment of current
              American public policies, much less a sound program for the
future. The strengths and
              weaknesses of the New Left's approach are all showcased in
''Turning the Tide,'' a
              broadside against the United States record in Central America
and around the world
              written by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguist
and New Left stalwart
              Noam Chomsky.
              Text:

              Mr. Chomsky's thesis is simple - which, much contemporary
foreign policy wisdom
              notwithstanding, is not necessarily a bad thing. He argues
that ''much of what U.S.
              governments do in the world'' stems from the determination of
American leaders to
              secure and preserve what he calls a ''Fifth Freedom'' utterly
unlike Franklin Roosevelt's
              first Four: ''the freedom to rob and to exploit'' around the
world. Worse, this drive is
              ''rooted in the unchanging institutional structure'' of
''military-based state capitalism''
              that dominates American society. In its quest for tight
control of foreign markets and
              resources, he argues, United States policy has ''sought to
destroy human rights, to
              lower living standards, and to prevent democratization, often
with considerable passion
              and violence.''

              No one should dismiss Mr. Chomsky's arguments as perverse,
60's-era
              America-bashing without finishing his first and third
chapters, which detail the
              horrifying atrocities committed in this century against
Central American populations by
              local forces with which Washington worked closely, then and
now. Like most of the
              book, these sections are ''clip jobs'' drawn from secondary
source histories, from news
              articles and from reports by the usual assortment of liberal
and left-leaning Latin America
              and human-rights groups.

              But as the debate over United States involvement in Central
America intensifies, it
              becomes doubly important to recognize how much high-quality
evidence challenges the
              Administration's claims that in El Salvador decent civilians
are firmly in control and the
              guerrillas are practically defeated, or that the Sandinistas
are so repressive and so
              dangerous to the hemisphere that America simply has to do
something. Indeed, the
              degree to which Mr. Chomsky can not only challenge but also
persuasively reverse such
              claims about those forces responsible for the worst
repression and aggression in Central
              America should jolt any fair-minded person who still buys the
Administration's moral
              case for current United States policy. In addition, Mr.
Chomsky amply documents his
              charge that even the country's best news organizations have
too often swallowed the
              essentials of the Reagan Administration line in this
conflict; he should only train his
              sights on some Congressional Democrats next.

              Yet ''Turning the Tide'' - much of it turgidly written - is
profoundly flawed. Mr.
              Chomsky should not have to call Jeane Kirkpatrick the
Administration's ''chief
              sadist-in-residence''; any record that is truly atrocious
should speak for itself. Further,
              the author doesn't seem to know the differ-ence between
attributed and unattributed
              quotes, frequently treating the statements of nameless ''U.S.
officials'' and ''informed
              sources'' who agree with him as revealed truth. Like most
participants in the Central
              American controversy, Mr. Chomsky is often highly selective
in his use of evidence.
              And it would be much harder to label him reflexively
anti-Israel if, just once in his harsh
              description of the Jewish state as the handmaiden to American
oppressors in Central
              America and a brutal colonizer at home, he mentioned that
most of Israel's neighbors do
              not recognize the country's right to exist and remain
officially at war with it.

              Big theoretical problems abound, too. A compelling
one-dimensional interpretation of
              American foreign policy is not inconceivable, but Mr.
Chomsky's version - ''The
              guiding concern of U.S. foreign policy is the climate for
U.S. business operations'' -
              ignores too much of what the postwar world's Western creators
not only said, but did. A
              corporate oppressor state that built up industrial centers in
Western Europe and Japan in
              the stated hope that they would soon rival the United States
is behaving in too peculiar a
              manner to warrant that title. And a system of domination
that, for all the misery it may
              have helped to create, has not only brought record prosperity
to the people of the
              industrialized world, but to South Korea, Taiwan and others
in the third world as well -
              and permitted all of these populations to exercise
unprecedented control over their
              destinies - cannot be explained by blanket condemnation. MR.
CHOMSKY'S analysis
              shows that his neglect of these points stems neither from the
polemicist's need to
              deceive, as his critics usually charge, nor from a sense of
guilt run wild. Rather, it
              reflects a failure to think of United States national
interests in a Hobbesian world in
              which tragic choices are sometimes unavoidable. Nowhere in
''Turning the Tide'' is
              there a serious discussion of what America needs to do in the
world to provide for its
              security or prosperity. The author simply heaps scorn on the
notion that America
              confronts forces that would be hostile no matter how benign
Washington's international
              actions. And he tends to discuss America's material
well-being as a right that is or is not
              due us - as though the international system we are stuck with
for the foreseeable future
              permits us to deal with such matters primarily in legal or
moral terms.

              The choices made by American leaders might have been
hideously or pathetically wrong.
              But they are most accurately seen as choices made to preserve
specific interests (even if
              they have not honestly been presented as such) and best
criticized as counterproductive,
              dangerous and/or unnecessary. Otherwise one is reduced, like
Mr. Chomsky, to
              debating points that are factually valid but useless as
guides to American policy.

              Because Mr. Chomsky provides rhetorical ammunition from a
too-often-ignored and
              maligned perspective, he enlarges the bounds of today's
foreign policy debate. But the
              terms of the debate remain largely sterile. How politically
and militarily active does
              America need to be in this hemisphere to preserve its
interests? How active does it need
              to be in the world? What roles, if any, can moralistic and
legalistic concerns play in
              safeguarding American interests in today's state system?
Merely posing these questions -
              and suggesting that not all worthy foreign policy goals are
mutually re-enforcing - are
              acts of thinking far more radical than anything in ''Turning
the Tide.'' <123> April 27,
              1986, Sunday, Late City Final Edition <127> The publisher of
''Turning the Tide: U.S.
              Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace''
by Noam Chomsky was
              listed incorrectly in the April 13 Book Review. The publisher
is South End Press.





     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---