File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9709, message 237


Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:07:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: Zionism, antisemitism and history


Hi Jim,

On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, james m blaut wrote:

> 1. Exactly who implies that the media are "Jew controlled?"

It was very clearly implied, particularly by Siddharth Chatterjee, that
Chomsky was ignored because of his position on Israel. The point that was
being made was that Goldhagen is hailed by the NYT and the rest of the
corporate media because he has allegedly produced a pro-Zionist work that
advances the goals of Israel, and that Chomsky is ignored by the NYT and
the corporate media because he is critical of Zionism and the Israeli
state. The only basis for making this argument is that the media is
controlled by Jews and/or their lackeys. Let's not try to deny the
implications of our arguments. Words and logics have meaning or they are
nothing at all. Maybe Bill Clinton likes to weasel out of tight spots with
raising language to a superficial legalese, but in the context of the
arguments being advanced it is obvious what is being said here. Don't
feign innocence or ignorance, because I am neither on this matter.

Does this deny the massive support for Israel by the US nation-state? Of
course not. All this is factual. The question is how you interpret the
facts. The reality is far more complicated than a Jewish conspiracy.

> 2. ..and that Chomsky, the most prominent Leftist in the US, is ignored
> because he is a 'self-hating Jew?'

Yes, Siddharth Chatterjee noted, right after he proposed that Chomsky is
ignored by the media, that Chomsky is a Jew. This was startling to
Chatterjee, he said, because the 'Jew-controlled' media calls him an
"anti-Semite." I corrected Chatterjee about this, noting that what Zionist
ideologues who attack Chomsky really call him is a "self-hating Jew," 
because since he is Jewish he cannot be anti-Semitic. Not only have
propagandists like Werner Cohn, working for AFSI, created character
assassinations deploying this psychological ad hominem attack (see his
Partners In Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers, Cambridge, MA,
Avukah Press, 1995), but even Chomsky has noted the term "self-hating Jew"
used against him. Again, the whole thrust of the argument, in context, is
to prove the Jewish conspiracy by comparing Goldhagen's alleged open door
to the major media because he supports Israel and the omission of Chomsky
because he is critical of Israel. Stop the weaseling. Be like Godena. Be
honest about your standpoint. 

> 3. If this discussion about CHomsky is "trivial," and "nit-picking," why
> did you devote 700 or so words to Chomsky in your post of 11 Sept.?

For exactly the reasons I answered questions number 1 and 2 of this post. 
I wanted to expose the underlying premise of this and its sister arguments
and I did. I did it so well that I actually flushed one person out, who is
now ranting, and made others weasel. What is trivial and nitpicky is to
actually get on the computer and run a search for book reviews so that you
can come back and deny what it really going on here by "swamping" it
(hardly) with what are intended to be refutations. What all this turns out
to be is smokescreen. I don't fall for propaganda tricks, Jim, and neither
should you.
 
> 4. If the NY Times ignores Chomsky, that pretty much says it for the
> bourgeois media in the US.  

The NYT is a very important paper. Chomsky says it is perhaps the most
important paper in the world. But it is hardly a legitimate position to
argue that as the NYT goes so goes the bourgeois media. Reality is far
more complicated than this. When we make these sorts of dramatic and
blanket claims, such as it was Hitler who caused the Holocaust, or the
Holocaust was the result of class struggle, we lose our credibility. What
my purpose in this whole exercise has been not only to defend Goldhagen
from what are outrageous and anti-Scientific attacks on his work and on
his character--and this defense is independent of my criticisms of
Goldhagen--but additionally two-fold. 

First, it is imperative that the vulgar Marxoid bullshit that passes for
intelligent thought on this channel be stamped out or at least
marginalized. The reductions to forces of production or social class
relations blind us to other research approaches and findings. Historical
systems differ from one another, and each totality has multiple levels of
social reality, each of which, depending on the point at which you intend
to attack the object-subject, demand various methods. In some instances,
as Engels points out, dogma may be the predominate cause. Sometimes we
wish to examine proximate causes, other times we want to explain organic
and exogenous causes. Thus, my goal has been to argue for a Marxist
position that is like MARX's, not like the Soviet party ideologue. I don't
need to say anymore on this right now because nobody on this channel has
said more on Marxian methodology and compatible positions than me.

Second, it is imperative to root out prejudices and biases on this
channel. And I won't go into this here because I have already this at
length.

I see this channel, Jim, Marxism-International, as a regroupment channel. 
Here we discuss where we are as a movement, where the world is as an
objective reality, where people are in terms of consciousness, and where
Marxist thought is as a science of history and society and as a
revolutionary praxis. There are a handful of people who carry the weight
of this channel along these lines. I am one of them. Others know who they
are, and I appreciate them. Then there are others, like you, Henwood,
Chatterjee, Godena (lately), Malecki, and others who only spend their time
attacking those who carry the load.

I would think, considering that this conversation is viewed by quite a lot
of people, if they haven't just started deleting your posts unread, that
you and the others might consider stepping back from the discussion and
and the list and really think about your behavior on Marxism-
International. Think about whether what you say on here advances the
discussion. Think about whether your goal is to say something of substance
or whether it is revenge against somebody--somebody who you feel is
beneath you--who has disagreed with you in the past. Yes, I sometimes give
what I take. But on a consistent basis, Jim, you and the others I
mentioned do little but attack, disrupt, and tear down. 

Andy Austin





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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005