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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005