Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 02:59:26 -0800
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
From: djones-AT-uclink.berkeley.edu (rakesh bhandari)
Subject: Re: Cockburn?


Back to my Oakland homie Tim W:

>I believe Cockburn is among the most irresponsible  -- perhaps the most
>irresponsible -- journalists on the left. 

This is an irresponsible accusation.  

> Not only is his view on Serbia
>indefensible, 

Though there were some powerful replies to your position on this line.  

>his attitude towards militias is totally on of whack with
>reality. 

We have already resolved that he is pulling the toes of his mushy liberal
readership at the *Nation* (Carrol Cox), though I think Cockburn would be
well-advised to remember the utter revulsion people like Buchanan engender
in minorities who may actually read his column.  

And if he is going to play with Buchanan's protectionism, why not deal as
well with his anti-laborism.   In Buchanan's case  they seem to be related;
that is, protect unskilled-labor intensive industries from competition and
then attempt to dominate world markets on the basis of cheap labor enslaved
in these protected industries.  

Moreover, perhaps Cockburn would like to comment on the debate that Adrian
Wood's work has created in the economics profession. Wood provides the
empirical evidence for the thesis that trade has harmed unskilled labor in
the advanced capitalist countries, though he ends up supporting trade
liberalizations. I would like to hear what Cockburn has to say about this. 


But I don't think there is anything out-of-whack in his argument that the
new class tends to fear any initiative by ordinary people (he was trying to
show this class contempt in the responses to the Militias; Cockburn made
this clear by referring explicity to Lasch's *Revolt of the Elite*) or that
free trade tends to be preferred by yuppies to the detriment of many, many
workers.  

These are to say the least arguable positions, which deserve serious response.
So if you are calling Cockburn out....  
  
> I am afraid he reminds me very much of my early experience with
>Lyndon LaRouche when he was a leftist. 

Give me a break.  

> His deep hatred of liberalism
>distorted his whole outlook ia thrid periodish way.  

So Clinton is a liberal (ia Nwe Democratish way of course). Should we put
more faith in his technocratic management of society than we should look to
the French workers who took things into their own hands?  

Or do you really think, Tim, the only opposition to the present system can
come from Nazis?  For whom is it comforting to propagate this fear?     

>I find myself defending
>Hillary as well against Cockburn who seems to believe government has no role
>in defense of abused children!

There are complex arguments here about the intrusive role of the
paternalist state in the family (I have not read Jacques Donzelot's classic
work nor the new issue of Telos which seems relevant to many discussions on
this line); about the nature and quality of the care the interventionist
state actually provides; about simple hypocricy as Clinton economic
policies break up families and may, in the case of welfare reform, put many
more people on the street.  

All in all, Cockburn seems to be meeting his foremost responsibility--to
provoke critical thought and debate.  

Who else has so succeeded?  

Adolph Reed (also compulsively unkind to President Piggly-Wiggly, as he
calls the Head of State)?

Rakesh 




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