El  8 Jun 97 a las 1:08, Bill Bartlett nos dice(n):

> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
>
> >As for the "crisis of
> >overproduction" etc., I assume you are talking about some other
> >thread dealing with that tired Marxist cliche (one frankly, that I
> >can't recall Chomsky ever employing, speaking of sticking to
> >Chomsky-related topics). I thought Chomsky's challenge to the rest
> >of us was to fashion a more just society,
>
> "Tired old marxist cliche"? Ouch!
>
> Nevertheless, economic reality is basic to that challenge to
> "fashion a more just society" don't you think? I can't help thinking
> therefor that the theory is crucial. If it is correct then a more
> just society is not possible under capitalism, if you don't think it
> is correct then give us logical argument, not just a snide remark.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas.


I'm a socialist, a Marxist to be sure, and I know Noam Chomsky is
not. This does not make me sneer at his ideas, nor disregard his
"anarchist" (?) leanings.  One of the things I love in Chomsky is his
compromise with truth and justice, no matter the odds, or ideas. I don't think
he would be very pleased to know that people in this list retort to
others speaking of "cliches" instead of posing logical arguments.

Moreover, I would add that his writings on American involvement in Asia,
Latin America, and, to be honest, the whole world outside American
frontiers include (as a logical precondition if not explicitly, I cannot quote
and expect not to be forced to by a "Chomskian Inquisition") the idea
that American economy needs such forced outlets for overproduction
within the country's boundaries.

But I may be wrong. Were this the case, will someone show me that
Noam Chomsky believes the "crisis of overproduction" a cliche, or
something the like?  I suppose that he is no less serious scientists
than the Victorians, who valued highly the work of Dr. Marx (cf.
Eric Hobsbawm's "Dr. Marx and the Victorians").

Regards to all.
Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky
[log in to unmask]