<<Shouldn't the Left hold its 'leaders' to a higher standard than just
worshipping their biting 'analyses'? Both Ralph Nader and Noam
Chomsky have very pretty programs on paper, and in their constant
critiques of the power structure from distant armchairs. But they
are not exactly Eugene Debs or Martin Luther King in involvement.
They are SILENT.
And what is even worse, they represent a Left that is SILENT.>>
Tony, correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason that leftist leaders are as
you say, "held to a lower standard", is because their efforts to reach large
numbers of people are limited by the very powers they are speaking against?
I assume that by "lower standards" you mean that they should speak about
action as opposed to information. I agree that Chomsky speaks little about
what action should be taken to 'correct' the problems that he discusses. He
himself has said that his "friends criticize him" (paraphrase from "The
Chomsky Reader") for not speaking about action.
Comparing Chomsky and Nader to MLK, I think, is not a fair comparison. The
rights that MLK fought for, mostly, ie elimination of segregation, and
equality for blacks (and other groups as well) could easily benefit the
at-that-time-current power structure. As well, blacks could easily be given
the rights they demanded on paper, but it would those in power knew that it
would remain very easy to keep them in a marginalised position; which, I
don't think anyone could argue with, they still are today. On the other
hand, Chomsky and Nader are 'advocates' for the ENTIRE group population that
is 'controled' by the corporations/government; not just a small segment (ie
MLK). Thier goal is much harder, and does not involve concessions or
adjustments of those in power now, it requires their elimination.
Jeff Shaddock
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
|
