At 08:51 7/05/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Andy Chertow wrote:
>>
>> I must disagree with Chomsky's statement about the 'sad legacy' of 1968's
>> radical student movement and the negative consequences allegedly suffered by
>> those radicals who did not plan for the future but thought that
Revolution was
>> imminent.
>>
>> I would call it a proud legacy.  While there is nothing wrong with
organizing or
>> with building movements, there are times when the people are way out in
front of
>> their so-called leaders and events that were not anticipated take place.
While
>> there are always revolutionaries there are revolutions only infrequently
and I
>> don't see that history suggests that they follow a program.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
>        I have not read the interview , so I cannot comment on it
>directly. But I think you may be right. The revolutionaries of the 60's
>were active at a time when I was in college. Initially, I was apathetic
>but their intellectual fervor and ethical zeal enriched my life and I
>soon became a vocal opponnent of war. Later , I became involved in other
>types of activism against the ruling class. My point is that without the
>sacrifices of the revolutionaries , many people like me would have led
>empty narrow and shallow lives.
>
>        So I believe Chomsky is in error to say that the 60's were tragic
>for the revolutionaries (if I am restating his position correctly). The
>powers that be would like us to believe that the 60's were a failure.
>Chomsky may have succumbed to the force of that assertion by elitists
>because he is partially immersed in the rarified atmosphere of his
>academic acheivements and interaction with such elites, despite his well
>thought out critique of statist society.
>
>        I think I can understand that Chomsky is ethically concerned by
>the burnout of radicals used as cannon fodder by political movements. He
>may also be concerned about premature committment to revolutionary
>strategy which results in "wasted" lives. But this attitude is merely
>indicative of the fact that he really thinks responsibly about those with
>whom he shares the barricades.
>
>        I did not mean to get this long-winded, but the upshot is that
>Andy is right to disagree about any alleged waste of revolutionary energy
>since I am the beneficiary of the '60s radicalism along with millions of
>others who are still aware. this does not justify the sacrifice of those
>radicals but it ameliorates the alleged tragedy.
>
>                        Howard
>
>Thank you Howard. Beautifully put. I too owe an eternal debt to the heroes
of that time. They changed my life and I'm glad to be who I am as a result.

- Michael Coghlan