>list welcoming notice follows:...Welcome to the discussions
>of the philosophy, work and influencesof Noam Chomsky...
>The purpose of the list is to: 1. To serve as a forum for
>the free expression of political ideas. etc. etc.

>reviewing the purpose of this forum, so far i don't
>see that it has been fulfilling its aims.
>
>comments?

Norm,

Yes. First of all an apology if recent exchanges have seemed rather
intemperate. Reviewing my own contributions I must admit I have been a
bit cantankerous. I'm also sorry that you feel that the discussion has
been unconnected with Chomsky. I am a little surprised that this is your
view. In fact I am rather disappointed with the list for being rather
supine of late (with a few exceptions). There is, potentially, a very
interesting discussion of Chomsky waiting in the wings here.
Unfortunately my own pennies' worths have done little to coax it out.

The 'challenge' - made by Tony Abdo - has been explicit. In his recent
postings about Chomsky's analysis of Milosevic, the following thoughts
have been tabled (my paraphrasing):

"Chomsky has done next to nothing through the years, to try to
organizationally build an antiwar alliance. His call for US Left
activist solidarity with Yugoslavia at this point is repulsive."

"Chomsky seems to think that the fact that the US bribed
the electorate, with its promise to stop the economic sanctions
if they abandoned Milosevic, is inconsequential."

"Chomsky's take on the situation seems to be that the people of
Serbia are in the driver's seat?! Taking over industry!...
establishing dual power?! This is ridiculous."

"Chomsky is being ridiculous by implying that militarily whipping
a country builds up support for whoever is the leader at the time of
defeat. How sad that he has been backed off into this absurdity,
by his abstentionism in opposing NATO in a concrete manner, rather
than just the occasional puff of words via Znet and other Left
press vehicles."

"Chomsky's admirers accept Chomsky's inactivity as a coalition
builder with the excuse 'he is a theoretician'; this is truly
appalling. Chomsky built his whole fame as a theoretician, by
denouncing the divergence between talk and action of so many others.
And now we are just to accept his refusal to make no effort to
organize anything, at its face value?"

"Chomsky occupies the unique position of being the best known
of the Left intellectuals, while being the one who is doing the
least to build an alternative movement to US foreign policy.
This was not always the case."

"Shouldn't the Left hold its 'leaders' to a higher standard
than just worshipping their biting 'analyses'?"


And so it goes on. There's plenty more, and I have found it rather
thought provoking. The fact that my responses may have been a bit clumsy
or considered off-target is beside the point. The discussion has been
ABSOLUTELY in accordance with the list's 'purpose'. Surely?

The above assertions about Chosky have - apart from responses from
Jonathan and Alistair - gone basically unanswered... and on a list
dedicated to discussing Chomsky! And now there are a couple of e-mails
coming in asking people to stop talking about it. Hot tempers (assuming
that it isn't just a case of lively debate, sprinkled with a bit of
sarcasm) will harm no one. Unless of course it obscures, for some people,
the fact that the discussion is very much about Chomsky. And about his
detractors.

Did Chomsky drop the ball on the Milosevic issue? Or is this the view of
left-wingers whose greatest passion of all is their contempt for
left-wingers who are not quite left-wing enough? How would the 'hordes of
Chomsky admirers' feel about his appearance on picket lines 'dirtying his
hands'? Would his stature as a 'theoretician' translate into a
significant inspiration for those 'actually doing something?'. Or is his
stature diminishing as the years pass anyway? Or is the sort of criticism
we have seen on this list recently merely a kind of posturing? Etc. etc.

THIS sort of stuff... it's the 'list's purpose', isn't it?

Cheers

Adrian