Whether the list fulfills a given person's aims of course depends
on that person's politics.  Speaking for many of us, it's doing jsut
fine.
wcMeecham, PhD

>
> >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
>