Emma Goldberg, wondering years ago as we all still do, how have
the capitalists here been so effective in suppressing left movements
so far.
She concluded, most think correctly, that the reason is that the country
was built by slave labor (more below) and by indentured, semi-slaves
called immigrants.
Concernig slaves, it has been revealed (after over a century of
suppression) that THE CAPITOL BUILDING was built by SLAVES. Yes, it's
true.  In fact the freedom statue on the top was cast, moved and hauled
up by slaves.  The slaves and immigrants were/are in no position to
do more that be cheer leaders for the owner/rulers.
w
>
> <<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.
>