This discussion is very interersting.
I tend to agree that Chomsky's analises with regards to economic issued are
oftenly far from satisfactory or far from giving a full and understandable
picture.
But we have to acknowledge that Chomsky admits this fact himself and he does
it quite frequently. He is very rigorous in quoting his sources and lecture
that had some influence upon him; his economical analises are rooted in
tradition of "Dollar and Sense" magazine, in the extensive works of Herman,
Henwood and many others; he is , also, very close to Preamble Center
research economists and some European economical circles ( Alais , for
instance);
My pont is that there certainly are some serious lacuna in his economical
analises, but that he openly admits that this is not his field and that he
is presenting, while treating the subject, opinions which are of some
academical merit, according to his opinion and choice. I dont think that he
wants to establish a monopoly on critical knowledge about human affairs. He
is very cautious and rigorous, scientificaly rigorous, in this respect.
 Some other things:

> constraints that nations operate under. In Chomsky's world, all too often,
>there is a morally right outcome, and if that outcome isn't achieved, then
>someone must be corrupt. That, I am afraid, is a pretty naive stance to
>take.

We must not forget that "Chomsky world" is a world of a scientist who is,
like it or not, an anarchist.
Chomsky represents , with great vigour, new, fresh synthesis of anarchist
thought. His works are significant part of the renneiscance of
left-libertarian movement ( in Europe we use only the term *libertarian* to
describe left-anarchist tendencies). We may argue is his stance is naive or
not, but it is a stance derived from anarchist tradition. And anarchistic
tradition, notably @syndicalist one ( Chomsky is a member of AIT) , is
postulated on the concept of social ethics and imanent institutional
coruptness.
 Anyhow, depriving his analises from their basis, libertarian socialist
thought and strategy, not mentioning them, is a serious methodological
mistake.
Red & Black regards,
                                      Andrej
                            Belgrade Libertarian Group

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] The Passion for Free Markets - By Noam Chomsky 2/2