Re.: Chomsky and Zinn on the Overthrow of Workers States

Borba100 at SPAMaol.com Borba100 at SPAMaol.com
Mon Oct 16 19:22:17 MDT 2000


In a message dated 10/16/2000 5:07:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
chris_brady at earthling.net writes:

<< On the one hand, I do not
 think we must expect the entire world to become text-quoting Marxists
 before there is any possibility of working class-led, socialist
 revolution.  >>

Oy vey.

When Mr. Marx said "I at least am not a Marxist" he had in mind those who see
the qwuotation of the proper texts as a sign of virtue, instead of relying on
FACTS and ANALYSES of the current real world,  Thus thw writer avoids the
most obvious of facts: that the CHomsky who totally opposed  the Vietnam war
(and realized the doves were false opponents) was a whole different Chomsky
from the one who justifies US intervention in case after case today. (ALways
for humanitarian or democratic - and now even socialist - reasons!)

The Chomsky of today apologies for Imperial rule.  That would be true, even
if he added appropriate quotations from texts, Marxist, Talmudic, or Hindu.
Only one thing defines one's relation to the world, and that thing is: what
one says and does in relation to the world.

To quote a text: "previous philosphers have talked about the world; the point
is to change it."  To quote another text: "Men can be distinguished from
animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They
themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin
to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their
physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are
indirectly producing their actual material life."

And similarly, poltiical actors define themselves by how they act to alter
the world - not by what they said thirty years ago, but what they say and do
as regards the issues of the day.

Best regards,
Jared





More information about the Marxism mailing list