[Marxism] Stoning Oliver Stone

Al Thompson A.Thompson at Astronautics.com
Fri Dec 14 09:52:20 MST 2012

Louis Proyect's "The Stoning of Oliver Stone," on the Counterpunch web
site, leads me to ask:  On what basis is one justified to label a given
work "leftist" (or "rightest")?  And I would answer by saying that if
some of the "facts" presented lack in empirical support and/or if the
facts reported all have sound empirical support, but that certain
important such facts are omitted, there is a basis for labeling a given
history as biased in one direction or another.  


Being inclusive (of the facts) is, of course, impossible-one must use
one's judgment as to what facts to report, what not to.  And given that
one's "judgment" is likely to have a bias, it is not possible to produce
a history that won't be accused of bias by someone-even though one has
been as scrupulous as one can be in trying to be fair.


I have not read the book in question, so I don't know what
qualifications are stated by the authors as to their intent.  If their
stated intent is to report some unknown facts about what happened-so
that they admit that the book will be biased in that way-I see only one
basis for criticizing the book:  questioning the veracity of some of the
"facts" reported by the authors.  It appears to me (on the basis of
Proyect's article) that Goldman lacked such a basis, and was making
unfounded assertions instead.  Now, THAT'S bias!


Alton C. Thompson

Greendale, Wisconsin

More information about the Marxism mailing list