First, the off hand way he treated serious intellectual positions--Marx, Chomsky, whomsoever. Marx, as you may know, wrote some of the most glowing prose ever written about the US. And Marx' views of the capitalism of the middle 19th century certainly should not be extrapolated directly into views of early 21st century US. Thus, in my view, he was simply using Marx and Chomsky as the usual straw folk caricatures. A terrible way to argue. But Harris is not alone in that.
This misstates Harris' position completely. He was not extrapolating Marx, he was discussing the Baran-Wallerstein revision of the classical immiserization thesis into its global context. This is a twentieth-century thesis, not a nineteenth century one.
Now if this thesis is to be believed, America is enriching itself at the expense of the rest of the world. If you believe this, who wouldn't be angry? Who wouldn't demand that America make fundamental changes in its system? Who wouldn't forthrightly describe themselves as being "anti" such an unjust American system?
Now, does anybody believe this thesis, whether explicitly or as an unexamined premise for other beliefs, or not? That is a question that should be answered, not merely deflected.
If this thesis does underlie a good bit of leftist thinking, and I think it does, generally in unexamined fashion, then the American Left, for its own sake, had better sort out what it does and does not believe about America's place in the world. Because reflexive anti-Americanism just got less popular in most (American) quarters. The current response, whining about being called "unpatriotric", also has limited popularity imo.
One can argue about specific folk, Chomsky, whomsoever, they have such views
So, Chomsky, like Said, is too "complicated" to judge offhand? I see. |
