1. Who is the American left that Harris considers as so demonic? He offers three names--Chomsky, Wallerstein, and Baran.
He is talking about the "World left," not just the "American Left."
He sums up Chomsky by saying that "Noam Chomsky has repeatedly characterized (USA) as the world's major terrorist state." I have read enough Chomsky to believe that is a fair statement of his position.
He mentions Wallerstein and Baran in the context as the originators of the "Baran/Wallerstein" approach, not as "demonic." They are the Academic "Precursers" of Chomsky, according to Harris. They are the originators of this concept.
His main references to the left at the start are
"Darius Fo, the winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature....quoted in the New York Times....'The great speculators [of American capitalism] wallow in an economy that every years kills tens of millions of people with poverty' [in the Third World"
and
"Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt's revision of Marxism in their intellectually influential book Empire (Harvard University Press, 2000) a reinterpretation of historical materialism in which the global capitalist system will be overthrown not by those who have helped to create it, namely, the working class, but rather by a polyglot global social force vaguely referred to as "the multitude," the alleged victims of this system."
These two references certainly follow the "Baran/Wallenstein" line.
But there is no way I can see he could argue that Chomsky's views are the views of the Am left.
I have hardly read anything about the Am left (or the left anywhere in the world) in the last year that did not start with Chomsky. Chomsky seems to wander the world "Bad Mouthing" this country. If you use the term, "Am Left" and leave him out, I think people would wonder why. He is "Hard" left, not "Garden Party" left, but when I read articles about debates on America's place in the world, his ideas always seem to be quoted.
His treatment,...the thing he calls the Baran-Wallerstein thesis is not competent.
Since neither you nor I pretend to be competent in Marxist Theory, your position is hard to get at. You admit that you have read competent articles in "Policy Review" by Authors you know. It is a well respected Magazine. Harris has been published twice this year by them.
This one reminds me that is does come out of the Hoover Institution and doesn't edit it's more political pieces carefully.
You question the editing of this article by the staff, inferring that the Marxist material presented is incorrect, but you give no basis for that position, other than the fact that it is not footnoted, and that he has not written a book, instead of a short article, to prove his expertise. I think reading the text of the article shows he knows the literature. As FrankW says in response to another post of yours on this article:
" His description of evolution of Marxist thought with regard to "immiseration" from its origins through the mid 20th century to its most recent development would be a wonderful crib for an undergraduate wanting to get up to speed on the topic."
Thomas Sowell, who made his original reputation, and got his PHD, as a Marxist Economist, is a Fellow of the Hoover Institute, and mentioned in the article. The Hoover Institute Staff is well versed in Marxist Economics. I take the position that if Harris was wrong in his facts about Marxism here, the Editors would have caught it. |
