[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Stephen Steinberg

[David Green]

This is a pretty interesting forum interaction based
partly on the works of Stephen Steinberg, who I think
is little known and underrated. The work referred to
is "Turning Back," which is a history of the
ideological/political retreat from the promise of
equality of the civil rights movement. His other book
is called "The Ethnic Myth," which debunks notions of
white ethnic "merit" versus blacks and other racial
minorities. 

Turning Back is a very readable book which can serve
partly as a history of the origins of the early
neoconservative movement in the 60s, which originated
in a backlash against the civil rights movement,
especially among Jewish intellectuals like Kristol Sr.
and Nathan Glazer, and Catholics like Daniel Patrick
Moynihan.

I believe that Steinberg teaches at one of the SUNY of
CCNY campuses.

Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:58 -0800
From: "Chris Spannos"
Subject: Chomsky replies re Realism and Strategy
Reply To: mailto:znetchomskychat.76443 at forum.zmag.org
Message URL:
http://forum.zmag.org:80/~ZNetCmt/read?76443,5
Reply URL:
http://forum.zmag.org:80/~ZNetCmt/post?5,76443
Reply/Quote URL:
http://forum.zmag.org:80/~ZNetCmt/post?5,76443r

Reply from NC,

Steinberg's work is interesting and important, but I
do not see the 
relevance.  Each case has to be addressed on its own. 
If we care about 
the victims, we have to ask what policies are likely
to help them or to 
harm them.  And in each case, we have to approach it
realistically, 
considering the conditions of this world, not some
imaginary world we wish 
existed.  We have to distinguish mereproposals("beat
your swords into 
plowshares and love each other," etc.) from
seriousadvocacy, which 
combines proposals with some indication of how we get
from here to there.   
Mere proposals are never principled, virtually by
definition; they tell 
us nothing about how to help those who are suffering. 
And we clearly 
want to avoid mere proposals when they are actually a
gift to the most 
repressive forces.  Advocacy should be principled.  As
I read Steinberg, 
he would agree.  To borrow your words, paraphrasing
Steinberg, we have 
to try to select a path that "would effectively
address the conditions 
faced by" the victims -- blacks and Palestinians, in
the cases 
mentioned.  Beyond that, we ask how to realize these
conditions in the (quite 
distinct) cases.  I don't see anything further to say
at this level of 
generality.

Noam Chomsky

At 08:32 AM 12/14/2004 -0500, you wrote:

 



From: znetchomskychat Listmanager 
[mailto:znetchomskychat.listmanager at forum.zmag.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 3:36 AM
Subject: Realism and Strategy

From: "Brooks Berndt" <justicia_ahora at hotmail.com>

Recently, I read your response to Noah Cohen on
"Advocacy and 
Realism."  I happen to also be reading Stephen
Steinberg's "Turning Back" at the 
moment.  This has provided an interesting comparison
for me.  Steinberg 
argues against liberals and "radicals" who retreat
from race-based 
policies in the US for reasons framed respectively as
"realpolitik" or 
anti-systems struggle.  Some liberals argue that
"America is too racist to 
support programs targeted specifically for blacks,
especially if these 
involve any form of preference which is anathema to
most whites" 
(112).  Thus, they have argued for alternative
policies aimed at improving 
the lives of "everyone."  At the same time, "radicals"
have argued that 
the entire system needs to be destroyed and that
race-based policies 
don't really solve the problem.  Thus, time should be
spent fighting the 
system instead.  Steinberg believes the political
fantasies of 
"radicals" and the "realism" of liberals have been the
kiss of death to policies 
that would effectively address the conditions faced by
poor blacks.  
Steinberg longs for political advocacy with backbone
or what some might 
call "principle."  He believes that the struggle for
racial justice must 
make race-based policies an imperative.  Where would
you take a stand 
in this debate?  How would you take your stand based
on the kind of 
realism and envisioned feasibility that you discuss in
your response to 
Cohen?