[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Stephen Steinberg

[C. G. Estabrook]

I read Chomsky's response without knowing Steinberg's book, altho' it
seemed to me that Noam's point is correct.

Have you read his debate with Noah Cohen?  What do you think of it?  I'm
not sure that Cohen doesn't have the better of the argument.  --CGE


On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, David Green wrote:

> 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?
>