[Peace-discuss] All of which I saw, part of which I was

[Morton K. Brussel]

To put Cockburn in the same league as Chomsky or Zinn is a slander to the latter. Neither had the quirkiness and stupidity in things like the issue of climate change as Cockburn, as well as on other topics. 

And neither had the same quality of vituperation in their arguments. As others have noted, Zinn had humility while also having strong feelings and ideas. Even the sometimes arrogant Chomsky doesn't argue or talk like Cockburn. He has more and deeper understanding. Both are more nuanced from everyting I've reade about them. Cockburn is not in the same league.  

And I would take your take your bet regarding Bill Blum; he would never subscribe to the idiocies that too frequently occurs in Cockburn's diatribes, even if he might not disagree with much of what Cockburn says.  That's the sneaky thing about Cockburn; he says sensible things, and then bleats on things on which he has no understanding, as for a current example, on the climate issue and global warming.  

--mkb

On Feb 7, 2010, at 4:50 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> 	"In reading his summary of ... history, one is struck
> 	by a lack of any nuance, a kind of modern manicheism."
> 
> Strange: that was exactly the remark used - even down to the theological term - in the critiques of Howard Zinn published at his death.
> 
> Perhaps that's the fate of writers - Chomsky, Cockburn, Zinn - who dare to take a position against liberal relativism.  There are some things that are wrong, unfashionable as it may be to say so (without "nuance").
> 
> Cockburn's article is as he says about the "rebirth of the American left" and its subsequent defeat by those who have arrogated the name, like the president.
> 
> I bet Bill Blum agrees with Cockburn.
> 
> 
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> Whatever truths Cockburn speaks is vitiated by bitter hatred for a "left" which may deviate a bit from his likes and interpretations.  In reading his summary of post WWII history, one is struck by a lack of any nuance, a kind of modern manicheism. What in particular hit me in reading his account was the sentence (my emphasis)
>>> "An adolescent soul not inoculated by sectarian debate, not enriched by the Eighteenth Brumaire and study groups of Capital, is open to any infection, such as 9/11 conspiracism *and junk-science climate catastrophism* substituting for analysis of political economy at the national or global level." 
>>> In fact, Cockburn reflects here a junk critique of climate science, leading one to be wary of the veracity/validity  of the rest of his story. 
>> --mkb
>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:28 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> The Left, 1960-2010
>>> Downhill From Greensboro:
>>> By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
>>> 
>>> Half a century ago, a new decade ushered in the rebirth of the American left [...] 
>>> For the rest of his term Obama, can press forward with the neoliberal agenda that has now flourished through six presidencies. He and the Democratic Party display insouciance towards the left’s anger. Rightly so. What have they to fear?
>>> 
>>> http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02052010.html
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.