community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Great Anarchist Noam Chomsky backs BUSH-lite Kerry
by Johnnie Smoltz
Sunday, Mar. 21, 2004 at 12:26 PM
Could he now be the WORLDS MOST DUMBEST MAN!
Comment: The story below has got to be a major embarrassment for the ISO, which has been fawning over Chomsky for years, endorsing Chomsky's views without criticism, even though Chomsky is an "anarchist," a member of the IWW (or he was in 2000-2001)
Chomsky's name has been on the cover of ISR, the ISO's magazine, more often than the names of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky, and even more often even than the name of Tony Cliff, the English ex-Trotskyist who invented the International Socialist (IS) tendency, and who, interestingly, did not oppose the expulsion of the ISO from the world IS tendency a few years ago.
Chomsky backs 'Bush-lite' Kerry
Matthew Tempest
Saturday March 20, 2004
The Guardian
Noam Chomsky, the political theorist and leftwing guru, yesterday gave his reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party's presidential contender, John Kerry, calling him "Bush-lite", but a "fraction" better than his rival.
Professor Chomsky - a linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as a renowned chronicler of American foreign policy - said there were "small differences" between Senator Kerry and the Republican president. But, in an interview on the Guardian's politics website, he added that those small differences "can translate into large outcomes".
He describes the choice facing US voters in November as "the choice between two factions of the business party". But the Bush administration was so "cruel and savage", it was important to replace it.
He said: "Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes" . . .
well that settles it
by fd
Sunday, Mar. 21, 2004 at 1:54 PM
zinn also has reluctantly admitted that the difference between the two evils this Nov. are so critical that it is justified to vote for the lesser. between now and november, and then after november, whether it's bush or kerry in there, we need to stay on them to do what's right. the fact remains, however, that now is the time to support kerry, for the sake of civilization.
voting != supporting
by dannyp
Monday, Mar. 22, 2004 at 9:23 AM
dannyp@indypgh.org
You might be able to talk me into voting for Kerry (or Nader, or Peltier, or into boycotting the elections) but you aren't going to get me to "support" Kerry.
It is important that people continue to oppose the war-mongering and imperialist policies that Kerry plans on continuing. There are strategic arguments regarding who you'll vote for, but I do hope that people continue to criticize all of the candidates and whoever wins. Even if it's Nader.
Fortunately
by self-described anarchist
Monday, Mar. 22, 2004 at 9:58 AM
Now if were a moron, and Chomsky & Zinn were O'Reilly & Hannity, I would say the troll had a point, but no one here is expected to follow pundits.
Kerry or Bush or Nader-not a choice, a threat.
What's the big deal?
by John Lacny
Monday, Mar. 22, 2004 at 1:40 PM
This has always been Chomsky's position on elections. Chomsky happens to be sane, after all.
reasonable people
by Joe Thrill
Monday, Mar. 22, 2004 at 2:38 PM
I happen to think reasonable people can differ on this issue. Sorry, John, but some very sane people are going to make an informed and, in some cases, agonized-over decision not to vote for the parties of capitalism, war, and starvation (or any of the parties, for that matter).
And Chomsky hasn't been a Wobbly for the last few years. The Wobblies, by the way, are not an anarchist organization. One good thing about having Kerry elected would be that we could have more opportunities to criticize the bankrupt Democratic [sic] Party.
mis-spoke
by fd
Monday, Mar. 22, 2004 at 3:28 PM
voting does not necessarily mean supporting, though it does to some, perhaps minor, extent. and no, just because zinn or chomsky say something does not mean we should just listen to them. however, they are rather respected, and i would say well-informed, people. i venture to guess they are more so than most of us on here.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)