|
Romanticizing
The
Middle East and the New World Order
http://www.thethresher.com/devo.html
Romanticizing the De-Evolution of the State Zapatistas, Wired Magazine, Al-Qaeda and Rhizomatic Networks Jason Lubyk Considering the placement of their respective ideological products on the political spectrum, Mexican revolutionaries the Zapatista's (wearing costumes as cool as Slipknot's or Gwar's), whose frontman Subcomandante Marcos' songs of freedom from Neo-Liberalism has gained a swooning fan base of leftist intelligentsia worldwide; and '90s Wired magazine-style capitalist techno-libertarianism -- the founding faith of the dot-bomb economy, boostered by the likes of right-wing former-BMO Congress Newt Gingrich -- apparently have little in common, apart from their mutual enmity. But post-modern, memetically-spliced, political Frankenideologies don't necessarily fit neatly on a line graph. While it is doubtful that Subcomandante Marcos and Wired-magazine founder Louis Rosetto could put aside their ideological differences long enough to go out and hit the strip clubs together, there are curious similarities between the two. Central to both their visions is a belief in the necessity of the de-evolution of the state, in favor of a decentralized, networked society. More peculiarly, both ideologies use biological referents (actually, not so much used by the Zapatistas themselves as by their American supporters) to justify the state's dismantling. And as any Madison Avenue colonized supermarket shopper knows, natural equals good, right? Wired magazine editor-at-large and techno-theorist Kevin Kelly is (given current economic and geopolitical changes one is tempted to say "was." However, we can be certain that the techno-libertarian view will continue to have its influence in the much-fabled future) one of the main ideologues of the techno-libertarian network economy. He (along with Bionomics author Michael Rothschild) relies heavily on ideas lifted from biology to explain the topography of what we used to call the new economy. In Kelly's books, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World and The New Rules for the New Economy the central biological model is the beehive. The hive provides an example of how a collection of autonomous members "that react individually according to internal rules and the state of its local environment" (1) can self-organize into a non-hierarchal superorganism. Kelly uses hive self- organization as a model for our increasingly networked society. Connected and communicating by the Internet and other information devices, individuals are able to organize spontaneously, without any reliance on centralized commands (i.e. the libertarian's Great Satan, the state.) Any mention of political organization is absent from Kelly's books. But this is not from a lack of comprehensiveness on his part. Judging from Kelly's colleague and friend, Wired magazine founder Louis Rossetto's comments about Europe and the development of their information networks, the state in the networked hive society is not merely unnecessary. It is a malignant entity that interferes with the natural socio-economic growth and health that would occur if all the "dumb" autonomous agents were left alone to self-organize: High European taxes which have restricted spending on technology and hence retarded its development; state telco monopolies which have kept prices high and service bad, again impeding networking in the business and the home; state-directed technology investment, which has resulted in the monopolization of risk capital, uniformly bad technology policy, and the squandering of resources and opportunities; social welfare policies which reward parasitical living rather than risk; a truly atavistic, sick attachment to the compulsion and non-meritocratic elitism of statism as a way of life; and a kneejerk disdain for truly radical social and political thought that falls outside of Euro PC dogma (read failed Marxist-Fabian)-have all retarded and will continue to retard Europeans. (2) Despite the lack of a state in the hive society, Rosetto doesn't want you to worry your old-skool, woolly, wine-and-cheese-tasting, hand- rolled cigarette smoking head about the preservation of democracy. It will still exist, but it won't be democracy as expressed by electoral politics. Rossetto describes the democracy of the human hive as a "real democracy" which "is not about campaigns, but about discourse, respect for opinions, achieving consensus" on the "thousands of forums" (3) on the Net. Think different. Think privately owned Yahoo Groups and ICQ instead the Electoral College. Networks also figure heavily in the rhetoric of the southeast Mexico- based Zapatista's. In the 2nd Declaration of La Realidad the Zapatistas declare: That we will make a collective network of all our particular struggles and resistances. An intercontinental network of resistance against neoliberlalism, an intercontinental network of resistance for humanity. This intercontinental network of resistance, recognizing differences and acknowledging similarities, will strive to find itself in other resistances around the world. This intercontinental network of resistance will be the medium in which distinct resistances may support one another. This intercontinental network of resistance is not an organizing structure; it doesn't have a central head or decision maker; it has no central command or hierarchies. (4) Like the network of the techno-libertarians, the Zapatista's network is without centralized control. The state is replaced by linked-up local, autonomous, democratic organizations. But while the main objective of transformation of society into a hive network would be market liberation (and thus, questionably, personal liberation), the Zapatista network of resistance has -- in addition to proletarian economic revolution goals like minorities', women's and environmental rights. These issues are absent from Kelly's discourse about the hive society, but due to the self-organization of the great Goddess Gaia, good results would presumably emerge from chaos, in the same mysterious way "dumb" individuals self-organized into anti-Arab racist lynch mobs after the chaos of the September 11th World Trade Center attack. While the Zapatista themselves don't use biological models to describe their "network of resistance, that trendy task has been happily taken up by western academics such as Electronic Disturbance Theatre co-founder Stephen Wray. Wray uses French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guittari's concept of the rhizome as his model. The rhizome is a subterranean root structure that is horizontal, decentralized and multiple, "an acentered, nonhierarchical, nonsignifying system without a General and without an organizing memory or central automaton, defined solely by a circulation of states," (5) in contrast to the tree-root structures which "are hierarchical systems with centers of significance and subjectification... an element only receives information from a higher unit, and only receives subjective affectation along preestablished paths." (6) Like the individuals in Kelly's hive society, the nodes on the rhizomatic network of resistance link up, communicate and self-organize with the help of the internet: The Zapatistas, immediately entered the global stage just after January 1, 1994, when their communiques signed by Subcommandante Marcos were distributed globally through the Net... through pre- existing and newly formed listservs, newsgroups, and cc: lists.. This movement of information through these various cyber-nets of resistance can be said to have occurred rhizomatically, moving horizontally, non-linearly, and underground. Rather than operating through a central command structure in which information filters down from the top in a vertical and linear manner... information about the Zapatistas on the Net has moved laterally from node to node. (7) The multiple, additive nature of the rhizome maps nicely onto the Zapatista's philosophy of acceptance of difference of races, cultures and genders. Difference in Kelly's bee/human hive network appears to be more like a choice of which action figure you want to decorate your cubicle with, Spawn or Darth Maul. The use of natural models such as the hive and the rhizome justifies the rollback of the state in a much more visceral and exciting style than those historically employed by right libertarian and left anarchist political ideologues of the Hegelian past. However, Deleuze and Guittari admit that natural does not automatically equate good: "the rhizome includes the best and the worst: potato and couchgrass, or the weed." (8) The rhizomatic networks that allow for the organization of the Zapatista's struggle (as well as the recent anti-globalization and anti-war protests) against global capitalism also give terrorist groups like Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization their peculiar advantage over state-bound forces. While the upper levels of al-Qaeda are known to be hierarchical -- and its ideological goals are an authoritarian, centralized Islamic state their tactic is to use decentralized network of "local cells that operate with [al-Qaeda's] blessing and support, but cannot be easily traced back. Each cell operates independently with its members not knowing the identity of the other cells. If one group is arrested they will not be able to betray others." (9) It was a weird and tragic irony that the decentralized network, the God of the libertarian capitalists, was used by al-Qaeda on 9/11 to strike at the center of global capital, striking a final blow against the already sinking reign of naive 90's style free-market internet capitalism and ushering in a new and more malevolent paradigm. Biological techno-libertarian rhetoric also provided a hip justification for the shrinking of the welfare state and the deregulation of global corporations. Newt Gingrich, appearing on the cover of Wired and writing the introduction to Alvin and Heidi Toffler's book on third-wave governance, Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, used some of the glossy sheen of the new information age to buff and blind part of the population to some of the grittier details of his "Contract With America," such as increases in defense spending and decreases in environmental regulations. On the Gingrichian "free-market" con, Manuel De Landa states: And so today (1996,) in the United States, there is a very strong political movement, mostly by the right-wing, and Newt Gingrich is perhaps the well known politician in this regards, who are trying, as they say, shrink the size of the government, let the market forces have more room to operate. But of course... what they want to do is let anti-market [De Landa is using economist Ferdinand Braudel's term for top down, hierarchical economic organizations] run wild. They don't really want small producers and small manufacturers and printers and bakers and mom-and-pop shops to have more room to manoeuver and make money. They want national and international corporations to have more room to manoeuver. They want to shrink government so that there is less regulations to keep international and national corporations from doing what they want. (10) In this reality, "Big Government" is not only against nature, it's not cool. Techno-liberation is hip. Liberation of not only corporate anti-markets but of you from the oppression of "Big Government" evils such as the social safety net, labor rights, affirmative action and consumer protection. Non-hierarchical networked societies are a grand ideal. I'm no fan of nosey and anal governments poking their fingers into every act, regulating away all vitality. But a total de-evolution of the state at this time would be M.A.D. Over-optimistic fantasies aside, the techno-libertarian reality is a grim Social Darwinist one. We've already seen how this oligarchy functions, with its networked corporate drone-hives, their virtual trillions circulating the globe out of the grasp of the Job-like-masses, who've been permanently downsized and temped (pimped) out, suffering for their faith in the market. And far-left/anarchist fantasies about the potential perfection of wo-man (alleged to have lived in harmonious hunter- gatherer, agrarian or even Neolithic golden ages), after the corrupting state is removed, demonstrate an even more unsophisticated form of wishful thinking. Anarchist devolutionists don't only ignore most of the historical and evolutionary evidence, they fail to explain how we could get there from this far away, without killing off the several hundred million people who really want to go shopping at the mall. Really now, any major devolution of the state today is probably going to look either like Mississippi before the sixties, or the Balkans. Some state interventions buffer the brutality of the markets, and the brutality of us, positively channeling and mitigating against destructive atavisms. A genuinely non-authoritarian, democratic state can form a collective bulwark against entropy. Around this core of stability, aspects of the spontaneous Gaian superorganism can be modeled and realized; such as creativity, abundance, eros and play. FOOTNOTES: 1. Kevin Kelly. Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World. (Addison-Wesley, New York 1995) p. 22. 2. David Hudson. Hudson. "There's No Government Like No Government." www.malaysia.net/lists/sangkancil/1997-12/msg00511.html 3. Louis Rossetto. "IHS Speech." www.theihs.org/people/staff/dchetson/lrossetto.html 4. The Zapatistas. Zapatista Encuentro: Documents from the 1996 Encounter for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism. (Seven Stories Press, New York 1998) p. 52-54. 5. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. (University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota, 1987) p. 21. 6. ibid. p. 16. 7. Stefan Wray. "Rhizomes, Nomads and Internet Use." http://www.nyu.ed/projects/wray/RhizNom.html 8. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. op. cit. p. 7. 9. Laura Hayes. "Al-Qaeda: Osama bin Laden's Network of Terror." http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror_qaeda.html 10. Manuel de Landa. "An Interview with Manuel de Landa." http://t0.or.at/delanda/intdelanda.htm If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire, please visit: http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist
The Middle East and the New World Order By April Howley What did Noam Chomsky really say in his 1995 Macquarie University lecture on "The Middle East and the New World Order"? In his 1995 Macquarie University lecture, Noam Chomsky discusses the nature of United States foreign policy, and its consequences for the people and the regimes of the Middle East. He claims that the true nature of such US intervention in Middle Eastern affairs, is disguised by both the American media and the American intellectual community1. However, Chomsky's arguments in this one lecture, cannot be fully understood outside of the wider fabric of Chomsky's past (both political and otherwise), and hence his ideological orientation. As Christopher Coker reminds us, "at heart Chomsky is an advocate, more than a philosopher, a writer whose political philosophy is much more elusive than his political journalism"2. As an American Jew, who vehemently criticises US and Israeli policy, Chomsky is certainly an anomaly. He grew up in New York, where he took an active interest in politics from an early age, and was influence by the radical Jewish community there3. This may explain his socialist/anarchist sentiment, if not his anti-Israel stance (which can perhaps be correlated to his experience and disappointment in an Israeli kibbutz)4. Chomsky established himself academically in the field of linguistics, and later made contributions to the disciplines of: psychology, philosophy, and political science5. In the 1960s he became renowned as one of the "most outspoken and articulate critics of Vietnam"6, who risked imprisonment by refusing to pay half of his taxes, and openly supported American young men who resisted military conscription to vietnam7. Although Chomsky is most famous for his political scholarship and activity, branded a "hero of the New Left"8, his work in the field of linguistics and psychology provide an important insight into his political philosophy9. Through his study of language, Chomsky established the theory that the structure of language is determined by the structure of the human mind and since certain characteristics of language are universal, at least one part of human nature is common to us all10. As such, he opposes "radical behaviourist" psychology, which (in short) portrays all human thought and behaviour as habit attributable to a process of conditioning11. Hence, it is his linguistic research which established (or perhaps reinforced), Chomsky's belief that human beings are different from animals and machines12. This concept of human nature is reminiscent of 17th and 18th century Natural Law theories, in that it recognises all human beings as sharing certain characteristics, in a state of nature13. In conjunction with Natural Law theorists, Chomsky believes that this shared humanity entitles individuals to certain rights, which should be both respected and protected by society. Chomsky believes that power elites (as reinforced by "big government") and capitalism, destroy individual rights, and this elucidates his promotion of anarchist/socialist ideals14. As a political theory, "anarchism" supports the abolition of all forms of governmental institutions, to be replaced by voluntary organisations arising spontaneously between individuals to solve pressing issues15. This type of decision-making is argued to "fulfil all the individual and group needs...without the apparatus of constraint and repression required by the state"16. Chomsky himself argues that such a society would allow one "to live one's life simply as an individual"17. A criticism of Chomsky's political works is that he doesn't elaborate on the details of how an anarchist society would operate, on such a society's plausibility, or on the process of establishing one18. Instead, Chomsky concentrates on demonstrating the evils of the political systems which presently exist in most of the world, focusing especially on the US government. Chomsky believes that American pluralist democracy is a fiction, and that contemporary state capitalism means that government promotes the interests of the Bourgeoisie, while maintaining the facade of popular democracy19. Capitalist interests are furthered by the exploitation of other nations, as a source of new markets and resources20. According to Chomsky, US foreign policy has no room for justice and human rights, which get in the way of these economic interests21. The real agenda of the US government (and hence many of its actions) are disguised by the intellectual community and the media who, in Chomsky's words, conduct the "engineering of consent", a technique that substitutes for the use of force in societies with democratic forms22. Chomsky has discussed what he perceives to be the US government's attempts to control foreign nations purely for its own capitalist gain, and the ways in which the "US ideologists" have engineered consent for such foreign policy, in relation to many nations (Indonesia and Indochina are but two)23. However, in his 1995 Macquarie University lecture, Chomsky discussed US foreign policy as it related to the Middle East in particular24. In this lecture, Chomsky demonstrates why and how the US has attempted to dominate the Middle East. He claims that the region is one of the greatest material prizes in terms of investment25. Chomsky explains that Middle Eastern oil is both an economic resource in itself, and also a lever for world domination. The region is also a means for world domination as a result of its strategic importance, with President Eisenhower once describing the Middle East as "the most strategically important area in the world"26. It is for these reasons, according to Chomsky, that nations such as Britain and France have also had their fingers in the Middle Eastern pie, in the past. However, in the 1940s, the US demanded most of the pie for itself27. Hence, France was "kicked out" under a legal technicality (relating to its position as an occupied country during World War Two). The US was worried that Britain was moving in on Saudi Arabia (and hence massive oil resources), but managed to relegate Britain to a secondary role, as the "Lieutenant"28. This was partially achieved, according to the Chomskian version of the tale, via President Roosevelt's declaration of Saudi Arabia as "our democratic ally" (despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled entirely by its Royal Family, the House of Sau'd), and by the sending of US equipment to Saudi29. Chomsky claims that after the US had established control in the Middle East, it maintained power through the originally British colonial technique of the "Arab facade"30. This is the technique of leaving the everyday governance of the region in the hands of "local managers", who are preferably weak and dependent family dictatorships31. In addition, other US-manipulated nations (typically non-Arab, such as Iran, Pakistan, Israel and Turkey) are used as "local cops on the beat" to maintain Middle Eastern "stability". Chomsky defines "stability"32 in this context as a euphemism for US control (his examination of the language used to describe certain aspects of US foreign policy, is no doubt facilitated by his experience in the field of linguistics)33. Chomsky claims that this US control technique is well documented on the public record, but the US media/intelligentsia chooses not to expose it34. For example, in 1973, the US Senate's leading expert on oil and the Middle East admitted that "US dominance is guarded by Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia who will inhibit and contain those irresponsible and radical elements Arab society"35. This accords with Chomsky's revelation that immediately after the fall of the Shah, Saudi Arabia and Israel cooperated to sell arms to the Iranian army in the aim of creating a coup to restore the old order36. When the US media publicised this (as the "Iran Contra Affair"), it was portrayed as an "arms for hostages deal". However, Chomsky reminds us that there were no western hostages in Iran when the arms deal began37. The US's "local Managers"38 are portrayed by Chomsky as being allowed to rule, and to have certain rights, as long as they carry out the US's bidding (ie. channelling wealth to the West)39. However, he describes the "people in the slums of Cairo and the villages of Lebanon"40 as having no rights whatsoever in US eyes. The Palestinians have "negative rights"41 because they not only lack wealth and power, but they are a "nuisance" to the US, as a result of their effect on public opinion towards Israel. Hence, the Chomskyan conception is that justice, human rights and self-governance are blatantly missing from US foreign policy. In After the Cataclysm Chomsky claims that "human rights are set aside, except in rhetorical flourishes useful for ideological reconstruction"42, and he demonstrated this in his Macquarie Lecture when he discussed the so-called Middle East "Peace Process" of late. This "Peace Process" has been portrayed by the Western media and American scholars as an important step towards achieving a better life for Israelis/Palestinians/Jordanians/Lebanese and as representing "a New World Order", whereby the end of the Cold War allows nations to work together to ensure peace. As such, its orchestrators have received their Noble Peace Prizes. However, Chomsky believes that all the rhetoric about peace and justice for the average person in the region, is really just a device to disguise the fact that the "Declaration of Principles" is merely an agreement which the US government has instigated at this particular time because it currently serves US interests (and to which the PLO agreed because they had no choice)43. Similarly, he sees the "New World Order" as a euphemistic term disguising a system of US dominance, where "what we say goes"44. Chomsky argues that the "Peace Process" was only allowed by the US because it was finally in a position to dominate such a plan and the region itself, and because this plan did not require very much at all to be apportioned to the Palestinians45. Firstly, Chomsky argues that the US has been guaranteed dominance in the Middle East, because Europe has abdicated and the Cold War power of the USSR has been dissipated46. Therefore, the 1990s are the first time that no other major power has demanded a role in attempts to resolve the Arab/Israeli conflict. Also, US power in the region was consolidated in the Gulf War (or in Chomsky's words the "Gulf Slaughter", because a War involves two sides shooting at one another, not a Western country "demonstrating its capacity to devastate a third world country"). Only this decade has the US finally been able to realise the long sought goals of the "Monroe Doctrine" in the Middle East47. With the US guaranteed dominance, the benefits of a resolution of the Arab/Israeli conflict could be enjoyed. According to Chomsky, the benefit to the US of the "peace process" is that it will sweep the Palestinian issue under the rug, so that the tacit relations among the major powers can be brought to the surface48. That is, Israel can become a technological/financial centre, maintaining its military predominance of the region (backed by US power) and "continuing to survive on a US dole incomparable in world Affairs"49. That the US motivation for the "Declaration of Principles" was not peace and justice for the residents of the Palestine/Israel region, is demonstrated by the fact that from 1967 to the 1990s, the US has opposed every single initiative for peace, which called for Palestinian rights and international participation (other than from the US)50. Many of these US-crushed plans, have been ignored by the US media and academia. For example, the 1976 resolution put to the UN Security Council by Syria Egypt and Jordan (the "confrontation states") which was the same as the US-supported UN resolution 242, except that it added the issue of Palestinian rights, was vetoed by the US. This resolution received no coverage in the US; as Chomsky describes it, the resolution and the US veto of it, was "gone from history and scholarship"51. Chomsky provides evidence which demonstrates that the "Declaration of Principles" accords the Palestinian people less than they have been offered in the past, but Arafat's present political situation has forced him into accepting whatever he can get, as his "last chance at hanging onto power"52. As part of a power elite himself, Arafat is perceived by Chomsky as "opposed to democracy in any of the occupied territories"53. An example is given of how Arafat cancelled elections when they didn't come out his way54. There are many who have been moved by the "figure of a successful scholar who would put his mind and to some extent his body on the line for causes that matter"55. However, as with all "heroes of the left"56, Chomsky is not short of critics. Criticisms of Chomsky include disapproval in relation to his placing of the blame for the majority of the world's suffering and misery at the door of the Western capitalist democracies57, and the legitimisation of internal human rights abuses that seem to accrue from Chomsky's execration of human rights abuses carried out by a foreign power. Chomsky has been accused of relying on "special pleading...and selective use of evidence"58, and has even been criticised for being too "chic"59! However, as John Lyons reminds us, Chomsky's work has been of such a polemical character that he cannot be "written off as a woolly minded liberal...his arguments may be accepted or rejected: they cannot be ignored"60. In conclusion, in his 1995 Macquarie University lecture, Noam Chomsky was really saying that US imperialist and inhumane foreign policy towards the Middle East, is but one example of the evils of large and established, capitalist governments. According to Chomsky, such governments will by their nature, abuse certain human rights, which every individual (as a result of their very humanness) deserves to have protection. Chomsky is saying that the media and the intellectual community will buttress the government, through their "murder of history"61, and that in order to have a free society such intellectuals and journalists must be truly free (unfettered by the government and their own careerism). Towards the end of the Macquarie lecture he claims that the Middle Eastern pattern "is shameful and degrading, but no more so than what's happening across the world"62. In his eyes such human rights abuses will continue internationally so long as "the masters are permitted to design a world order in which what they say goes"63. As is characteristic of much of his political commentary, Chomsky does not discuss the process by which the "master" could be overthrown, in his Macquarie lecture. However, his other works display his preference for anarchist socialism, along with his pessimism about its realisation in the foreseeable future. FOOTNOTES 1 Noam Chomsky, The Middle East and the New World Order, video (Sydney, 1995). 2 Christopher Coker, The Mandarin and the Commissar: The Political Thought of Noam Chomsky in Chomsky: Consensus and Controversy (UK, 1987), p.269. 3 Dell Hymes, "Review of Chomsky" in On Chomsky: Critical Essays (New York, 1974), p.330. 4 Ibid. 5 John Lyons, Chomsky (Sussex, 1970), p.12. 6 Ibid., p.13. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Hymes, Op.Cit., p.328. 10 Lyons, Op.Cit., p.12. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., p.14. 13 Ernst Bloch, Natural Law and Human Dignity (MIT University, 1988), pp. 1-3. 14 Lyons, Op.Cit., p.14. 15 Dean Jaensch & Max Teichman, Macmillan Dictionary of Australian Politics (Melbourne, 1979), p.7. 16 Ibid. 17 Noam Chomsky, Towards a New Cold War, (New York, 1982), p.263. 18 Coker, Op.Cit., pp.273-274. 19 lbid, pp.270-271. 20 Ibid., p.270. 21 Noam Chomsky & ES Herman, After the Cataclysm (Sydney, 1980), p.299. 22 Ibid. 23 Noam Chomsky, Towards a New Cold War (New York, 1982), pp.250-255. 24 Chomsky, The Middle East and The New World Order. 25-54 Ibid. 55 Hymes, Op.Cit., p.329. 56 Ibid., p.331. 57 Coker, Op.Cit., pp.272-273. 58 Ibid., p.269. 59 Ibid., p.277. 60 Lyons, Op.Cit., p.14. 61 Chomsky, The Middle East and The New World Order. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bloch, Ernst, Natural Law and Human Dignity (MIT Press, 1958), pp. 1-3. Chomsky, Noam, The Middle East and The New World Order, Video (Sydney, 1995). Chomsky, Noam, The Fateful Triangle (UK, 1983), pp.17-19. Chomsky, Noam, Towards a New Cold War (New York, 1982), pp.250-263. Chomsky, Noam & Herman, Edward, After the Cataclysm (Sydney, 1988), p.299. Coker, Christopher, "The Mandarin and the Commissar: the Political Thought of Noam Chomsky", Noam Chomsky: Consensus and Controversy (UK, 1987), pp.269-274. Hymes, Dell, "Review of Noam Chomsky", On Chomsky: Critical Essays, Harman ed., (New York, 1974), pp.328-330. Jaensch, Dean & Teichman, Max, The Macmillan Dictionary of Australian Politics (Melbourne, 1983), p.7. Lyons, J, Chomsky (Sussex 1977), pp.12-14. The above article appeared in New Dawn No. 39 (November-December 1996)
|
|
Revised:
July 18, 2010
. Communication: discoverer73(at
symbol)hotmail.com
Go
to Home Page
Go to Index of All Articles Pages
|