So? So what's so significant about an intra-bourgeois sign? History, the same history littered with corpses, is page after page of intra-bourgeois signs. There were intra-bourgeois signs everyday when Clinton was president. Lula is an intra-bourgeois sign, so is Kirchner-- and their significance is manifested precisely in the insignifcant change proposed and manifested in their regimes.
It's an Op-Ed piece, nothing less and nothing more, one more manifestation of spectacle and recuperation. dms ----- Original Message ----- From: "joanna bujes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] a miracle? > No, it's significant even though it's only op-ed. This is an > intra-bourgeois sign. > > Joanna > > dmschanoes wrote: > > >Wait a minute-- this wasn't the NYT taking an editorial and reporting > >position. This was an op-ed piece by Chomsky which does not express the > >view of the editors. > > > >So why make more of it than it is? It's an op-ed piece, that's all. NYT > >supported and supports the assault on Iraq, the occupation of Palestine, > >etc. > > > >dms > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Shane Mage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 6:06 PM > >Subject: Re: [PEN-L] a miracle? > > > > > > > > > >>> >An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier > >>>goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security > >>>barrier: "What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian > >>>lands." That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam > >>>Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time > >>>the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline > >>>in the paper.< > >>> > >>> > >>The NYTimes seems to have reached the entirely reasonable > >>conclusion that Ubu and his Bushits are a vastly greater > >>danger to essential capitalist class interests than the whole > >>American Left could be even in its wildest dreams. > >> > >>Shane Mage > >> > >>(Not in favor of the mutual ruin of the contending classes) > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >
