Re: Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens (brilliant!)
Michael Hoover wrote: good on finkelstein for 'deconstructing' hitchens although i'm not sure he's worth attention he's received, friend from manchester (england, not new hampshire) told me ch was america's (more precisely, chris mathews') 'house socialist', beguiling because of his 'british' accent, another friend suggested that ch was 'ooh, daddy i'm a marxist' type found among rebellious aristoctatic youth wishing to shock their parents... Hitch is of middle-class origin, the son of a naval officer. If he'd been born into the upper class, like Cockburn, he probably wouldn't have been so infatuated with celebrity. Doug
Re: Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens (brilliant!)
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/10/03 3:02 PM >>> Norman Finkelstein wrote: >A rite of passage for apostates >peculiar to U.S. political culture is bashing Noam Chomsky. Unfortunately for Hitchens, he wrote a spirited defense of Chomsky for Grand Street in the mid-1980s. Hitch's webmaster/towelboy Peter Kilander used to have a copy on his website but took it down when it became inconvenient. Doug <> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/10/03 3:02 PM >>> Norman Finkelstein wrote: >A rite of passage for apostates >peculiar to U.S. political culture is bashing Noam Chomsky. Unfortunately for Hitchens, he wrote a spirited defense of Chomsky for Grand Street in the mid-1980s. Hitch's webmaster/towelboy Peter Kilander used to have a copy on his website but took it down when it became inconvenient. Doug good on finkelstein for 'deconstructing' hitchens although i'm not sure he's worth attention he's received, friend from manchester (england, not new hampshire) told me ch was america's (more precisely, chris mathews') 'house socialist', beguiling because of his 'british' accent, another friend suggested that ch was 'ooh, daddy i'm a marxist' type found among rebellious aristoctatic youth wishing to shock their parents... finkelstein follows sentence doug quoted above with: It's hard to pick up an article or book by ex-radicals--Gitlin's Letters to a Young Activist, Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism--that doesn't include a hysterical attack on him. Behind this venom there's also a transparent psychological factor at play. Chomsky mirrors their idealistic past as well as sordid present, an obstinate reminder that they once had principles but no longer do, that they sold out but he didn't. here's earlier incarnation of hitchens on chomsky (from generally positive review, interestingly, of latter's _culture of terrorism_): "Chomsky proceeds on the almost unthinkablely subversive assumption that the United States should be judged by the same standards that it preaches (often at gunpoint) to other nations - he is nearly the only person now writing who assumes a single standard of international morality not for rhetorical effect, but as a matter of habitual, practically instinctual conviction." as it appears i'm contradicting above comment re. paying too much attention to ch, i'll end with question, i recall that he edited collection (thought i had copy but can't find it) some years ago with edward said about palestinians, has he since bashed es... michael hoover
Re: Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens (brilliant!)
What I don't understand is why anyone gives a rat's ass about Hitchens. Another opportunist...so what. Joanna Devine, James wrote: it's a great article! However, it's a bit too individualistic for my taste, putting too much emphasis on Hitchens' personality. It's true that it ignores aspects of that personality that may be relevant (such as Hitchens' problem drinking), but it should be mentioned that it isn't simply that the capitalist establishment has gravitational power that drags such apostates down. The left also lacks sufficient gravitational power to keep people in our orbit. One problem is that sometimes people on the left jump on any little deviation from some perceived correct line, lauching personal attacks that antagonize people who are beginning to shift to the right, which can encourage them to shift further to the right. That said, I don't know if such issues apply to Hitchens or not. I know that Katha Pollitt's open letter to Hitchens was very fair, leaving out personal attacks. I don't know if that was the rule or the exception. (As I've said, I once knew the apostate David Horowitz personally. It did seem that lefties treated him pretty well, at least outside the Black Panther circle. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens (brilliant!) Counterpunch, September 10, 2003 "Fraternally Yours, Chris": Hitchens as Model Apostate By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN Editors' note: Norman Finkelstein is writing a political memoir, which will serve as the introduction to a new edition of his book, The Rise and Fall of Palestine, to be published by New Press next year. Below is an excerpt on the phenomenon of political apostasy, focusing primarily on Hitchens' recent grab-bag of writings in support of the US attack on Iraq. The title refers to how ex-leftist Christopher Hitchens used to sign off his correspondence. CounterPunch's forthcoming The Politics of Anti-Semitism, has a fine essay by Finkelstein, on his bizarre experience of being attacked in Germany as an anti-Semite. AC/JSC I'm occasionally asked whether I still consider myself a Marxist. Even if my "faith" had lapsed, I wouldn't advertise it, not from shame at having been wrong (although admittedly this would be a factor) but rather from fear of arousing even a faint suspicion of opportunism. To borrow from the lingo of a former academic fad, if, in public life, the "signifier" is "I'm no longer a Marxist," then the "signified" usually is, "I'm selling out." No doubt one can, in light of further study and life experience, come to repudiate past convictions. One might also decide that youthful ideals, especially when the responsibilities of family kick in and the prospects for radical change dim while the certainty of one's finitude sharpens, are too heavy a burden to bear; although it might be hoped that this accommodation, however understandable (if disappointing), were accomplished with candor and an appropriate degree of humility rather than, what's usually the case, scorn for those who keep plugging away. It is when the phenomenon of political apostasy is accompanied by fanfare and fireworks that it becomes truly repellent. Depending on where along the political spectrum power is situated, apostates almost always make their corrective leap in that direction, discovering the virtues of the status quo. "The last thing you can be accused of is having turned your coat," Thomas Mann wrote a convert to National Socialism right after Hitler's seizure of power. "You always wore it the 'right' way around." If apostasy weren't conditioned by power considerations, one would anticipate roughly equal movements in both directions. But that's never been the case. The would-be apostate almost always pulls towards power's magnetic field, rarely away. However elaborate the testimonials on how one came to "see the light," the impetus behind political apostasy is--pardon my cynicism--a fairly straightforward, uncomplicated affair: to cash in, or keep cashing in, on earthly pleasures. Indeed, an apostate can even capitalize on the past to increase his or her current exchange value. Professional ex-radical Todd Gitlin never fails to mention, when denouncing those to his left, that he was a former head of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Never mind that this was four decades ago; although president of my sixth-grade class 40 years ago, I don't keep bringing it up. Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on the exploitation of one's political past? In any even
Re: Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens (brilliant!)
that's true. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: e. ahmet tonak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens > (brilliant!) > > > One reason would be that "the left:" (?)--as perceived by "people" -- > includes so many Hitchens-like characters. > > Devine, James wrote: > > >... The left also lacks sufficient gravitational power to > keep people in our orbit. > > > > > > E. Ahmet Tonak > Professor of Economics > > Simon's Rock College of Bard > 84 Alford Road > Great Barrington, MA 01230 > > Tel: 413 528 7488 > Fax: 413 528 7365 > www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak >
Re: Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens (brilliant!)
One reason would be that "the left:" (?)--as perceived by "people" -- includes so many Hitchens-like characters. Devine, James wrote: ... The left also lacks sufficient gravitational power to keep people in our orbit. E. Ahmet Tonak Professor of Economics Simon's Rock College of Bard 84 Alford Road Great Barrington, MA 01230 Tel: 413 528 7488 Fax: 413 528 7365 www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak
Re: Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens (brilliant!)
it's a great article! However, it's a bit too individualistic for my taste, putting too much emphasis on Hitchens' personality. It's true that it ignores aspects of that personality that may be relevant (such as Hitchens' problem drinking), but it should be mentioned that it isn't simply that the capitalist establishment has gravitational power that drags such apostates down. The left also lacks sufficient gravitational power to keep people in our orbit. One problem is that sometimes people on the left jump on any little deviation from some perceived correct line, lauching personal attacks that antagonize people who are beginning to shift to the right, which can encourage them to shift further to the right. That said, I don't know if such issues apply to Hitchens or not. I know that Katha Pollitt's open letter to Hitchens was very fair, leaving out personal attacks. I don't know if that was the rule or the exception. (As I've said, I once knew the apostate David Horowitz personally. It did seem that lefties treated him pretty well, at least outside the Black Panther circle. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens > (brilliant!) > > > Counterpunch, September 10, 2003 > > "Fraternally Yours, Chris": > Hitchens as Model Apostate > By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN > > Editors' note: Norman Finkelstein is writing a political memoir, which > will serve as the introduction to a new edition of his book, The Rise > and Fall of Palestine, to be published by New Press next > year. Below is > an excerpt on the phenomenon of political apostasy, focusing primarily > on Hitchens' recent grab-bag of writings in support of the US > attack on > Iraq. The title refers to how ex-leftist Christopher Hitchens used to > sign off his correspondence. CounterPunch's forthcoming The > Politics of > Anti-Semitism, has a fine essay by Finkelstein, on his bizarre > experience of being attacked in Germany as an anti-Semite. AC/JSC > > I'm occasionally asked whether I still consider myself a Marxist. Even > if my "faith" had lapsed, I wouldn't advertise it, not from shame at > having been wrong (although admittedly this would be a factor) but > rather from fear of arousing even a faint suspicion of opportunism. To > borrow from the lingo of a former academic fad, if, in public > life, the > "signifier" is "I'm no longer a Marxist," then the "signified" usually > is, "I'm selling out." No doubt one can, in light of further study and > life experience, come to repudiate past convictions. One might also > decide that youthful ideals, especially when the responsibilities of > family kick in and the prospects for radical change dim while the > certainty of one's finitude sharpens, are too heavy a burden to bear; > although it might be hoped that this accommodation, however > understandable (if disappointing), were accomplished with > candor and an > appropriate degree of humility rather than, what's usually the case, > scorn for those who keep plugging away. It is when the phenomenon of > political apostasy is accompanied by fanfare and fireworks that it > becomes truly repellent. > > Depending on where along the political spectrum power is situated, > apostates almost always make their corrective leap in that direction, > discovering the virtues of the status quo. "The last thing you can be > accused of is having turned your coat," Thomas Mann wrote a convert to > National Socialism right after Hitler's seizure of power. "You always > wore it the 'right' way around." If apostasy weren't conditioned by > power considerations, one would anticipate roughly equal movements in > both directions. But that's never been the case. The would-be apostate > almost always pulls towards power's magnetic field, rarely > away. However > elaborate the testimonials on how one came to "see the light," the > impetus behind political apostasy is--pardon my cynicism--a fairly > straightforward, uncomplicated affair: to cash in, or keep cashing in, > on earthly pleasures. Indeed, an apostate can even capitalize on the > past to increase his or her current exchange value. Professional > ex-radical Todd Gitlin never fails to mention, when > denouncing those to > his left, that he was a former head of Students for a > Democratic Society > (SDS). Never mind that this was
Re: Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens (brilliant!)
Norman Finkelstein wrote: A rite of passage for apostates peculiar to U.S. political culture is bashing Noam Chomsky. Unfortunately for Hitchens, he wrote a spirited defense of Chomsky for Grand Street in the mid-1980s. Hitch's webmaster/towelboy Peter Kilander used to have a copy on his website but took it down when it became inconvenient. Doug
Re: Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens (brilliant!)
--- Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Counterpunch, September 10, 2003 > > "Fraternally Yours, Chris": > Hitchens as Model Apostate > By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN A very nice job, better than the creep deserves. jks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens (brilliant!)
Louis Proyect wrote: > A rite of passage for apostates > peculiar to U.S. political culture is bashing Noam Chomsky. It's the > political equivalent of a bar mitzvah, a ritual signaling that one has > "grown up"--i.e., grown out of one's "childish" past. It's hard to pick > up an article or book by ex-radicals--Gitlin's Letters to a Young > Activist, Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism--that doesn't include a > hysterical attack on him. Behind this venom there's also a transparent > psychological factor at play. Chomsky mirrors their idealistic past as > well as sordid present, an obstinate reminder that they once had > principles but no longer do, that they sold out but he didn't. Hating to > be reminded, they keep trying to shatter the glass. He's the demon from > the past that, after recantation, no amount of incantation can exorcise. > one wonders what marc cooper's latest opinion about chomsky is ;-). --ravi
Norman Finkelstein on Christopher Hitchens (brilliant!)
Counterpunch, September 10, 2003 "Fraternally Yours, Chris": Hitchens as Model Apostate By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN Editors' note: Norman Finkelstein is writing a political memoir, which will serve as the introduction to a new edition of his book, The Rise and Fall of Palestine, to be published by New Press next year. Below is an excerpt on the phenomenon of political apostasy, focusing primarily on Hitchens' recent grab-bag of writings in support of the US attack on Iraq. The title refers to how ex-leftist Christopher Hitchens used to sign off his correspondence. CounterPunch's forthcoming The Politics of Anti-Semitism, has a fine essay by Finkelstein, on his bizarre experience of being attacked in Germany as an anti-Semite. AC/JSC I'm occasionally asked whether I still consider myself a Marxist. Even if my "faith" had lapsed, I wouldn't advertise it, not from shame at having been wrong (although admittedly this would be a factor) but rather from fear of arousing even a faint suspicion of opportunism. To borrow from the lingo of a former academic fad, if, in public life, the "signifier" is "I'm no longer a Marxist," then the "signified" usually is, "I'm selling out." No doubt one can, in light of further study and life experience, come to repudiate past convictions. One might also decide that youthful ideals, especially when the responsibilities of family kick in and the prospects for radical change dim while the certainty of one's finitude sharpens, are too heavy a burden to bear; although it might be hoped that this accommodation, however understandable (if disappointing), were accomplished with candor and an appropriate degree of humility rather than, what's usually the case, scorn for those who keep plugging away. It is when the phenomenon of political apostasy is accompanied by fanfare and fireworks that it becomes truly repellent. Depending on where along the political spectrum power is situated, apostates almost always make their corrective leap in that direction, discovering the virtues of the status quo. "The last thing you can be accused of is having turned your coat," Thomas Mann wrote a convert to National Socialism right after Hitler's seizure of power. "You always wore it the 'right' way around." If apostasy weren't conditioned by power considerations, one would anticipate roughly equal movements in both directions. But that's never been the case. The would-be apostate almost always pulls towards power's magnetic field, rarely away. However elaborate the testimonials on how one came to "see the light," the impetus behind political apostasy is--pardon my cynicism--a fairly straightforward, uncomplicated affair: to cash in, or keep cashing in, on earthly pleasures. Indeed, an apostate can even capitalize on the past to increase his or her current exchange value. Professional ex-radical Todd Gitlin never fails to mention, when denouncing those to his left, that he was a former head of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Never mind that this was four decades ago; although president of my sixth-grade class 40 years ago, I don't keep bringing it up. Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on the exploitation of one's political past? In any event, it's hard to figure why an acknowledgment of former errors should enhance one's current credibility. If, by a person's own admission, he or she had got it all wrong, why should anyone pay heed to his or her new opinions? Doesn't it make more sense attending to those who got there sooner rather than later? A member of the Flat-Earth Society who suddenly discovers the world is round doesn't get to keynote an astronomers' convention. Indeed, the prudent inference would seem to be, once an idiot, always an idiot. It's child's play to assemble a lengthy list--Roger Garaudy, Boris Yeltsin, David Horowitz, Bernard Henri-Levy--bearing out this commonsensical wisdom. Yet, an apostate is usually astute enough to understand that, in order to catch the public eye and reap the attendant benefits, merely registering this or that doubt about one's prior convictions, or nuanced disagreements with former comrades (which, after all, is how a reasoned change of heart would normally evolve), won't suffice. For, incremental change, or fundamental change by accretion, doesn't get the buzz going: there must be a dramatic rupture with one's past. Conversion and zealotry, just like revelation and apostasy, are flip sides of the same coin, the currency of a political culture having more in common with religion than rational discourse. A rite of passage for apostates peculiar to U.S. political culture is bashing Noam Chomsky. It's the political equivalent of a bar mitzvah, a ritual signaling that one has "grown up"--i.e., grown out of one's "childish" past. It's hard to pick up an article or book by ex-radicals--Gitlin's Letters to a Young Activist, Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism--that doesn't include a hysterical attack on him. Behind this venom there's also a transparent
