more than Russian involvement in
Poland; his massive two volumes on
The Political Economy of Human Rights
(which were unjustly unreviewed,
hence unjustly uncriticized) are all
about the colonial sins of the U niied
States, and not at all about the colo–
nial sins of the Soviet Union. You
would think, from Chomsky's polit–
ical writings, that there is no Soviet
colonialism to consider. No, let me
be precise, lest there come another
letter: you would think, from the
amount of space allotted in
Chomsky's writings to the consider–
ation of Soviet colonialism, that it is
by far a lesser evil. It will not do for
him to plead that Soviet abuses of
human rights are "obvious." They
are no more or less "obvious" than
American abuses of human rights.
So diligent a student of the media as
Chomsky should know that in such
matters nothing is "obvious . "
There is no story of suffering that
does not bear repeating. Chomsky
repeats only some-from which it
may be concluded that he does not,
as he claims, hate them all equally.
Chomsky properly locates the
origins of the Soviet repression in
"the earliest moments of the Bol–
shevik revolution," which many of
those who sign statements with him
do not. This honesty about Soviet
history, however, fails him when the
integrity of his ideology is at stake.
Chomsky refuses, in his response to
the
J
aruzelski regime, to face
squarely the responsibility of certain
words and ideas for the events that
he deplores. It is true that Leninism
is not socialism (I never said it was);
but it is also true that socialism had
something to do with the emergence
of Leninism. (Democracy, contrary
to Chomsky's view , did not.)
Chomsky cannot simply deny
socialism's relation to the results of
the revolution and change the sub–
ject. He is in the unenviable posi–
tion of all those who cling to princi–
ples that have had an experience of
power. I imagine, for example, that
Chomsky expects Zionists to feel
implicated by Sharon's plans for the
Palestinians. But they need no
longer. Zionism will be just or it will
not be at all.
I agree with Aryeh Neier that
we have a lot of catching up to do.
But I did not slur him; I criticized
him. My criticism was based upon
an impression of his views gained
from his articles in
The Nation,
and I
stand by it. His anticommunism is
sincere, but it is
sotto voce.
He writes
more angrily and more often about
other forms of dictatorship. A divi–
sion of labor in the democratic left,
perhaps; except that Neier has him–
self admitted, in his statement about
Sontag's speech, to something
more. He is inhibited from getting
carried away as an anticommunist
by a fear of mistaken ideological
identity. He attacks communism
like a man worried about his reputa–
tion . These attacks are accompa–
nied, therefore, by doctrinal distinc–
tions between the right kind of
anticommunism and the wrong
kind of anticommunism. In draw–
ing such distinctions he is, of
course, being an intellectual, that is,
he is making his position precise;
but he is also being a little luke–
warm. It is a matter of emphasis
where emphasis matters. Sontag's
strictures upon his statement were
entirely correct.
On the other hand, it may be
that around
The Nation
he is known
for anticommunism.
Leon Wieseltier
Washington, D.C.
'
