Oaxaca, Tuesday 20 February 2007
Dear George Lakey,
Thank you very much for your response to my e-mail of 12
February. It answers some of the questions I was troubled by, and opens
the way to discussion of the crucial issues of social struggle that
have seized control of my life since I left my academic berth and moved
into the real world. The best thing about your lengthy letter is that
it has restored my confidence in your openness and honesty. Mutual
trust is a basic necessity in our common struggle. I haven't seen the
documentary you mentioned, Bringing Down a Dictator, by Steve York, but
will look for it.
From what you said I infer that you did know about U.S.
government funding via several conduits for USAID (Agency for
International Development), and presumably by the CIA, at the time you
wrote Strategizing
for a Living Revolution,
which I posted at
http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/Discus/2002-06-00Lakey.htm
. I think it would have been better if you had mentioned such funding
in the article. Without that information, people like me were led to a
partial misunderstanding of the nature of the actual struggle. As I
wrote you on 27 November 2004, "Today's article in The Guardian,
if it is reporting accurately, raises a messy question for me about the
legitimacy of struggles, even if honestly motivated, that rely on
"assistance" from an imperial power. I would appreciate your comments,
and in particular whether you believe the article in The Guardian,
and if so, whether you knew anything about the U.S. role when you wrote
your essay." The Guardian article is at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1360080,00.html .
Other related articles are at
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_112804A.shtml .
I would like to use parts of your letter. One part in particular,
where you ask what went wrong with the Guardian analysis and
with that of some other leftists. The Guardian saw the Otpor
movement in Serbia as a U.S.-choreographed, successful action to bring
down Milosevic You wrote that left intellectuals seem especially
vulnerable to despair, which you guess is probably because of class
background, and you speak of university leftists. Such intellectuals
frequently feel powerless, because, you say, many of them are. I agree.
Right now an intense controversy is going on in a web-based
discussion group, Science for the People, at
http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE . Mainly the
members are academics in various scientific fields, although the group
is open to, and welcomes, anyone who wishes to participate. Its
orientation is generally that of university leftist scientists, most of
whom were indoctrinated, as I was, with the belief that science stands
in a very special place in society, somewhat apart from the lying and
politics that we leftists recognize characterizes most of society. We,
so we are led to believe, are guided by rationality, although we are of
course passionate about many things. But supposedly we don't allow
ourselves to be ruled by our prejudices and passions. SCIENCE is our
cult, in my view. Like all fundamentalist cults we are certain that we know
the truth, in our case the truth being that science is the
unique way to gain a real understanding of the physical universe
(including all aspects of inert and living matter).
To a great extent I belong to that cult. I am an ordained
scientist (PhD in theoretical physics, University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana, 1953). But I believe that the practice of science is
not largely independent of the society in which scientists are
embedded, any more than the practice of journalism (ideally dedicated
to truthful reporting) is largely independent of the society in which
journalists are embedded.
Although the current controversy in Science for the People is
intense, it's also quite irrelevant as regards the real world, I am
convinced. Basically, it's a handful of middle-class people, privileged
Americans mostly, disputing interpretations of reality. Some of them
are socially conscious to the extent that they are actually doing
something in opposition to the anti-civilization of death, i.e. they
are not only thinkers but activists. Some others are generally
supportive of the activists, who are being attacked by other group
members because of their alleged failure to adhere to the current
dominant ideology. The claim of the critics is of course that the
deviants are not being scientific (they are called by some knee-jerk
leftists). Oh, my goodness! A tempest in a middle-class teapot. I wish
I hadn't wasted so much of my life (nearly half a century in academe)
struggling against all the publish-or-perish crap to gain professional
recognition. A world built on competition, greed, individualism,
egotism and arrogance. We've got to get rid of capitalism and most of
the system of values with which it inculcates us.
Again George, thanks for writing. I would like to use more of
your letter. Perhaps even post a more polished version, if you have the
time to prepare it. In any case I'll continue the discussion, because I
think I have a lot to learn from you, and now that you're retired maybe
you'll have the time to answer.
Sincerely, and with best wishes,
George