Chomsky references Rosenberg, and others, in later writings
|
Avukah ran a summer school for two weeks each year, which was held at
the training farm for the Zionist group Hashomer Hatzair. The 1941
lectures were given by Shmuel Ben-Zvi, D. Mcdonald (not Dwight
Macdonald), I. Mereminski, Alfred Kahn, Nathan Glazer, Adrien
Schwartz, and Arthur Rosenberg. Melman recalls Rosenberg's
summer-school talk and several others he gave at about the same time:
Arthur Rosenberg spoke about the case of the Hitler-Stalin pact,
saying that this was not to be taken as an omen that all was lost. In
fact, there were dynamics in both German and Russian society that gave
a basis for continued internal politics and differences. This was not
to be taken for a signal of a deep freeze and total victory of the
most conservative part of the Nazi movement. A few days after the
German invasion of Russia, he gave a set of remarkable lectures on the
coming character of the war, pointing out that in opposing the Soviet
army, the Nazis for the first time would be doing battle with another
army that was trained and equipped for armoured warfare. That in fact
turned out to be the case, despite the catastrophic failures of the
Soviet government in the first days of the war. (20 July 1994)
Rosenberg served as a kind of intellectual leader, a touchstone for
the Avukah movement. His influence as a historian and social thinker
upon Chomsky and others has remained strong over the
years.
There are, however, some key differences between Rosenberg's
orientation and that adopted by Chomsky. Abramovitch says that
"Rosenberg's approach is historical and Marxist without trying to be
moral," while Chomsky's is anarchist (4 Apr. 1995). Even so, there
would have been ample grounds for discussion between the two during
this period and long afterwards. Rosenberg's position on World War II,
for example, is one that upholds fundamental libertarian principles;
it precluded him from taking sides during the war. This position,
which is rarely represented in contemporary examinations of the war,
is well described by Abramovitch, who held a similar one. He maintains
that Rosenberg believed
Nazi society could not stabilize itself, and would have crises, even
if they were to emerge victorious from the war. It isn't a "last
chance" because the crisis of capitalism will persevere even with a
Nazi victory. . . [Rosenberg's] position was one whereby if you are
against the status quo, then you have to be consistent in that
respect. The support of a war against Germany would not help the
conditions or the preparation for a change in the status quo or in
people's attitudes against a status-quo position. (12 Feb. 1991)
Avukah Student Action honored Arthur Rosenberg in its April
1943 issue, two months after his death. Rosenberg's work (The
Birth of the German Republic, A History of Bolshevism,
The History of the German RepublicD, and Democracy and
Socialism) is commended for its contribution to an understanding
of "how the greatest political changes of modern times came about."
This work is referred to regularly in Chomsky's later
writings. Despite their differences, both men emphasize the empirical,
describing the actual events that demonstrate the value of their
theory. The mechanism of social change proposed by Rosenberg is
summarized in the Avukah Student Action article
Prof. Rosenberg's Works Analyze the Great Changes of Our Times: His
Writings on Russian and German Revolutions Have Lessons for Today.''
Rosenberg is quoted in the article, putting this suggestion to the
journal's readers: "first, the particular social class gives the
people in that class, sooner or later, a particular political attitude
which is aimed at improving their conditions of life." And,
"second, the political attitudes of underprivileged classes lead
them, sooner or later, to try to change the political-economic system
to their own betterment. Such attempts are almost always made by
force, that is, by revolution, because the over-privileged class,
which is in control of the political power will not normally give up
its power and privileged position of its own free will.
This vision of how social change comes about, which in retrospect
seems so optimistic, is picked up in Chomsky's work, yet modified so
that particular emphasis is placed upon the powerful forces utilized
by Rosenberg's "privileged class" to protect its "power and privileged
position." Chomsky and Rosenberg also intersect on the issue of the
individual versus the collective: both believe that social processes
constitute a far more powerful force than individual
efforts. Furthermore, each man initiates his analysis of a given
action or event by posing a single question: "Does it strengthen the
power and the political understanding of the working class?"
There is an Avukah-Rosenberg-Harris connection, as well. The two
prominent intellectuals were made faculty-advisory-committee members,
charged with guiding and directing Avukah groups throughout North
America--even one as far north as Montreal. Harris lectured during the
Avukah summer-school session in 1942 as Rosenberg had done the
previous year. He gave three lectures: one on "native fascism" and two
on "how Jews should be political." An article in that summer's
Avukah Student Action summarizes these lectures, and sheds
light on another link between Harris's and Chomsky's political
positions: their sense that the dangers of fascism were not limited to
Europe. In his native-fascism discussion, Harris addressed the dangers
of fascism in the United States and the misconception among Jews that
"only Axis agents and fifth columnists are a menace to democracy."
Referring to the role that leaders of the press, industry, and
government played in antiliberal and antilabor initiatives, Harris
spoke of the "permanent center for the forces of fascism" and claimed
that if fascism came to America it "would differ only in form from the
German example [and] would thrive primarily on the critical social and
economic inequalities of our present society." Fascism, according to
Harris, thrives on insecurity and discontent, and is aided by the
propaganda of big-business interests: "The fascist concoction of
promises of a pseudo-socialist character, plus a hyper-nationalism and
a sadistic racial doctrine served as a cover-up for the real
pro-big-business role of the Nazis." The only defense is to launch
social-betterment programs and to make a commitment to social
progress, efforts that would both be attacked by powerful business
interests: "In the fight against native fascism, Dr. Harris emphasized
the need of following closely the moves of the native fascists &3173;
the Coughlinites and their allies in big business, thepress and public
institutions since the fascist menace is permanent in our
stage of society, regardless of the turns in the war."
In his second lecture, Harris described the failure of Jewish
religious and cultural groups to address the fundamental issues facing
Jews, concluding that "Jews need a political program pointing out
the need to guarantee security in this country and indicating the
steps to be taken. Jews also need Palestine, for Jews who need or wish
to go to a center where they will not be a minority. For many American
Jews Palestine is a potential second home."
|
