by David Landau and NDDV
Aviva Chomsky’s analysis is really something to wonder at. The wonder is that it gets to be published in an American journal, rather than on page one of Granma.
And talk about using outdated language! Like other Americans who go by the name “progressive,” Aviva conflates the Cuban nation with the name of her beloved Castro. Why, dear Aviva, do you not recognize the millions of Cubans who voted with their feet against Castro’s regime and became your fellow Americans?
And what are we to say about qualifying Cuba under the Castros as flexible and open to change, while vilifying America under 11 presidents as ossified and reactionary?
We know where this old-fashioned language is coming from. In the words of the Spanish Royal Academy, communism has been defined as “a doctrine that proposes a social organization in which wealth is owned by the community” — while fascist regimes have been called “political and social movements of totalitarian character.”
In other words: communism good, fascism bad. Like many of her feather, Aviva moves America into the fascist category to produce the syllogism, “Castro good, America bad.”
The Spanish Royal Academy is today reconsidering all that. Right now, it is debating a change in the definition of communism to make it indistinguishable from fascism.
In the phrase of writer Antonio Muñoz Molina: What difference would it make to be murdered in the name of Aryan supremacy, or murdered in the name of the common good?
While Aviva splits hairs in her academic high-chair, real progressives are being beaten up in the streets of Havana and Managua. Aviva is not one of those. She is merely an old-fashioned communist.