Chomskys faulty "there was no JFK assassination conspiracy" logic

[Albert Rossi]

but-typical of his past political assays-he sees dark, conspiratorial forces directing most actors on the public stage. In Chomsky's world view, presidents are puppets manipulated by America's economic managers (corporations and their lackeys in politics). Thus Kennedy had no freedom of choice but merely did as he was told."

One would think it fairly easy to accommodate the conspiratorial view of the assassination into this if that were really what Chomsky believed (JFK would then just become "the one that tried to get away"). But Ambrose is not representing his position correctly. For him, there are no dark conspiratorial forces per se; it is just the way the system works, like the blind watchmaker's creation. So he can't believe any one would arrive at the Presidency without conforming in one way or another with the system. No coercion necessary. I don't think Chomsky could become a kind of spokesperson for the Left if that general view of things -- perhaps less extreme than his, but similar -- did not prevail there.

The problem with it is that once you realize someone did resist, the whole applecart of systemic compulsion is overturned. It shows that every once in a while a human agent can choose not to conform, and that agent need not be on the margins of power to exercise that choice. Of course, that choice carries with it consequences.

Also: the statement that Chomsky is one of the few remaining Marxists is doubly laughable. First, because any casual walk through the halls of American academia would prove otherwise to him. Second, because Chomsky calls himself a socialist anarchist. Not the same thing.