I'm not the unthinking lefty and I like to check out the precise detail as much as the next man, but why make a case against Chomsky for omission or error?Possibly you are a supporter of Skinner and dont appreciate such descriptions or portrayals but Chomsky was trying to highlight the dangers of engineering situations that people might not appreciate either.
I think Chomskys attack upon behaviourism, while it uses words entirely out of context (this is however a populist rabble rousing tradition of the left though), is positive. It reminds me of the way in which while being an avowed atheist and scientific rationalist Bakunin attacked the rule of science in peoples lives, similarly Proudhon said he was unimpressed by such tactics which ultimately remove all wonder from everything.
As for the New Left article so what? The inequality etc. still exists it is well documented and maybe that's why Chomsky didn't feel he had to relate the exact matter.
Within the Marxist tradition, which has philosophic pretensions and thinks it's literature, ambiguity and lack of specifics are rife. Right back when the Communist Manifesto was written Marx made a lot of points which wheren't entirely true, for instance the highly secterian chapters on utopian socialism.
As for why would you want to contact Chomsky directly Well:
A) he may be able to argue the point more effectively than a mere Chomsky reader EG we dont know if he's being quoted out of context or his intentions.
B) You made comment upon his status in the left, possibly you resent this, a lot of people revise or argue till they're blue in the face about Trotsky's or lenin's theory, well they dont have the opportunity to get in direct touch.
Cheers.
