I understand your responses. I wish you understood my point.
Of course there are good faith, militant left activists opposing the IMF in each of the countries discussed, in fact often the most militant ones. I acknowledged that and even emphasized the general strikes in South Korea.
But then you turn around and define those opposing the IMF as the only progressives that exist, in fact labelling every supporter (however reluctant) of IMF dealings as a "sell-out" or straight up "enemy." This list includes Nelson Mandela, Kim Dae Jung, the AFL-CIO, half the Progressive Caucus, and the majority of trade unions in South Korea. (Of course, Patrick wants to claim COSATU in his camp, even though they - with dramatic rhetoric condemning the IMF - have continued to support the SA government in accepting those loans.)
I'm sorry. I think it's a intellectually simplistic and sectarian to just mentally purge whole categories of people who, frankly, I believe sincerely are trying to do what they think best for many of the same values you have. Now, their analysis may be wrong, their courage to face stark choices lacking or their strategy may be too simple. And it makes perfect sense to point that out and argue for an alternative understanding. But to just automatically politically purge anyone with a different strategic argument is the mental disease that has crippled any semblance of left unity and power over the years. (And I include social democrats mentally purging those to their left in that condemnation.)
--Nathan Newman