Careful. In one post, Chris said this:
"Yoshie however has IMO conscientiously and in a reasoned way promoted a pacifist line of appeasement of social fascism."
This to me is a bit different than simply saying, Yoshie IS a s-f. Maybe Chris was more direct elsewhere. I'm not going to scan all his messages to determine that. Yoshie had not been shy in slinging descriptions of others either. Clearly a debate on who gored whom the worst is not very productive, but saying you have a rotten doctrine is different than saying YOU are rotten.
> Max's argument for the bombing and intervention(wherever it now
stands)
reads as more cynicism. Since opposition to the bombing stems
from that
same ultra left nihilistic dismissal of the progressive aspects
of state
intervention that is at the root of the left's alienation from
parliamentary] politics on the domestic scene, he wants to show
that the state can do something progressive, viz., stop genocide.
He seems to hope
that our rallying behind the state to get this done will teach us
that an
active citzenry can rally the state to get other good things
done, i.e.,
restore welfare, raise the minimum wage and preserve social
security. >
I do hope we can get other good things done, but 'rallying behind the state' is not the most accurate description of what has been proposed. You can read my policy proposal. Some time back I suggested Chomsky's analysis of the background for this affair would be a tonic to discussion, and neither could this be fairly described as 'rallying behind the state.'
> Or perhaps he hopes the state will find a patriotic citzenry
deserving of
such amenities since nothing else has worked to restore the
welfare state.>>
It is not my motivation. My only foreign policy interest here is the safety of Kosovars and their right to self-determination. Please apply your mind-reading skills more profitably; poker would be a good idea. Or how about this: I'm thinking of a number between one and ten; which one is it?
>> This political tradition has a name of course--social
imperialism. >
I thought that was Mao's description of the Soviet Union. Seems quite a stretch from Mao to moi.
>> It hopes to find escape from class conflict in new national
compromises. In a defense of List, Michael Lind tried to
rehabilitate a form of social imperialism in The Nation recently.
It's time to lay odds that Max will be doing a Lind in the near
future.>
More mind-reading, supplemented by clairvoyance. I'd like to magnify class conflict, not escape from it. Problem is that usually foreign policy of any type as orchestrated by the state is an escape from which I would like to escape. So is isolationist response.
> Max, I must also say that I find rather repulsive your wimpy
calls for civility after you have been challenged in vigourous
fashion for your cold hearted politics of bombing civilians and
frying poor people in the criminal justice system.>
Very much to the contrary, to me civility consists of being able to separate debates about ideas from personal references for the sake of a more enlightening discussion. My view of bombing or capital punishment has no bearing on my courtesy towards others on this list. If I say I'd like to see Tim McVeigh executed, this has nothing to do with my wishes for the fate of anyone on this list. Partly there is a matter of tone. If I say your doctrine is lunacy, or you are supporting social-fascism, this clearly gets close to a personal reference, so I would agree that is borderline incivility. But borderline is still better than direct.
I offered a cease-fire, by way of a mini-petition. Excepting your terminology "Chris the SS Officer" and your latest analysis of my inner self, the rest of your post is in full accord with it. Why not go the extra foot?
mbs