>The left opportunists could not respond to Leninist concept that it is
>sometimes true that
>
>"imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism"
Chris, is this the Marxist analogue of the new liberal imperialism theorized by David Rieff et al?
I don't think there's much use in bringing up phrases like "Serb fascism" and "genocide" at this point. There aren't many people who've denied that the state run by Milsoevic is a nasty entity; the question is what, if anything, you do about it and the likes of it. Maureen Anderson made some compelling arguments that it's not enough to be an anti-imperialist. But if you're going to make an argument for some kind of humanitarian interventionism, you've got to talk about the agent for doing the intervening. So far the only available option are the imperialist states that were heavily responsible for fucking up the regions they now presume to save.
>The people who rocked the City of London on June 18th steered well clear of
>the dubious politics of Milosevic's fascist reconstruction of socialism.
>The fight against imperialism is taking new forms.
It's wonderful to see the British bourgeoisie in alarm over the new anticapitalists. Wish we could have it here. Today's FT has a long think piece (which isn't on their website, so here it is from their archive) worrying about how organized these unruly kids are.
Doug