first quoting myself:
>>I was against the widening of the war to economic targets and I am against
>>this further widening. But I would say to the many sincere, intelligent,
>>informed , and committed left-wing subscbribers that it is not enough
>>merely to oppose everything that western governments do as a matter of
>>course.
>
>Not as a matter of course, no.
I think for some in marxism space that was the position. And it has a lot to be said for it but it is not a tactical position.
>>It is necessary to oppose them on the basis of a wider strategy
>>challenging their claim to be the hegemonic arbiters of international
>>justice
>
>Which has been a theme here from about day two, no?
No. I think many correctly pointed to hypocrisy, as you do too in this post. But what do you expect the armed forces of exploiting classes to be if not hypocritical?
I agree that blunderbuss peace enforcement is violent. Strategic bombing is not going to look good after this, but there is a difference between you and me.
I see a process of world government coming about through an intermediary stage simlar to how the nation states were formed after a stage of robber barons fighting for power and legitimacy. This is not a war for the repartition of imperialism, this is a war of total hegemonism.
I think the whole energy of the left should go on reforming that movement for world government, not just opposing it on the many points on which it shows itself to imperialist, oppressive, and exploitative.
So I think Carter's reasoned criticisms from within the bourgeois camp are more effective pointer to what can be achieved now, than total denunciations of the hypocrisy of imperialism.
Chris Burford
London