>I believe I was talking about the uses of international sanctions which I
>oppose and don't believe ever liberated anyone.
Why do you oppose them? And why do you say they never liberated anyone? While the struggle of a people internally is probably the most decisive factor, apartheid would have gone on for another 10 years but for the international sanctions, especially those of the US banks.
And we just have the example of East Timor, from which the Indonesian army has been compelled to withdraw as a result of IMF sanctions. Why should the same not happen for Chechnya?
>>This is muddling up two things. No one on this list is arguing for carte
>>blanche for the west to interfere anywhere.
>
>So please tell me how, once you've hitched yourself to the big power
>bandwagon, you get them to follow your line?
I find this style of argument inaccurate and unproductive. I have already made clear that neither I nor anyone I know is wanting to give carte blanche to the west. So why use a phrase about hitching yourself to the big power bandwagon?
>I think it's ultimately a question of what social force you see bringing
>about any kind of progress in the world today. You seem to think you can
>use the big powers and their UN (or have to), in the absence of any other
>self-conscious social force.
I assume we are participating in a global civil society. Therefore we should speak and act as if there is a connection between our words and practice. And indeed it may occasionally come to pass!
> There is effectively no self-conscious
>working class movement around and that's the reality we need to start with.
There is a large boureoisified working class which merges through the educated working class with the intelligentsia, and comprises 90% of the population. It has quite strong democratic prejudices. Like people should not be driven from their homes because they are muslims.
What is your strategy? Purist despair?
> Joining the new missionaries on the humanitarian
>wing of imperialism is no answer.
When did you stop beating your wife? A temporary alliance implies subordination only to those who are not confident of their political position.
Trotsky:
>I believe I was talking about the uses of international sanctions which I
>oppose and don't believe ever liberated anyone. I'm sure you know that
>there is a long tradition on this issue dating back to Trotsky on Abbysinia.
>I don't think there's any point rehashing this here.
It does not have to be rehashed but if it is relevant it can be argued out. What point are you making? I do not know Trotsky's observations on this question except the following from "The Ideas of Leon Trotsky" by Ticktin and Cox:
""When Italy attacked Ethiopia, I was fully on the side of the latter, despite the Ethiopian negus for whom I have no sympathy. What mattered was to oppose imperialism's seizure of this new territory."
At the moment the Yeltsin regime is re-seizing Chechnya.
What point are you making?
Chris Burford
London