East Timor [was East Timor: the optimist's scenario]

[Chris Burford]

At 22:37 14/09/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Roger Odisio wrote:
>
>> So it is now clear that the terms under which much of the debate has been
>> held–whether or not intervention should be called for or supported–are
false.
>>
>
>Roger still conceals the weird assumptions on which his argument is based --
>the assumption that what any marxist anywhere *said* was going to make
>an actual difference in whether or when any intervention occurred in
>East Timor. This assumption that mere opinion, or mere expression of
>opinion on a maillist, can under these conditions make a difference shows
>a basic lack or seriousness non Roger's part. He seems more interested
>in establishing his own moral sensibility than in trying to determine what
>difference the opinions of marxists at this time might make.
>
>Carrol

Ah, Carrol must have for once been keeping to his undertaking never to read
my posts.

But in case he does, or for reference of anyone else, can I refer again to
the passage in Engels letter to Bloch 21 Sept 1890 where he discusses this
issue of hopelessness and comes to a conclusion quite different to that of
Carrol's depressive revolutionary solipsism.

Lest that seems personally too harsh to Carrol let me point out that his
position covers an opportunist and untenable distortion of marxism (no
compromises with imperialism!) which Louis Proyect can defend on his
marxism list only by censorship, despite LP's claim on the web page that
the list is open to a wide range of marxist thinking. Not a very impressive
sign of confidence in such a position that it fears criticism. At least
Carrol has repeated his hopeless proposition here on LBO talk. 

Chris Burford

London