> 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.
"Still conceals"? Carrol have I concealed that assumption from you before? You know, that one where I assume that marxists only have to say things and, whoosh, they get done.
Btw, what did you do: print out my post, tape it to a wall, and throw a dart at it? Is that how you got the statement from me that introduces your diatribe, as if it has something to do with your claim of a false assumption. Let me translate what you copied. All the major players knew about the massacre beforehand. None was going to stop it, meaning each wanted it, or acqiesced to it, for their own reasons. The debate you and others were having about intervention and aiding imperialism was false, in the sense that the only interevntion that mattered--that could have saved the East Timorese--wasn't going to happen.
The one place where I offered an opinion as to what marxists should have advocated I said that, to make sense, help for the East Timorese needed to be given before the vote, or the vote should have been boycotted, since it is now clear that the vote was part of the plan to destroy the movement. I quickly added that that demand would have been rejected, but as you know, that's no reason to not make it. The dynamic would have been changed.
My post was intended to show the bankruptcy of the claim by you and others that there was a principle of nonintervention that must be followed, and that no facts must be allowed to get in its way. You see, Carrol, it was you and others who were offering opinions about what marxists should or should advocate, and I was reacting to that. I asked for an explanation from you and others as to what capital has lost, and cannot not still have, since you got what you advocated--no real help for the East Timorese. You have ignored all of that. Have you nothing to say about the substance of my post?
But even if I did what you claimed, even if my post was filled with idealist exortations about what should be done, it provides no basis for your further claim that I "seem" more interested in my own own "moral sensibility" than the effect different marxist opinions might have on the situation. This is a nonsequitor. It's a serious charge, but you provide no basis for your opinion of my motives.
And why do you say "seem"? Not sure of your claim? Before making such a reckless charge, perhaps you should think it through. And then come back when you can assert the charge without the weasal words and provide some basis for it.
Now as to what you have written before. You assert that western intervention to help the East Timorese would be "criminal". Then a few days ago you follow that up with this: "We now know the name the enemy will go by in future struggles against imperialism, 'humanitarian intervention.'" Nice touch there. You have created an abstract strawman that you can trot out and pummel whenever anyone wants to seriously discuss actual material conditions. And it's *I* who lacks seriousness?
I understand that you like to reserve the role of being "serious" for yourself, doling out from time to time accolades to others who you will allow to don the mantle for a while. In addition to out how each of us fails your standard--that person is not sufficiently serious, that one simply wants to cover his moral ass. (You like this particular charge a lot, don't you. You used it against Ange too, using the same wording, without a shred of justification). Really, Carrol, I think it's time to rethink your whole act here.
One other thing. Why do you adopt the posture of talking *about* me to others, rather than addressing me directly. Is it your intention to show disdain or disrespect toward me? If not, why do you do it? I find it, at a minimum, irritating, which only adds to my obvious irritation at your whole post on which I have already spent way too much time.
Roger