Terrorism and Globalization

[Kelley]

At 09:11 PM 12/1/01 +0000, rws at comedu.canberra.edu.au wrote:
>
>
>And thus do I get back to my last post.  Izzatso disingenuous?



his question was an attempt to get at carrol's (and others) _real_ reasons 
for being against a war. if the US were to have done everything right, or 
if the perps identified themselves but Afgh was beligerant, then what. if 
your answer is that since the US is basically the cause in the first place, 
then be honest about it. ultimately, that's what many here keep coming back 
to, particularly recently.

i think there's a clear theoretical distinction that can be made

for instance, before i discovered that i just can't support war for any 
reason whatsoever, no matter how much vengeance i'd like, no matter how 
wrong i think terrorism is (please don't tell me the US is the terrorist. 
killing civilians isn't terrorism, for me, nor is it for those who study 
terrorism for a living, which i also do), i would argue that the side i 
choose must be the side that supports the most progressive side in the 
struggle. that my support should go to the full realization of capitalism, 
for its realization will be its demise. therefore, if the perps are AlQ, 
then i'm with the US, to put it too simplistically since that isn't my 
point right now. rather, it serves as an example of a clear distinction 
between my position and that of others.

others, it seems to me, are against imperialism. they have a different 
theoretical position on marxism and social change.

i take marx really seriously in his Letter to A Ruge. I take Marx very 
seriously when he argues that capitalism has _good_ things about it and 
those things must be advanced (and it is also why I don't think we can 
"skip" that stage, etc).

others have a different position on this. it is defensible in its own 
right. it should be defended and followed through and made clear. there's 
nothing immoral about it. there's nothing about that position that makes 
out of bounds altogether. but if you take the position, as others have made 
quite clear, that it is better to live under warlord masters than under 
capitalist masters, you have a different take on social change and marxism 
than what i've taken.


then there are pacifists. then there are those who don't buy much of marx's 
arguments about social change. etc.

does that make sense?

i didn't read your last post. and i really don't understand what you're 
saying in this one. but i wanted to clarify. i'm a little whooped from 
pulling a few all nighters. and i'm not typing well this eve'


kelley

kelley