>i would argue that the side i choose must be the side that supports the
>most >progressive side in the struggle.
I don't say some such a formulation isn't an appropriate part of one's thinking in diabolically complex and confusing moments like these. But only part. There are certain particulars to be considered. Like who dies; like what'll happen next if 'the more progressive side' clears this particular hurdle; like what'll happen to the more progressive side if it does; and like what the central issues peciliar to each concrete and necessarily unique instance actually are.
>that my support should go to the full realization of capitalism, for its
>>realization will be its demise.
That may well be so - I think it might be, too. But do we know this isn't already part of that demise? The beginning of a desperate attempt to reorganise the planet and access to its extant largesse by a hegemon trying desperately to delay the moment of structural crisis?
>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.
I don't actually know anyone who takes that position, Kel. Some might argue the binary you propose doesn't cut it, though. For some, Afghans have been living under a compradorial bunch of warlords under capitalist masters. I'm sure others might even suggest Americans live under capitalist warlords. They each have something to their suspicions, after all.
>i didn't read your last post. and i really don't understand what you're
>saying in this one.
That'd explain it, then.
>but i wanted to clarify. i'm a little whooped from
>pulling a few all nighters. and i'm not typing well this eve'
My empathy and sympathy ...