>And so, the Iraqi people have to go through this
>purgatory (that is much more like hell) and we on the
>Left are supposed to support it because Hussein is
>"objectively" progressive and in the end, when enough
>Third World countries rebel, the US will be thrown
>into crisis and the US masses (under the venerable
>leadership of the Workers World Party) will be led to
>that Eldorado where the WWP will run everything and
>children will take school field trips to lay flowers
>on Sam Marcy's grave...Perhaps he will even be exhumed
>and mumified. I think that it is the rationale.
right, wasn't this, basically, the argument from the leninists on the list: look, this just might be another WWI precipitating the communist revolution, so everybody be happy. i've asked and asked if they really meant that, but no answer. even so, we have been recently treated to this audacious stream of whizdom: "Some things should go without saying: e.g., "against Al Qaeda"; "against massacring innocent civilians"" of course, the author of that sentence cannot and should not presume that she is "against Al Qaeda". the author is is _for_ the objective conditions that the specific groups and activities create.
for those who espouse such a vision to attack Doug for implicitly supporting the USG's current policy is ludicrous. these folks think its insulting to have to repetitiously remind everyone that they're against Al Q, but its somehow not insulting to require that doug repititiously remind everyone that he is against the USG bombing of Afghanistan.
if you see someone beating his dead horse, share your viagara!
kelley
From the YeahSureRightFW Dept: "If young women go for older men and vice-versa, who cares? The problem is the asymmetries in wealth and power between individuals which make one person more dependent on/vulnerable to the other, usually the woman. If we could eliminate class, innumerable social problems would be solved virtually overnight."
--Brett Knowlton