>If I use _Macbeth_ as an analogy that doesn't mean I've killed a king
>lately. I was referring strictly to the market socialist debate. You
>might look up in the archives an exchange of pleasantries between Justin
>& me a year or so ago and contrast that with our exchanges since then.
>Why debate an issue which temporarily at least is utterly undecidable
>when there are debates that do provide light at least to bystanders if
>not to the participants?
>
>China can be debated somewhat usefully and doesn't necessarily lead to
>mere babblings but there is no reason anyone should feel compelled to
>engage in or read that debate.
>
>Carrol
what? no one's compelling anyone. you're the one telling everyone what they should and should not discuss and what is useful to the left and what is not. gimme a break. i don't care about a debate over market socialism or china, but they are issues that will remain no matter WTF happens, next month, next year, next decade. that was my point: obsession about the war to the exclusion of all else is a bit silly. someone told me a while back that he predicts that, in the future, there will be four schools of historical thought on this war and it will all be traced to which brainwashing channel the innovators of each school were tuned into over the past month. pretty fucking funny and probably quite true!
and while we're at it, i happen to think that you're barking up the wrong tree here if you think that, after the fire works, any sort of anti-war movement will make headway. why? because this war won't be fought like other wars. it looks to me like they're just going to give the CIA carte blanche to do as it pleases. and this is hardly anything USers are going to get upset about _in terms of_ and anti-war struggle. in terms of a civil rights struggle, maybe. this little CNN-Cam fest was strictly for show and it will go away, whether they "get ObL" or not. the media will then find a new issue, and amnesia will set in.
kelley