> >so you do recognize that what pulling out of the ME means: the likelihood
> >of the rise of proto-fascists to power. after all, once the US has conceded
> >with egg on its face, they will be even more powerful than they are now.
> >
> >hmmmmmmm.
>
>
>Hmmm?
i have been pushing people to address their claims that the left must fight (violently) fascists with their failure to acknowledge that these folks are proto-fascists. what you're asking is that we allow the forces of fascism to emerge because it is apparently only that crisis that will be THE contradiction that will force a viable, strong left to emerge.
that's fine with me. i want certain people to speak honestly and directly about that instead of hiding it.
>Yeah, well, that's the price we pay for not being more attentive
>while the US was murdering socialists, secular reformers, democrats, and so
>on, all those years. In the short run it would mean a victory for kings
>and Islamists and even some people like the Taliban, but in the long run,
>and maybe not so long, in the absence of the US money-and-arms machine,
>the left opposition will re-emerge.
a left opposition with the aid of the western left no doubt and, of course, all the attendant problems involved in that project.
otherwise, it's the same fundamental, and very old aporia. marxist theory and practice remains entrapped in a conception of societal domination and liberated subjectivity. It binds the realization of a critical subjectivity to the social conditions of domination which, paradoxically, are described as the absolute suppression of this critical subjectivity. Yet, this situation is the "prerequisite" for the emergence of an emancipated subjectivity capable of redefining needs and concomitantly constituting a truly liberated future.
to quote myself
kelley