>I think there are two problems with this analogy:
>1) The question is not about bad, better or good implementation of some
>existing state of justice.
>The question was: Should the anti-war movement *campaign* for "bringing
>the perpetrators to justice" - and it was rightly pointed out that if the
>word "justice" was to be used in connection with such a campaign then
>"justice" had to apply to all (or if we want to be "humble": a
>representative selection of) "perpetrators".
i appreciated Gordon's comments on justice, too. now, it seems to me that it's not so hard to fight for justice, just because you recognize that the criminal justice system in the US sucks.
is it so hard to go to Mumia rallies? what is being called for at those actions? sure, smash the state. in the meantime, Mumia's best hope is to get a "fair", that is "just", trial.
was it so hard for women to fight for civil rights for blacks in the south? when they knew that their own rights were impeded in a multitude of ways?
recognizing the contradictions, the hypocrisy, is important because you can foreground them. which brings me round to what i was saying about a critique of social institutions from the standpoint of an oppressed group. starting at that standpoint it may seem as if it's about, as gordon fears, a kind of me-too'ism (women want to be like men, to be part of the system; ditto men and women of color). but not really. if you take the critique seriously, unravel it, then a critique of social institutions from the standpoint of the oppressed can lead to an understanding how those social institutions are oppressive for everyone, not just white women and men and women of color. in other words, it leads to a richer class analysis.
kelley