Ian Murray wrote:
>
> >
> Agreed, but how do we avoid getting stuck in the cul-de-sac of
> secular-theocentric world views? Short of becoming a global Islamic
> society this problem isn't going to go away, ever. And Dumbya's
> "either you're with 'us' or you're with the terrorists" is an example
> of the very same problem[s] of oppositional binarism, even as he spoke
> of pluralism.
>
1. We (the opposition) don't have to either defend or attack the Taliban or Mugabe or any other "third world" regime or political force. We have to insist on non-interference in the rest of the world by the United States.
2. Religiously informed politics ebb and flow. We don't _know_ presently that politics will continue to be expressed in religious terms "forever," any more than we _knew_ 50 years ago that politics would continue to be secular forever.
3. When you speak of Bush's exemplifying this or that "problem" you are taking an academic or journalistic rather than political perspective. What we do _know_ is that Bush is wrong and we must oppose him.
4. I think Fitch was right -- Bush and the ruling class are walking into a trap. We have to build a movement to say _no_ and work within that movement to bring more and more people over to a left perspective.
5. We can leave it to the scholars of the 25th century (if there are any) to write long complex studies of the internal dynamic of various countries, regions, etc. And if we can hamstring U.S. foreign/military/economic policy seriously enough there may well still be scholars then.
6. The mode of discussion on lbo to date has been legitimately non-political -- i.e. it has discussed political issues from an abstract perspective, detached from any ongoing political practice. But there is a growing movement and we need to think strategically and tactically from inside that movement, not from the scoffer's chair of detached superiority.
Carrol
Carrol