> Brian Siano wrote:
>
>> So tell me, Doug: _Why_ do you publish a newsletter when challenging
>> capitalism may be equally futile?
>
> Sometimes I wonder, but mainly because I hope to inform and energize
> the choir, and maybe win a few converts. It's a long, and largely
> thankless, process.
That's why I was surprised at your reply. I'm sure we've all heard it, in various forms: Why bother? You haven't a hope of actually succeeding. The forces arrayed against you are too great. All you're doing is complaining, or asking for impossible goals. Nobody's even listening to you. Dismantle capitalism? Might as well demolish Mount Rushmore with yer teeth, pal.
And it's actually _more_ frustrating to hear it from people counting themselves on the Left, because it curdles into something that pretends to be wisdom. No, I don't expect miracles of goodness to come from U.S. intervention, or an Iraqi trial of Saddam Hussein, or anything else. But, if expecting the worst is wisdom, then why even suggest alternatives? They're all equally likely to turn to ruin.
Imagine if we were having this discussion a year ago, and we're all wary of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Why even suggest, say, having an international coalition led by the U.N. take out Saddam? After all, the U.N.'s not the most effective governing body, and the superpowers dominate it anyway, so _that_ alternative's as equally desirable as a unilateral U.S. invasion. With proper amounts of this pose, it's not hard to rationalize complete disinvolvement, because it will _always_ turn to shit. (And if the U.S. left Saddam in power, I'm sure we'd be reading posts denouncing the U.S. for its inaction, and its continued support for the guy, and how it's all benefitting the oil companies.)
Right now, we're faced with the question of what to do with Saddam Hussein. Who gets to put him on trial? If the U.S. does it, it'll be so well-contained that the history of U.S. support for the guy will never be addressed. If Iraq does, well, once we decide that their new government is beholden to U.S. interests, we can simply assert that Iraq is incapable of holding a decent inquiry on the matter. (Which is about as reasonable as calling them "fucking ragheads.") If it's an international court, I'm sure we can find _some_ reason to suspect that it'll never be the trial "we" want. (Here's a fair question to the list: What kind of trial for Saddam would _you_ accept as fair, just, and right?)
But as long as people keep finding some fault with any trial Saddam might get, one wonders: maybe these nominal Leftists would be happiest if we just shot the guy outright. Why even bother with a trial when it'll just be a sham? It's rough justice, simple and direct... and then we can throw the "cowboy" comments around until the cows come home.
The end product of all of this is pretty simple. One winds up arguing that no event can _possibly_ be of _any_ beneficial value. It'll _never_ be reflective of decent socialist principles. Powerful interests will _always_ use it to their own benefit. I've found that even saying that there's _some_ benefit in Saddam's ruin catches me all kinds of weird-ass accusations. (Take dredmond's reply, where he vents about the evils of Halliburton and life under the occupation. No one says it's a paradise now. But is dredmond likely to make an _honest_ comparison with life under Saddam? I doubt it.)