andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I am starting to think that nuclear
> proliferation might not be such a bad thing after all
> in the era of the Shrub/Rummy/Rice Doctrine
I agree. I don't think very highly of the current regimes in either India or China, but one or the other or both could do a great service (and perhaps make some money?) by aiding other "enemies of the u.s." (i.e., other independent nations) to gain some nuclear capacity.
Incidentally -- millions of people over the last half century have supported "Stalinist" regimes, or belonged to "stalinist" parties while concretely supporting positions and principles within their own states that deserved support. The worst kind of red baiting is that which focuses on the abstract policies (such as real or alleged support to NK) of left groupings.
Also, incidentally, I have a basic quarrel with WWP and other organizations with a "P" in their name: I believe that for the last half century party formations _as such_ are incorrect. I'm not even sure under what conditions it will again be appropriate to aim at the formation of a new (communist) party. Nevertheless, whatever WWP's policies may be, and however correct or incorrect, anyone attempting to exclude them from coalitions, or to undercut coalitions to which they belong, is excluding him/herself from legitimate left politics.
And those exclusion tactics are not going to work, any more than similar tactics against PL worked in SDS. The balance of power in anti-war coalitions is held by liberals, not "professional" leftists such as those attacking (and defending) ANSWER. And I have continuously tested the waters in the local (growing) anti-war organization, which overwhelmingly consists of liberals) by passing on the various attacks on ANSWER, and everyone concerned doesn't give a shit. They are just against the war.
New people in the anti-war movement aren't interested in sectarian squabbling, and that is what the attacks on ANSWER amount to.
Carrol