>
>I was responding to an odd use of the term "revolutionary defeatism"
>above. What I was getting at is simply what I wrote: revolutionary
>defeatism has nothing to do with "wishing horrors on people," contrary to
>what is suggested on this listserv.
yes it's odd. i agree. i was surprised the lou didn't understand.
it seems a variant of revolutionary defeatism though. i much prefer carrol's "do nothing" position articulated in response to 9.11.
Three people, two USers and Alexandre, believe that--for the purposes of advancing leftist goals (setting US imperialism back or begins its death spiral)--we should support 1. a us political and military defeat; 2. failing an u.s. mil defeat, then we should support a political defeat in the form of heavy u.s. losses.
now, i can wrap my head around this. i personally responded with a similar thought. it took a different form, however. i figured that what would really set us back was not the loss of mil lives--for which i think the gov and the people in this country will live with and, actually, prefer. what would set the US gov back i thought was a terrist (tm) incident. and since i don't want users to die, my particular thought was, hell, i'll take a bomb for the revo!
i was thinking specifically of doug's question: would you take a spore for the revo?
i am that pissed off by what is going on. yes, i'd fucking take a spore for the revo! no, i wouldn't take one for al q, but i'll fucking take one when the US invades iraq in the name of anti-terrism (tm).
so, i get it. i get how people could say that it would be a good thing for the US to sustain heavy losses.
what i don't understand, however, is this:
if one _assumes_ that a mil defeat is unlikely, then achieving that defeat requires thousands, perhaps 10-20 thousand, iraqis to die and many more to be wounded.
i can't get on board with that, which I guess is why I'd prefer to take the spore if my goal is to stop this war, first and foremost, and to set capital back.
I don't think any person who took the position that the best outcome for the revo is that the US loses lotsa of troops actually wants to see Iraqis die. I just think they forgot that along with US troops deaths come Iraqi troop and civilian deaths.
Just like I insanely forget the consequences of what would happen if we saw another terrist attack on US soil: at this particular moment, it would be very bad for Iraq b/c I'm sure they'd see a small nuke. It would also entail a crackdown on people here.
Kelley