On 8/4/05, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: > Jim, but I think that your comments are perfectly in line with the US propaganda - "our"state does not engage in terrorism, but every other state (especially Russia, China and other x-cold war foes) does.<
I hope that it was understood that I _reject_ what I described as the "dominant US mind-set," i.e., that US-allied states and the US state don't engage in terrorism.
WS writes further: >It is quite obvious to me that various shadowy figures, from murderous gangsters like Basaev to deposed feudal theocrats like Dalai Lama, are effectively playing the knee-jerk anti-statism of the US left and other brands of populists as well to their own political advantage.<
I don't get this. Just because I criticize the US state doesn't mean that I embrace knee-jerk anti-statism, whatever that is. (Unlike anarchists, I don't think opposition to the state _per se_ makes sense. The first step is not to "smash the state" but to subordinate it to democratic control.)
And the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend (and usually isn't), so I don't support either Basaev or the Dalai Lama in any way. (It's very strange to see those two linked!)
BTW, it's useless and deceiving to talk about (not to mention criticize) something called the "US left." This simply ignores the wide variety of disagreements among the scattered and generally powerless "left."
A lot of people who engage in blanket criticism of the "left" find themselves on the "right" and then (if they're observant) discover that the "right" has as many flaws as the "left," if not more. (The "right" of course rewards such political transitions with money, attention, and more, so people such as David Horrorwitz have an incentive to avoid being observant.)
>The attitude toward the state and complex organizations in general is where
I and the US populist left decidedly part company.<
So you support the terrorism of the US state? Or are you saying something different?
BTW, I am not a "populist." Populism involves the conflict between the power elite and the "people" (the masses), with only a smattering of attention given to class relations. The idea is that if the bad people in the elite were replaced by William Jennings Bryan or some other good person _du jour_, the masses would do alright. To my mind, the nature of the elites reflects the type of class system and the historical context.
JD