thanks for pointing this out. i meant consensus in the sense that you correctly describe below: first, an emerging consensus which offers support for violent resistance to empire, at the specific risk of rationalizing attacks upon civilian, not just military targets; second, an emerging consensus which risks support of reactionary political forces because they have the military will and means to confront empire.
joel
On Aug 4, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Seth Ackerman wrote:
> Joel Schalit wrote:
>
>> What I think makes many of us uncomfortable is the fact that
>> because there is such a strong and emerging pro-violence
>> consensus within the Western left - Europe, the US, we're
>> increasingly unwilling to even entertain discussing non-violent
>> alternatives to the conflict, or much else for that matter. That
>> aspect of this discussion is really bad.
>>
>> Many of our fellow travellers, so to speak, are being radicalized
>> by this violence in all the wrong ways, to the point that they
>> have a hard time thinking outside of it. Imagination is always
>> important. W when you lose that, you get into trouble.
>
> I'm on your side of this debate, Joel, but I don't quite agree
> here. Is there really an emerging pro-violence consensus in the
> Western left? If there was, you'd expect to see leftist groups
> taking up armed struggle or trekking off to join the revolution, as
> in the 70's, but there's none of that now. What there is is a
> despairing willingness to offer empty "support" for violent
> resistance to Israel, given the impotence of the alternatives -
> external mediation and internal non-violence. That's obviously a
> childish response, but it arises from sincere frustration over a
> genuine dilemma. What to do? It's not like chanting the magic word
> "non-violence" helps things either....
>
> Seth
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>