[lbo-talk] "Critical Support" (Re: Fidel)

[andie nachgeborenen]

This is arrant none sense, pernicious claptrap, and
politically idiotic. One of the few places it matters
what we sat about Cuba, etc., is in live
antinterventionist movements. There the audience is
not the Cubans, etc,. but potential participants here
in the movements.  Needless to say, if you refuse to
say, Milosovic (Saddam, etc.) is a tyrant, BUT, you
will paint yourself into the self-isolated ghetto with
the rest of the irrelevant loonies and be unable to
reach a wider audience. Now, I don't put Fidel in that
group. But if I am to have more credibility in talking
up Cuba's good points than Carrol, if I am going to be
able to win the support of the ignorant and
fence-sitters for anti-intervention, as Carrol cannot,
I must be able ready and willing to speak the truth
about Cuba.  As should be obvious, I think that
anti-intervention (by the US and its allies) is a
near-absolute principle regardless of the character of
the potential target, but _effective_
anti-intervention requires honesty about the character
of the potential target. 

--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:


> 
> 
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> > 
> > Of course it makes no difference to Cuba. We are
> > totally irrelevant. I have no illusions about that
> or
> > any pretentions. But it makes a difference to us.
> And
> > since we care, it matters at least to us.
> 
> Where Yoshie's point becomes crucial to practice is
> in situations such
> as the U.S. aggression against Yugoslavia. Whether
> one's opposition to
> the aggression is accompanied by "criticism" of
> Milosevic is pure fluff.
> It's an either/or situation: For or against u.s.
> aggression.
> 
> Carrol
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com