On Jul 25, 2006, at 10:37 AM, www.leninology. blogspot.com wrote:
>
> Doing more damage is not the same thing as killing as many
> civilians as possible. Hezbollah aren't even trying to do that
> now. They're only firing off these risible missiles, with their 16-
> mile range that have comparatively limited blasts. They are
> plainly trying to target the military infrastructure and they have
> hit it several times.
We'll have to disagree on this.
>
> By that rationale, many many entirely reasonable actions could be
> ruled out because of the 'reaction' that one might 'invite'.
The point, in my view, is that the actions Hezbollah undertook - that started this war - were not 'reasonable' because their humanitarian consequences were anticipated.
>
> I don't think I like the smell of that, but let me take it at face
> value - how would any anti-imperialist have known that de Valera's
> Papist state would eventually become a more liberalised society?
> They couldn't have! They had to take the risk that the Irish
> Republican fighters would sort it out among themselves. That's
> part of the dignity of being human.
of course they wouldn't have, and I am not sure I would have participated in this struggle had I been an Irish party to it at the time. but given the course of European revolutions and the rationalization of Western European society during the 20th century, it made eminent sense that a theocratic regime would not last in Ireland - or anywhere else in Western Europe. If theocratic states were not replaced by liberal capitalist states in 20th century Europe, they were replaced by fascist & authoritarian states, which were natural inheritors of the traditional forms of domination practiced by religious states.
>
> I don't see why that is the key difference for you. Did that not
> also lead to a dictatorship? Has the Algerian regime not behaved
> abominably?
I never said I was in favor of the FLN. I agree, what turned out was terrible.
>
>
> And why not? One can work with them toward one's shared goals and
> part, and even oppose, on points of difference. Isn't this
> tactical common sense?
tactics have to be combined with firm principles. that's why
>
>> I also believe that its important to support multidimensional and
>> multiparty struggles. But I do not see any value in creating
>> coalitions which are not explicitly and thoroughly dedicated to
>> the immediate establishment of secular, democratic institutions
>> from the outset, and in are not in agreement about this.
>
> Then you severely limit your possibilities, especially if you were
> an activist in Palestine or Lebanon. Coalitions on shared goals
> are necessary, all the time. Since Hezbollah in particular have
> simply deferred their goal of an Islamic Republic, it isn't as if
> that's even a decisive issue here.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free
> newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>