----- Original Message ----- From: "Julio Huato" <juliohuato at gmail.com> To: "Lbo Talk Lbo Talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 11:18 PM Subject: [lbo-talk] Can Politics Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style?
[...]
> Finally, in reply to Marv, I will say that I entirely agree with the
> idea of having the broadest possible movement in opposition to U.S.
> threats and aggression against Iran. Not everybody will oppose them
> on the same basis. I understand we need to be tolerant with those
> whose opposition to U.S. imperialism arises from a different premise.
> Indeed. But I don't think we'll disagree if I say that tolerance
> doesn't mean suppressing one's own views on what the (perhaps
> unintended) effects of emphasizing the "suckiness" of the other side
> may be or on what the proper basis for opposition to U.S. aggression
> should be. (So, in this spirit, I admit that my previous judgment of
> Prof. Dabashi's piece may have been a bit too harsh in the form.)
>
> Just to clear the waters, when I say that every possible stance
> vis-a-vis the conflict will be forced into a binary choice, regardless
> of our wishes, I don't mean to say that only those who oppose the
> attack on Iran because they fully agree with Iran's policies will
> effectively help the correct side. Neither do I mean that only those
> who oppose the attack on Iran on the basis of full agreement with a
> new, non-imperialist U.S. foreign policy count. Again, the premise of
> my previous replies was different.
>
> As far as building opposition to U.S. imperialist aggression against
> Iranians What matters to us (as opposed to the Iranians, who indeed
> must negotiate internally and in their terms the conditions of their
> unity against the imperialist threat) is how strongly we oppose the
> aggression with our actions, not how much we like the Iranian
> leadership.
> ___________________________________