[lbo-talk] Bill Ayers Whitewashes History, Again

[Mark DeLucas]

The "critiques" I was pointing to are Pollitt's, Hilzoy's, etc: the visceral reaction.  As though violence is in and of itself is unthinkable.  Yours is of a different order, and you're probably correct.  And, what's more, William Ayers agrees with you.  So I suppose you'd exonerate him of the charge of insufficient penitence.  But Ayers's other critics (40 years removed), wrapped in the righteousness of their own purity, condemn violence out of hand, and so want Ayers to positively grovel.   But I think he's right to preserve a certain amount of ambivalence, refusing to put limits on our political imagination or retreat from the suggestion that the war in Indochina was objectively, radically evil.

--- On Wed, 12/10/08, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Bill Ayers Whitewashes History, Again
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 12:09 PM

Mark DeLucas wrote:
> 
> These sorts of critiques aren't worth very much in so far as they all
fail to grapple with the central question--what are the limits on resistance? 

There are no limits _in principle_ or abstractly. But there is the
matter of political intelligence, I don't object to the WU violence as
such; I object to the fact that it was under the circumstances
_coujnter-productive_: it contributed to breaking up the anit-war
movement rather than developing it. I have contempt  for the Weathermen
for their self-indulgence.

Fred Hampton spent the last months of his life speaking to anyone and
evereyone who would listen on the subject of Weatherman stupidity, their
"Custeristic" tactics. And Hampton did not believe in non-violence;
he
believed in not being stupid.

Carrol

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk