But I still am curious about the meaning of this statement of Cutrone's, "...there is no real potential progressive 'anti-imperialist' politics that provides an actual emancipatory alternative to U.S. policy." I'm most troubled by the word "potential." Yes, the left is weak, and sometimes wrongheaded -- but does it really have no *potential* to offer an emancipatory alternative? If that's the case, what't the point of engaging in leftwing politics? --Joanne
>At 04:00 PM 4/8/2010 -0400, you wrote:
>Chris answered this directly last night:
>
>I don't know of anyone in Platypus who supports the U.S. in any of its wars,
>not Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq-Kuwait, etc.,
>etc.
>
>(I think there may have been some misapprehension because we did an
>interview with Terry Glavin, a Canadian pro-Afghan war Leftist. But we
>didn't do this because we were sympathetic to his position, but because we
>thought we could push him and make a good interview, raising whatever
>interesting issues are available via his position.)
>
>
>On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Joanne Landy <joanne.landy at igc.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > PPS Christopher Cutrone, I still haven't heard from you as to whether
> > Platypus supports the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Does it? Are there
> > disagreements among Platypi on this issue? You write "not that I agree with
> > the conclusions they draw from this observation, but this factor still
> needs
> > to be faced and processed." Which conclusions of Hitchens et al do you
> > disagree with?
> >
> >
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk