On Mar 24, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Voyou wrote:
> If Achar wants a debate from an anti-imperialist perspective, it would
> be good if his own position was more clearly anti-imperialist. But in
> much of this piece he writes as if he has no objection to imperialist
> interventions as such
Isn't that his point, and one Lenin appeared to agree with, at least at the moment he wrote the quoted passage? (A reminder of what Lenin said: "To reject compromises 'on principle', to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness, which it is difficult even to consider seriously....") What's the goal? Keeping people alive and making their lives better, or sticking blindly to a rule about not supporting interventions?
Does Achcar have to prove his anti-imperialist bona fides every day? Is it more important to sniff out heresies than to think about what he said?
Doug