From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 08:26:18 EST
Re Chris's [8458]: To all: *PLEASE*, especially, read last paragraph. > 3. Re Hallas. All his bluster cannot obviate the fact it is hard to > denounce Thatcher as imperialist when the dearest wish of the Falklanders > was to be liberated, not of course as a nation but as part of Britain. Of > course previously such a claim was on the way out and only recognised by > Thatcher when the geo-physical relevance of the Falklands came up. > Incidentally the same is true of Ulster - very few Protestants consider > themselves a nation, they consider themselves British and ironically the > British do not so consider them and would gladly be shot of them were > other issues not involved. The issue here is whether the policy of socialists should be guided by the "dearest wishes" of colonists who have historically been the beneficiaries of colonialism and imperialism. In so far as the war in the Falklands/Malvinas Islands goes, as I recall Thatcher's policy was very much rationalized by a call to preserve the British Empire. The retro and 'romantic' aspirations that Britannia will rule the seas again can hardly be thought of as progressive. > 4. Oh for the days when there were good guys (Fidel, Ho) and bad guys (US > imperialism). Now we have to indirectly fight for the Taliban and Saddam! > Incidentally all reports say next Saturdays anti-war demonstration in > London will be huge. Blair's popularity is in a nose dive. But once war > starts patriotism will kick in, and once it is won it will be drinks all > round and soon forgotten. I expect the CIA will stash some anthrax in the > desert for the British troops to "find" and retroactively justify it all. Socialists certainly shouldn't offer unconditional support for Saddam (and thereby fall into the naive and morally and politically bankrupt belief that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend"). Yet, I think we should offer critical support for Iraq against a US/UK invasion (Trotsky -- often clever with metaphors -- once likened critical support to the support that a noose gives a man who is being hung). I expect the anti-war demonstration here in New York City on Saturday to be quite large as well -- indeed, a number of my students told me (without being prompted) that they would be attending. And there are other indications as well of a large turnout. I've often thought of raising the following question in recent months, so here goes: *DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO WRITE A STATEMENT AGAINST THE WAR, GET CONSENSUS BY LISTMEMBERS, AND RELEASE IT IN THE NAME OF THE LIST?* We are not, of course, a political party but as a collaborative group it does seem to me to be appropriate and desirable occasionally to make public statements. A little OPE-L praxis, anyone? Solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 00:00:00 EST