From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Thu Jul 28 2005 - 16:47:13 EDT
Hi Jerry Update on the London situation: 1. 7/7 complete closure. The police have no-one alive, not even plausible links. There is no available evidence against the four. 2. The Stockwell killing. It looks as though the police were expecting something on the Victoria line (Stockwell, Vauxhall) and were keyed up. It could very well be untrue that the block of flats where Jean Charles de Menezes lived was under surveillance, that he was followed from Tulse Hill to Stockwell, that he was challenged in the street, that he jumped the barriers, that he was wearing a bulky coat. It is untrue that he had any immigration problems. It was just cop mass hysteria, I think. They were expecting something and JCM triggered them, perhaps running to catch a train knowing he was late for a job. 3. 21/7. Nobody has any conspiracy theories! There is the copycat theory. Otherwise, it is very strange. The bombs did not go off. One backpacker was reported as looking astonished -- the question is: was he astonished not to be dead or astonished that his backpack had gone pop. A drugs mule theory is possible, but there is no evidence. Still no idea of what explosives were used. Strange that photos of the Russell Square train surfaced on ABC. There was a big showing of police at Tube stations today (Thursday), but not yesterday. Good links: http://wagnews.blogspot.com/ http://www.kurtnimmo.com/blog/ Quoting glevy@PRATT.EDU: > Hi Phil and Michael W: > > No, I'm not going to talk about the London bombings here. > > I'm not really in a position to expand on this subject at the > present time (I am in a public library in Boothbay Harbor) > but I find that the _general_ question of how Marxists have > historically reacted to charges of conspiracy (by the state, > especially) to be of interest. The prevailing attitude seems to > have been: > > a) "show me the proof!" I.e. scepticism. Underlying this > attitude may be the liberal bourgeois conception: "innocent > until proven guilty". But, is this a proper stance to take > towards the state, especially in the context of so many historical > experiences where the state has launched various intrigues and > conspiracies for war, repression, etc.? > > b) in general, historical events occur for necessary reasons > tied to the "logic of capital". I.e. there is a stance that > wishes to eliminate the accidental and subjective factors in > order to show that capitalism is by its very nature exploitive, etc.. > That is, the intuition seems to be that conspiracies have no > basic and systemic role in reproducing capitalism. Yet, > even if this were true, isn't it important to differentiate > between what we believe happens _in general_ from what happens > in a _particular_ case? I.e. particular conspiracies could be > important in grasping conjunctural developments. > > If one were to compare anarchist thought to Marxian, then I > think that the former is much more receptive to charges of conspiracy > by the state and capital. Yet, shouldn't we recognize that > conspiracies can and have played important roles in > triggering actions by the state? > > In solidarity, Jerry > Philip Dunn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 30 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT