From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2007 - 20:55:50 EST
>Jerry wrote: >"Arming workers and the >poor in militias is a more democratic and >popular model than just relying on the >professional military, isn't it? (This raises the issue of 'gun control': >so long as the police and the military have guns >[i.e. so long as the agents of the state >have guns], shouldn't workers have the right to be armed as well? " > >Martin: >Yes they should. Hope that is an answer to your >other questions as well. I think you read to >much into my reply. But again, I will be wise >and try to better furnish my messages in the >future. > >Many kind regards, >Martin > >PS. It is obvious beyond all doubt that Kim Jung >Ill is a complete maniac, it is not really a >loaded question anywhere in the world. Given the destruction of Lebanon and Iraq, it's probably not a good time to single out so called third world leaders in this way, Martin. But I am wondering whether this characterization implies that ordinary mechanisms of deterrence will not work on him as a special kind of head of state. Is this why the US will have to take preventive strikes (remembering here that Bush has successfully elided the difference between pre emption and preventive) against North Korea's nuclear capabilities? Does Bush have a team of precogs as in Spielberg's fascinating Minority Report? Rakesh >I was simply trying to make a point that you >cannot equate for example Venzuelian or >Australian military development with that in a >country like North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, >countries which are more than likely to use that >force to suppress their own people in a direct >way. > > >Från: OPE-L genom Jerry Levy >Skickat: to 2007-01-25 16:49 >Till: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU >Ämne: Re: [OPE-L] SV: [OPE-L] What Ahmadinejad >actually said - lost in translation... > > > This I think is false logic, presuming that >nuclear weapons in the hand of maniac > > leaders like Kim Jong Ill would somehow >balance the economic and political strength > > of America, Russia or the UK. > >Martin: > >He may or not be a 'maniac' -- a loaded >expression and one which could equally >be used to refer to many current or former >bourgeois leaders including G.W. Bush >and Sharon. > >Of course if North Korea had nuclear weapons it >wouldn't balance the _economic_ >and _political_ strength of the US, Russia, or the UK, etc. It wouldn't >even balance the _military_ strength of those >powers. But, it might -- or might not -- >serve as a military deterrent. > > > I cannot anywhere see how such a development >would be beneficial for progressive > > political movements in other parts of the >world. Venezuela recently (last year) agreed > > with Russia that they would upgrade their >military equipment tout court over the nearest > > future, including the building of a >Kalshnikov-factory in Venezuela. A contract all >in all > > worth billions of dollars. These types of >transactions happen all the time, and even > > though the US does not approve officially, >they wont do anything about it. Most likely, > > it's not enough to deter a potential attack >from the US more that a few days anyhow. > > Sweden is now negotiating with Saudi Arabia >so we can sell them some fine artillery that > > they can use to further oppress their people. >I cannot see how this would be progressive > > or beneficial for the democratic movement anywhere. > >Do you agree that the Venezuelan people have the >right to self-determination and that the >sovereignty of that nation should be respected? >If so, then they have the right to >self-defense, don't they? If we recognize >that right then who are we to tell them from >afar what weapons they should have? What's >wrong with Kalshnikov rifles, anyway? >The US-sponsored coup failed because the people >took to the streets and risked their >lives to keep their democratically-elected >president from being ousted by military strength. >A lesson of that failed coup, just like a lesson >from the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, is that the >people have to be prepared to repel an >imperialist attack. Arming workers and the >poor in militias is a more democratic and >popular model than just relying on the >professional military, isn't it? (This raises the issue of 'gun control': >so long as the police and the military have guns >[i.e. so long as the agents of the state >have guns], shouldn't workers have the right to >be armed as well? I think that most >of the arguments for nuclear disarmament and gun control are based on liberal >principles including a liberal perspective on >the role of the state. A non-state >centered perspective would be different. For >that reason most anarchists strongly >oppose gun control legislation.) > >In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 00:00:05 EST