Re: Recognition of governments (was:: A Russian view of the war (April6)

["LouPaulsen" <LouPaulsen@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <MARIPOWER716@xxxxxxx>

Well here is the problem. "We" - meaning "me" will not defend states as
such, no matter how noble the cause, unless it is a proletariat state.
Revolutionaries must defend revolution unconditionally and conditionally
support states. There is no way on earth I can defend or act like I have any
interest whatsoever in defending the Iraqi state.

- - -
Me:
Oh, yeah?  Well, what IS the state?  The state is "a body of armed men" and
women.  The Iraqi state, for example, is the Republican Guard (for example).
"Defense of the Iraqi state" is not some mystical vote of confidence.  It
just means that, when the US prepares to dump an "area weapon" out of a C-47
onto a division of Republican Guard and incinerate them, you try to stop it
and do not stare into space in an attitude of blissful unconcern.  If you
try to stop it, you are 'defending the Iraqi state'.  I rather think that,
despite all the verbiage, just about everyone on this list would 'defend the
Iraqi state' in such practical terms, which of course is absolutely
obligatory for any Marxist or indeed anti-imperialist of any form.

I got into this bitter argument with an independent socialist here in
Chicago during the Yugoslavia war about WWP's "defense of Milosevic".  "So,"
I said, "do you oppose sending out a team of CIA hit men to assassinate
Milosevic?" "Yes!" "Do you oppose putting a cruise missile into Milosevic's
bedroom?" "Yes!" "Well, then you're defending Milosevic against imperialism
yourself!  Good for you, too!  You're just afraid of the word 'defend'
because you think it means some kind of endorsement that you don't want to
give!  You want to call it some other thing, but it's defense!"  For some
reason she never saw it that way and thought I was trying to use some kind
of frivolous verbal trick, but I wasn't!

Lou Paulsen
Chicago