Tom O' Lincoln (was re: New Politics)

["Alex LoCascio" <alexlocascio@xxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

That was *Johannes* who asked you what the
connection between b/c and their position
on Palestine is, not me.

Myself, I don't see any organic connection
between what scholastic position somebody
develops on the Russian question and their
actual political practice.

C.L.R. James, a nominal State Capitalist,
perceived the significance of the Cuban
and Chinese revolutions about as well as
anybody.  My organization, the USFI, while
nominally "worker's statist" or "transitional
society," came out with a position on recent
events in Cuba that I am very uncomfortable with.
Hal Draper, a "bureaucratic collectivist", made
an indispensable contribution to the revolutionary
socialist tradition with his four-volume work on Marx.

As for the Mid-East, I tend to take a Chomskyist
position: the people there (and by this I mean the
opressed nation in question, the Palestinians) have
to decide the future of the region.  As such, I think
it's a bit silly for the rest of us to be formulating
a position beyond "end the occupation" and "stop U.S.
aid to Israel."  To advocate, as the IST does, a single
secular state solution, is a bit silly, unless they've
conducted a poll of some sort.

Not that a single secular state doesn't sound like a
find abstract ideal, but it's just a bit goofy for us
to speak for Palestinians.


--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup