Re: [Marxism] Supporting the resistance? To BK

["rrubinelli" <rrubinelli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh Barney, if I didn't know better, I would think you were a creation of
Nestor Gorojovsky, put here just so he could point and say "See what I
mean?"

1.  Regarding animus, hostility, etc.   That's not generated by your
claim that workers must be at the forefront of the struggle for
socialism.  That's generated by your conversion of that from a point of
concrete intervention and struggle against capitalism, into an abstract
justification for non-intervention, non-struggle in the immediate and
real social combats.  That's generated by your aid and comfort given to
US occupation and destruction of Iraq which you justify by the
thoroughly anti-Marxist identification as Islam and barbarism.

Brief digression:  Speaking of religion and barbarism: Where do you
stand on the issue of the US invading the Vatican?

2. Your reproduction of Marx's thoughts on trade unions is again an
attempt to deflect, disavow the concrete by deploying a shield of
pseudo-Marxist moral imperatives:  do this, don't do that; do this next,
don't do that-- while the class struggle rages in forms not quite so
neat, tidy as envisioned in a historically specific analysis.

In the abstract, you support socialism, class struggle.  But in the
concrete you divorce that from the dirty, messy and bloody struggle
against capitalist destruction  You can't get there, to workers
struggle,  unless you're there, the anti-invasion struggle, warts,
religious fundamentalists and all.

3.  You have no confidence that the anti-war movement can force the US
out?  So what?  The level of your confidence in anything should not be
confused with historical necessity.  Is there any historical struggle,
outside the direct point of production, that would have inspired enough
confidence in you to say  "OK give it a go"?   How about civil rights?
Opposition to the invasion of Cuba?  Vietnam?  How about the actions of
dock workers to hot cargo military shipments to Iraq?  Is that point of
production enough for you?


4.  Your concern is that defeat of the US in Iraq is a gamble, that
there is no guarantee?  Again, so what?  Millionaires might take power?
No shit.  What a revelation.  Gamble?  Risk?  What are you?  An
insurance actuary?   Everything's at risk.  That's what social struggle
does-- it puts everything at risk, and it leave you no choice.  What was
it that Danton said, and Engels loved to quote?  Audacity, audacity, and
more audacity?


5.  For you the question is who forces out the US?  So what?  So the US
presence is the lesser of two, three, many evils?  News flash.  The
struggle to force the US will continue and grow no matter who you want
or don't want to engage in that struggle.  You, as a Marxist, have no
choice but to take that risk and commit fully to that struggle of
forcing the US out immediately.  Failure to engage is failure to advance
the class struggle and will only strengthen the appeal of religious
militias.

6.  You're a humanist?  That's a good one, made me laugh out loud.
Humanists don't classify entire religions as "barbaric."   Islam
barbaric?  Talk about animus, and arrogance. Add this: ignorance.

rr


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism