RE: [Marxism] David Corn on Zarqawi. A gene-carrying member of the"civilized world" speaks out for assassination and occupation

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark states:
It seems to me that construing this obserlvation that as support for
imperialism is a bit of stretch, but if it be treason, make the most of
it.

Is the claim that you are being portrayed as supporting imperialism
becoming the last refuge of people who are being described as being
politically seriously wrong? So it would appear from Mark's knee-jerk
response.

Mark said that "construing this observation...as support for imperialism
is a bit of a stretch." It would be more than a stretch. It would be a
lie.

Will Mark inform me where I declared that he now supports imperialism?
Where the words "support imperialism" appear?  I deal exclusively with
the unmistakable logic of a position that Mark took that is wrong.  Not
treason.  Wrong.  Not a transfer of allegiance to imperialism.  But
wrong. Wrong, wrong,wrong.  NOTHING right about it.

Mark says, "If this be treason, make the most of it."  That's the
problem.  Despite the grandiose declaration, portraying this position as
heroic defiance of kings and all the powers that be, nothing whatsoever
of value can be made of the position because it is, as they say in
French, WRONG, period.  Mark can't make it right by portraying himself
as a victim of slander and oppression.

If pointing out why I think(why, from my standpoint, I KNOW) the
position Mark took is wrong and contributes nothing to clarity in the
struggle against imperialism means that I am portraying Mark as
pro-imperialist, that simply means that positions like the one he took,
to all intents and purposes, cannot be challenged on the list.  His view
thus, to all intents and purposes, becomes a sacred cow. His correctness
must be taken for granted, for to challenge it is to accuse the
Independent Thinker who concocted the idea of treason. Somebody who
simply made an ordinary, but I think significant, political mistake thus
becomes a combination American revolutionary and Soviet dissident,
simply by being wrong.

Here is what Mark said again.  In my  original comment, I did not
directly attribute it to Mark so it is possibly that some and possibly
even Mark himself took the quote as being simply part of the attribution
of positions to him.

Mark (not me) stated:

"Over the long run, the US is undermining its own arguments by removing
characters like Zarqawi from the scene.  The more of these out of the
picture, the more clearly the war in Iraq becomes a war of an occupied
people against the occupier, untinted by religiously inspired executions
And barbarities."

I really hope that Mark does not get wedded to this heroic stand against
king and country by the dynamic of debate.  I think he should set it
aside and move on.  People who want to see what I think of what he said
and why I thought it was wrong to think US killing off of Zarqawis would
unintentionally create a struggle "untainted by religiously inspired
executions and barbarities."

Mark is absolutely not a newly-recruited ally of imperialism.  He is a
thoughtful enemy of imperialism, and that is why I expect better from
him and will continue to do so.
Fred



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism