[Marxism] re: East Timor replies,

[dwalters@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Rohan has certainly raised some important issues that strike at the traditions
of anti-imperialism for Marxists everywhere (and not just E. Timor).

One thing I noticed is that Rohan states: "colonial occupation is never ok" as
if this is the question. Perhaps unintentionally, it's slight of hand since he
differentiates this from "imperialist intervention". Hmmm. I have to admit
there is a difference, at least in goals. But actual "colonial occupation" is
relatively rare, is it not? The US hasn't launched a true conquest of colonial
colonization since it became imperialist in the 1890s. Mostly it's "just"
imperialist intervention. But the essential question is worth discusing as
poised by Rohan:  When is imperialist intervention a lesser evil than something
else? I think this is a valid question.

To dispense with something immediatly. Historically no one says that ""Never
break a strike"...(and of course, it depends on what a 'strike' is, doesn't
it).

Frederick Douglas once commented that was against unionization of the Southern
railways during Reconstruction because it mean the direct and immediate firing
of the mostly Black workforce on southern railroads...the bosses actually
brought in the Brotherhoods to get rid Blacks. Members of the SWP, SP and CP in
1941 stayed at their jobs when the mostly white UAW memberships in some locals
walked out when defense industries started hiring Blacks. Then there is the
case of the SWP and other groups (controversaly) openly advocating (correct
IMO) the breaking of the racist 1968 UFT strike against community control. So,
from the issue of "strikes" the comparison is hardly appropriate.

The problem is of course the slippery slope of relying on the "international
community/UN" i.e.: US and other imperialisms, to come to the rescue. Some
argue that if the French had intevened in Rwanda the genocide there could of
been averted. It is also true that as demands on the Oz gov't to intervene in
E. Timor, the repression got *worse* and when it was clear there was to be
intevetion, the destruction, economically, became total.

I wonder, too, had the US not entered WWII and taken the position that anti-war
socialists took (as well as "America Firsters") what the results would of been,
say, starting in 1940. I think the USSR would of lost (since US aid to the USSR
was critical, even without the "western front")Clearly the masses of the world
sided with the Allies against the Axis powers since most people viewed the
allies as 'the lessor evil' (albeit not initially). Few on the left (and I
can't actually think of any) took the view that the war was 'wrong' or that the
US should withdraw. And this includes the SWP. There was no anti-war movement in
the 1941-1945 period.

David



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

________________________________________________
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