Re: [Marxism] Stephen Gowans versus Patrick Bond on Zimbabwe

["Sayan Bhattacharyya" <ok.president+marxmail@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/1/07, Michael Karadjis <mkaradjis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gowans:
> ---
> While there may be an emotional appeal to what Bond
> has to say, his argument, examined dispassionately, is
> weak. If Mugabe is the crypto reactionary,
> pro-imperialist Bond says he is, why are the openly
> reactionary, imperialists in London and Washington so
> agitated about Mugabe and his policies?
> ---
>
> Alan B:
>
> I have no horse in this race, but I can recognise
> nonsense when I see it.
>
> MK:
>
> Yep. Simpleton universe. Who needs Marxism anyway when you can have such
> profound thoughts from some blogger called Gowans?



Peter Godwin in the New York Times:

"In fact, Mr. Mugabe has been a completely consistent leader. It's we who
have changed. During the cold war, we in the West were so grateful that this
militant Marxist had instantly become a benign capitalist that we ignored
his history of political violence within his own party, and intimidation at
the 1980 elections that brought him to power upon Zimbabwe's independence.
We supported him in the same way we supported venal leaders like Mobutu Sese
Seko of Zaire — our friends simply because they were not Moscow's.[...]"

Full: <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/opinion/03godwin.html>
________________________________________________
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