Re: [Marxism] the right of the victim to use violence

["Lenin's Tomb" <leninstombblog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Shane Mage <shmage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> No.  Never.  Not in my name.  To bombard towns and cities, for any
> cause whatsoever, is to attempt to kill and maim civilians, from
> unborn children to the most elderly.  It is to slaughter workers in
> supposed reprisal for crimes committed by their rulers.


This is rather thoughtless.  It may well be that there is no conceivable
circumstance in which violence against civilians is justified, even as a
strategy designed to raise the cost of oppression for the oppressors.  But
this kind of moralistic utterance really doesn't help us deal with that
argument.  You have to deal with the costs of not using such violence, for
example where: non-violent resistance fails; the oppressed lacks the
resources to confront the armed forces of the enemy directly; and attacks on
civilians are both viable and likely to produce results.  I should say that
I don't think Qassam and mortar fire has ever been effective, but *if it
were* and if all other means were ruled out, then it would arguably be
irresponsible to the point of arrogance not to use such means.  It would be
to expose Palestinians to future bloodbaths in the pursuit of a nebulous
ego-ideal.  Is it really inconceivable that an oppressed group might have a
*moral duty* to attack civilians on the opposing side?

Oh wait, I forgot.  We already know the answer: no, never, not in your name.
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu