Fidel tells Spanish imperialist magistrate to shove it
cbcox at SPAMilstu.edu
Tue May 1 16:16:27 MDT 2001
Martin Zehr wrote:
> The major problem with the premise here is that it projects an analysis of
> Colonized vs. the colonisers and from there proscribes the appropriate
> remedy for all. It puts Noriega in the same camp as Che.
This sort of perspective always puts me in mind of the bad 19th century
poem which had the line, "Let me sit by myself at the side of the road
and be a friend to man." You take the role of a detached observer,
looking down from above at the struggle. This may be bood for your
personal sense of moral righteousness, but it does not much help the
struggle. The perspective _has_ to be that of opposition to U.S.
hegemony: and from that perspective Noriega and Castro _are_ in the same
camp. From other equally important perspectives they are worlds apart --
but this is the wort of thing revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao have in
mind when they speak for "all-sidedness." The revolutionary simply
cannot reduce the world to a series of simple-minded either/ors.
The U.S. killed many thousand Panamanians in arresting Noriega, and
violated almost every canon of what used to be called international law.
And what purpose did that crime serve: It helped lay the ideological
basis for U.S. interference anywhere, anytime. So of the many
perspectives that are "true" in respect to Castro and Noriega, the
perspective should rule all the others is that of the fight against the
U.S. claim to interfere in the affairs of other nations. All leftists
must support Noriega. (Were he back in power in Panama, leftists in
Panama would, quite rightly, take a different perspective.)
More information about the Marxism