Paulsen gets in his two cents on another Gould response part1

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at
Tue Sep 2 07:11:05 MDT 2003

I think Lou Pa. is right on the point. 

If I was an Iraqi, I would simply ask Bob Gould "why do you believe 
that your own intelligence as to the reactionary or revolutionary 
character of Ba'athism or islamic religious groups is better than 
Bush's intelligence on weapons of mass destruction"?

Labelling anything or anyone as more reactionary than imperialist 
troops is a very harsh judgement, indeed!

Peronism was (and still is) associated with Fascism, not with 
national liberation. Hordes of well meaning Leftists were thus taken 
to support pro-imperialist regimes against the will of the 
Argentinean population --and against the necessities of revolution!

Let us allow Iraqis to pass judgement on their own affairs. Nobody in 
the West has a shred of right to olympically become the judge of the 
political parties in those countries that the West has torn to 
bleeding pieces.

This is Leninism ABC, methinks. But maybe I am wrong.

El Lunes 1 de Septiembre de 2003 a las 23:09,
LouPaulsen dijo sobre Re: Paulsen gets in his two cents o que:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gould's Book Arcade" <ggouldsb at>
> To: "marx mail" <marxism at>
> It's possible that this post is just an expression of envy, because José is
> getting all the credit in the subject lines :-)  Doubtless José would
> respond with Trotsky's remark: "These gentlemen like to give revolution a
> name.." ;-)  [Now Bob is going to complain that I am calling him a gentleman
> :-(   ]
> I don't actually write this in a spirit of "let's all pile on Bob", but it
> is very worrisome to see him writing the things he is writing.  From time to
> time, people do go over to the other side.  Particularly in wartime.  Not
> because they consciously decide that the bourgeoisie is the side to be on,
> but because it seems impossible, or horrible, or uncivilized, or just plain
> evil, to go ahead with a consistent opposition to their own bourgeoisies;
> they decide that there is something else out there that is REALLY even worse
> than their own bourgeoisie, and they can't understand how the ultraleftists
> are so blind as to miss this obvious fact.  Today it is commonplace to talk
> about the betrayal of the leaders of the Second International, but in 1914
> it was a shocking thing to charge, as Lenin did, that they were traitors,
> and they themselves felt shocked and affronted that their reasonable,
> creative, and civilized application of Social-Democratic principles to the
> period they were in was slandered and defamed as treason.  I have no doubt
> that Kautsky was as offended being called a traitor by Lenin as Gould is to
> have the Harlan County song sung at him by José:
> > I deeply and viscerally object to being labelled a scab because of a
> > difference of opinion with the excited Jose Perez. I object even more to
> > Gary McLennan labelling me a scab, by mealy mouthed inference, when he
> > refers, in a fulsome way, to what a wonderful post Perez's was.
> Unfortunately, Bob, this is not a minor difference of opinion.  This is a
> life-and-death difference of opinion, where people are getting shot and
> blown up and it DOES make a good deal of difference what side you are on.
> We are not all in your block, or we might be gathering together to bust into
> your house and have an 'intervention' where we try to convince you that you
> 'have a problem'.  As it is, we are trying to get you to turn the hell
> around and consider the possiblity that you are way off course before you
> end up several years down the road where Hitchens is now.
> I will cut directly to what I think the point is, and I think it's here:
> > I go further than Williams, however, and assert that the nature of these
> > actions suggests they may well be the actions of counter revolutionary
> > forces like the remnants of Baathist intelligence or Islamic
> fundamentalist
> > terrorist groups.
> I think this is really at the heart of the matter.  The point that you are
> making to us, Bob, is that the bombings might be the work of
> "counter-revolutionary ... Baathists ... or Islamic fundamentalist terrorist
> groups."  My point to you, Bob, is that "counter-revolutionary" is a
> dialectical term, or OUGHT to be, and you have to ask yourself, "even
> assuming that the bombings WERE the work of Baathists or Islamicists, how
> can you call those forces 'counter-revolutionary' COMPARED WITH the United
> States occupation??"
> What are the implications of saying this?  IF these forces are
> "counter-revolutionary" WITH RESPECT to the United Nations or the occupation
> forces, THEN does it not follow that the United Nations personnel in Iraq,
> and maybe the civilian workers in service of the occupation, and the Iraqi
> puppet government, have the right to use military force, and to ask for
> outside military support, such as from the US Marines, to protect themselves
> from Baathists and Islamicists?   Lest anyone think this is a complete straw
> man argument, we have ALREADY had a debate on a social-democratic list here
> in Chicago where someone complained about the "Bring the Troops Home Now"
> slogan, on the ground that it would be WRONG to bring the troops home now
> because it would be a disservice to the Iraqis because it would leave them
> at the mercy of Baathists and Islamicists, or at least spark a civil war,
> and therefore we have a moral duty to leave imperialist troops in Iraq to
> save the Iraqis from themselves.   Again, the guy writing this was an
> experienced movement person, possibly with credentials as good as your own!
> Would you agree that THAT is a social-imperialist position?  If it is NOT
> your position, Bob, wouldn't it be a good idea to distinguish your position
> from it, rather than to quote long sections of "their morals and ours",
> which, by the way, some of us have read and approve of but are applying
> differently from the way you apparently are.
> Lou Paulsen
> Chicago

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"Sí, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de 
Buenos Aires, 1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

More information about the Marxism mailing list