[Marxism] March 17 and ANSWER's Ultraleftism
ewjohnson72 at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 19 08:39:23 MST 2007
And my argument is that not taking on Israel and its roll in the middle east while talking about the United states and its role in the middle east IS unpricipled, and it is not worth jettisoning to obtain the lowest-common denominator. Its ignoring half the story not to mention a war that is fundementally fought for the same reason as israeli wars of aggression with people that are on the same side. Would we Not talk about South African aparthied when talking about the War in Angola?? Or Chilean death squads when talking about the Argentine Junta. The argument not to, I believe, stems from timidity and not principle.
Mark Lause <MLause at cinci.rr.com> wrote:
Nobody's saying you shouldn't take a stand on any and all of these issues.
I do. I'd bet almost everyone on this list does.
What's actually being said is that they should NOT be the focus for building
a coalition. You do that on the lowest-common denominator that provides
"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the
things we know that ain't so."
-- Artemus Ward.
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
More information about the Marxism