• 01-04-2004, 06:35 PM
    Who'da thunk I'd ever praise a Marxist?
    I've been doing a lot of reading on DemocraticUnderground lately. I feel kind of like a spy in enemy camp, trying to figure out what makes them tick. One thing for sure...without the convenience of conspiracy theories, they'd be in a heap 'o trouble! :D

    Occasionally, I stumble across something of value there...a totally unexpected find...unbelievable that they haven't purged it from their site yet.

    This thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com...&topic_id=2755 gets interesting around post #6 & 8 where member "cantwealljustgetalong" posts this link to a Marxist site: http://www.marxist.org.uk/htm_docs/comm12.htm. He/she copies the text and highlights some strong passages in post #8. There are nine points (called "red herrings"). Each point begins with a sentence, immediately followed by a counterpoint. Unless you realize this, it MAY seem confusing, initially.

    Here I extracted point #5...perhaps the shortest one...just to give you a sample and encourage you to go to the full text:
    (5) The war against the Ba’ath regime was a violation of international law: The British Liberal Democrats demonstrated the sheer silly irrelevance of this claim by asserting before the war that it would be “illegal” without a second (in fact 18th) resolution of the UN Security Council, and then, during the war, that its legality could be determined only by an international court once it was over. We expected this kind of unprincipled opportunism from that party of shallow, complacent, vaguely left-leaning but ultimately timid petit-bourgeois idiots, but we are still baffled by the readiness of those who regard national laws as bourgeois illusions to treat “international laws” as if they are any different. In this internecine dispute between some bourgeois lawyers and politicians and others of their kind, the US and British interpretation was probably right, and the French and German side was probably wrong. The willingness of such lawless dictatorships as China’s to go along with the latter merely confirms that conclusion. But that is a problem for liberals (and Stalinists) to sort out, and should have nothing to do with socialists’ attempts to assess the rights and wrongs of the war. Some day in the unknown future, a democratically elected world authority may perhaps be in a position to make and enforce genuine, socialist international laws. Until then Marxists need to be at least as realistic about relations between states as those states’ own policy-makers are. If that means making temporary alliances with bad capitalist regimes against even worse ones, then so be it.
    I put the "point" portion in red. Then, I added the same bolding that the DUh'er added to the text. The DU copy is easier to read, too, because of the plain white background.

    "cantwejustgetalong" goes on to post several more interesting articles which I'm sure don't sit very well with the bulk of the mindless DUh'ers. He/she has over 1000 posts at DU, so I guess he/she has enough clout to get away with it.

    Read it....It's GOOD! :D Mind you, I'm far from a Marxist and definitely DON'T agree with some of the meanings hidden in the shadows (like "Some day in the unknown future, a democratically elected world authority may perhaps be in a position to make and enforce genuine, socialist international laws."), but it's nice to see somebody besides conservatives responding to the liberal idiocy that we've witnessed over the last 3 years concerning the Bush administration.
  • 01-05-2004, 03:11 PM
    What, having a liar in office is better? nt
  • 01-05-2004, 03:54 PM
    Who said THAT???
    I'm in full agreement, but thank you for reminding me that we got rid of that bozo just shy of 3 years ago! And his little lying dog Hillary, too! ;)

    Edited to add:
    Here's a good article just published today that addresses what you refer to as "lies", Bruno.

    It's summed up nicely when it says: "After all, what the (intelligence) Community produced was an estimate, Cohen writes, not a Factbook. Cohen is also correct when he writes that analysts almost never have all the facts desired when such estimates are produced. Using their experience and judgment, they take their best shot."