>At 01:03 25/05/99 +0000, Dave B wrote:
>
>>We do not support ANY action by imperialism.
>
>Very revolutionary!
>
>What about the second world war?
The Allies may have proclaimed that they were fighting for liberation, but
even a cursory glance at the evidence points to a very different
conclusion. As Frantz Fanon points out, fascism was only the arrival in
Europe of conditions that the colonised had been experiencing for many many
years. NB This is NOT to say that fascism existed in the colonies.
So no Chris, the revolutionary position here would not have been to support
British imperialism. And before the holocaust is raised, note that the RAF
were flying over the railway tracks taking people to the death camps: they
were on their way to bomb factories. After the war, when the British
government began publicising the Final Solution, that is long after they
had masses of concrete evidence that it was taking place (ie from refugees
and from cracked German intelligence code), the question was raised as to
why nothing was done to halt it. The RAF argued that to bomb the tracks
would have been beyond the range of its planes, whilst the Enigma boffins
who had cracked the German code, kept very mum indeed.
Incidentally, I remember reading once (in Primo Levi?) about a bombing of
the SS hut in one of the camps. This caused relief and delight in the camp-
the inmates were not alone! Sadly, they were mistaken, the bomber had
merely missed his target and dropped the bombs too early. 'Collateral
damge' they'd call it now.
>> "We" therefore are not
>>located in any specific country.
>
>
>
>Such purity to the spirit of idealism!
Or as Marx dryly remarks, 'No one has ever eaten fruit'. But perhaps Chris
is arguing for a purely national international, one that neatly exludes the
Other before the event.
Russ
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
