At 08:34 10/05/00 +0100, Jim heartfield wrote:

>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
>Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >IMO this particular British involvement is progressive and is part of the
> >developing process of world governance, so long as it assists the UN and
> >the West African peace keeping force to re-organise. I say that, conscious
> >at this moment, that the British government deserves strong criticism for
> >its interference in the developing land redistribution in Zimbabwe.
>Well, its hardly surprising. Chris has lined up behind ever imperialist
>venture in the post-cold war world by my recollection.

Cheap shots are part of the internet, but you only have to look at the last 
passage that Jim quoted, to see that this is a cheap shot. What Jim is 
opposing is any discrimination between the different actions of imperialist 
powers as to which are progressive and which are not. This is childish 
leftism, ridiculed by Lenin.

Cannot he see for example a progressive side to the pressure the west 
brought on Croatia, to remove the repressive and racist features of 
Tudjman's regime and accept bourgeois democratic norms?

This refusal to discriminate between positive and negative policies of 
imperialism is consistent with the Trotskyist view that opposed 
participation in the Second World War, something steadfastly propagated by 
the owner of "the" Marxism list.

>It is not the subjective intentions of the imperialists that makes

Of course. That is why even when we see a positive feature in their 
policies, we do not "line up" behind them.

Chris Burford


     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to