====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 AM, John Obrien <causecollec...@msn.com> wrote: How could any Marxist on this list knowing history, state such ignorant > bourgeois liberal crapabout conforming to legal codes of Britain and Sweden > concerns - and not recognize this isa political case based on the exposing > of governments foreign policies - and has nothing todo with women's rights. > Shameful ignorance! > I do not define, and have never defined, myself as a Marxist. Marxish, perhaps. If you choose to embrace willful ignorance of objective facts, that is a decision you are entitled to make. But it is extremely unfair to the great majority of Marxists, as well as the Marxist tradition, to attribute this preference to Marxism. And spare me the breathless moral panic, dude. I'm just not impressed by that sort of thing. For the record, I oppose Assange's extradition, for reasons that have as much to do with Ecuador's national sovereignty and self-determination as anything else. But I'm a little repulsed by the eagerness with which many of Assange's most passionate defenders - inevitably men - dismiss allegations of rape, argue (without a shred of support) that they simply couldn't have happened, etc. As Sean reminded me in another thread, I've now seen the phrase "legitimate rape" in two contexts today. If there's any "shame" to be had here, it won't be found with me. -- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað." ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
