That socialism is a defense against terrorism is, of course, not a strong argument for socialism, but it does open the debate up to the way that the decline of socialism led to the neoliberal tragedy that resulted in the attack on the US.
Still, your reading is a very useful complement to what I wrote. On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 06:12:38PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Sat, 18 May 2002 12:55:57 -0700 Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > >I thought that this essay was excellent. It made a simple point in a way that >people could understand without attacking their own motives and > behavior. I wish that more of us had the rhetorical skill exhibited here. > > > I appreciate Eagleton's felicity with language and ability to turn a phrase. But >don't you think that the point is misplaced? I mean, Eagleton conflates historical >socialism with the socialism in his head, and then concludes that actually existing >socialism somehow would or could have kept a lid on the forces that brought us 9-11. >(And that, despite his admission that AES was basically an extravagant barbarity.) >Hence, the anti-globalization movement is the world's best defense against OBL etc. I >find that hard to believe, whatever the anti-globalization movement's strengths. > > > Christian > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
