Yes, exactly. Ironically, this "historical necessity" idea is itself profoundly ahistorical. After the fact, it might serve as a kind of cold comfort for the guilt-wracked onlooker. But to knowingly ADVOCATE stupid, brutal policies on the grounds they are "necessary evils" is, if I may use the term, simply evil.
On 5/17/08, Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > And such like reasoning could underpin the Iraq position of neo-cons > > and C. Hitchens. The answer to the question is: "Destiny? What's > > *destiny* got to do with it?" > > > > > > -- > > Sandwichman > > > > The Independent (London) > February 25, 2003, Tuesday > > MEDIA: WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?; > AS TROOPS PREPARE FOR WAR IN IRAQ, A BATTLE OF IDEAS IS TAKING PLACE > > BYLINE: JOHANN HARI (snip) > John Lloyd, who was a member of the Communist Party and considered himself > a Marxist until his early thirties, identifies a strand of Marxism that > seems to have echoes in the pro-war arguments being made today. He explains: > "It's that side of Marx that argues that imperialism was good for India, and > industrialisation good for the working class. It's the side of Marx that > disliked soft liberals and said that if you're going to make the world > better, you have to go through a number of necessary evils." Although Lloyd > was never what he calls a > "break-any-amount-of-eggs-to-make-an-omelette communist", > there is a similar acceptance on the pro-war left of necessary violence and > the creation of victims, which "soft liberals" blanch at. > > (clip) > -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
