Who, exactly, is "the enemy" here? The USSR? Why, exactly? Was it over the
social ownership of property? Or the insuffiency of the forms thereof? And,
if this is the case, what forms do you juxtapose as better historical
models?
DDeBar
[log in to unmask]
----------
> From: Milutin <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] What's wrong with the IAC?
> Date: Sunday, August 29, 1999 4:45 PM
>
> >1. If Western intellectuals told the truth bout the crimes of the USSR,
> Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein (after he was designated an enemy in August
1990),
> that's fine, but has no moral standing.
> >2. If they exaggerate or fabricate such crimes, they become objects of
> contempt.
> >3. If they ignore such crimes, it is a matter of little significance.
> >4. If they deny or minimise such crimes, it is also a minor matter.
> >5. And if they ignore or justify the crimes in which their own state is
> implicated, that is criminal."
>
> >This appeal to common sense about morality, truth - telling, and
> responsibility seems to apply rather well to the case of Ramsey Clark and
> the IAC, even taking for granted that all of the accusations are true.
>
> (Did you write all that stuff out? If so, thanks for taking the time to
do so.)
>
> I have always felt that people who go to a IAC meeting need not discuss
the
> obvious(like the crimes committed by the enemy), but discuss lesser known
> crimes (which may be larger in scale).
>
> But, if an IAC meeting chooses to “deny or minimize” crimes committed by
the
> official enemy, it becomes more discrediting and members may start to
dilute
> themselves. They will come to believe in a picture of world which
doesn’t
> exist.
>
> Many people already have this problem. Why should a “leftist” group
> perpetuate this?
>
> Milutin
>
> --
> What we don't know keeps tha contracts alive and movin'
> They don't gotta burn tha books, they just remove 'em
|