Re: leftism LITE

>My two cents: yes it was strong, but I think we should ignore the ad
hominem attacks,
>especially since no names were mentioned, and simply focus on the point
being made.
>
>The point has validity: how easy it is to talk about violence.  The only
problem I
>have is that it may be that some subscribers, including those who believe
violence is
>a good strategy or is unavoidable,  have in fact experienced political
violence first
>hand.  Or, for example, three of my colleagues in grad school (my
department actively
>recruited from the periphery), had been members of revolutionary armies and
had lived
>in the jungles in  Latin America and Southeast Asia.  I recall one person
who just
>would not about the experience.  Such persons may be subscribers now.


My apologies to the latter.  I do not deny there are times when people need
to use violence when confronted with personal threat or repressive regimes.
My point is that one must be careful about whom one should direct violence
toward.  Targets such as global capitalism are simply too big and too
diffuse, and too likely to include many people who are simply making a
living or are caught in circumstances beyond their control along with some
true villains.  Another point is whether one really needs to resort to
violence at all.  There may be non-violent methods of settling the issue.  I
referred to Ghandi earlier on this list, only to be told that he was some
kind of liberal or neo-liberal dupe.  Yet I would suggest that he has had
just as much influence in making the world a better place as Lenin has, and
perhaps even more.

Ed Weick