File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0109, message 32


Date: 5 Sep 2001 10:47:28 +0200
From: "Tahir Wood" <twood-AT-uwc.ac.za>
Subject: AUT: Re: [R-G] Strategy for an international movement.


>>> mstainsby-AT-tao.ca 09/05/01 08:59AM >>>
 The movement has almost ZERO theoreticians yet
who properly understand what Imperialism  actually does, such as the IMF
conquering of Yugoslavia was the first anti-globalisation war- led by the
SPS....and now Tahir is going to yell at me :-))

Tahir: Me yell? No I want to raise a much more fundamental question with you Mac, one which we debated on aut-op-sy a little while back. Should we be anti-globalisation at all? Frankly I'm a convert to the pro-globalisation position, precisely because of the type of argument that your statements above reflect. 'Anti-imperialism' is a defence of repressive regimes of various kinds ranging from Iran, Iraq to North Korea, etc. It's not all about your cuddly little Cuba. Most of these countries have slaughtered communists in thousands. The movement that I'm seeing, as opposed to what you're seeing, is not an anti-imperialist one in some Leninist sense, but an anti-capitalist one. And at least there I am in agreement with Negri. People are and should be globalising against capitalism. This is not yelling, this is a theoretical and practical question of the greatest importance. And all your heartfelt pleas for common strategy etc will mean nothing without some agreement on such fundamental issues. If anything will destroy the movement it's having to march alongside people who are saying Viva Saddam, Viva Milosovec, etc.




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005