====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
At 13:00 07-09-12 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > >... But for me the real problem with >Rosenfeld's discussion of Aoki is its blurring the lines between >informant and provocateur. I haven't read the chapter of his book, but only what's in the press and on the web. I could be wrong, but I'm not convinced that Rosenfeld ever tried to paint Aoki as an agent-provocateur, rather than just an informant. I wonder if that might just be an extrapolation seen through the eyes of leftists who cannot help but have such concerns. But his book and articles were disseminated to the general public, so his statements should be firstly viewed through the eyes of the average person, not leftists who concern themselves with "why a government agent acts" in this or that way, and what their supposed underlying strategy is. Try to put yourself in the shoes of an average person. You probably don't know what an agent-provocateur is. Hearing that a police agent helped to arm the panthers, as Rosenfeld described, wouldn't be seen in that light. Rather, I believe, one would find it extremely surprising, and ironic, that this person working for the FBI was enabling the very "violent radical activity" that the FBI supposedly was trying to prevent. So hearing this would pique your interest (which Rosenfeld was surely trying to do) and make you wonder how the FBI ever got things so "wrong" that their own agents were causing the very sort of trouble they were supposed to be preventing. Was the FBI out of control? Did they not have good control over the people they were paying to inform? Hadn't they remembered to tell their agent to do all he could to PREVENT lawlessness and violence by radicals? I believe that is how the average person would view it, and Rosenfeld would have understood that reaction. So he pointed to the irony of it all, making his revelations all the more surprising. Had he really been trying to accuse the FBI of consciously trying to arm the panthers, he would have needed to explain what an agent-provocateur is, as well as what Aoki did. He didn't have any evidence of that, nor do I. People on this list who may have long believed (perhaps justifiably) that the panthers' display of weapons and ultraleft behaviours led to their downfall, would naturally latch on to this conclusion. But I don't think you can blame Rosenfeld, the investigative journalist who has properly presented his evidence and conclusions, for you having seen it in that light. - Jeff ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
