Louis Proyect wrote: > Jim Devine: > >But I'd like to know why you think that the Solidarity group violated > >Marxist principles in their position on E. Timor. I believe that they back > >the principle of the right of self-determination of nations, including the > >independence of E. Timor. They just have a different interpretation of the > >efficacy of the UN in helping E. Timor achieve achieve this goal than I do > >(or you do). That is, it's a disagreement concerning fact rather than > >principle. > > The United Nations, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, is a > instrument to promote imperialist hegemony. I agree -- and that is why in my post on this target I expressed extreme displeasure at Solidarity's stand on East Timor (or that part of it which represents or implies a distorted view of the United Nations). But Jim is I think right that it is a mistake of fact, not principle, which was why I called it a wrong application of marxist principle. I think the point worth worrying a little bit, because it bears on our thinking as to the fundamental principles of organization and policy on which the marxist left may some day unite. For my own part, I begin to see unity around opposition to all u.s. intervention around the world as fundamental, but I think we can fight that out without pronouncing it an issue of "marxist principle." Your reply to Jim is (I think) wholly right in its description of the U.N. -- but doesn't touch on the actual point Jim made (re fact vs. principle). U.S. imperialism at the present time the main enemy of the world's peoples. That is my judgment, but I don't want to make it a matter of "marxist vs non-marxist." Carrol
