>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/20/99 01:23PM >>>
I don't have Nathan's email address, but I
would urge Michael P. to express to Nathan that
at least some of us regret his departure, despite
our disagreements. Heck, if all the pro-bombing
people leave the list, I'll have to make their arguments
for them, even though I oppose the bombing, ugh
This is a very serious and difficult issue and
it is understandable that people are getting worked up
about it. There are strong arguments on each side, as
the labels "pro-imperialist" and "pro-genocide" suggest.
I would not like to see this list become a love-in fest for
the anti-bomb crowd, even though there are some who
might prefer that for the purposes of spending our time
in figuring out "how to oppose imperialism."
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Charles: I guess it is a demonstration of dialectics that most e-mail list discussions
are driven , "get their motion" , from debates or "contradiction". I'm not sure that
an anti-war love-in would generate many posts, from my experience on these lists.
However, from my standpoint, because the left is so small today, and there are plenty
of communication networks for the neo-liberal /conservative majority views (including
all of the monopoly media) , it would not be such a bad thing if a few lists such as
this one could became an anti-war planning center. In other words, Nathan's point of
view will get plenty of broadcast anyway, so, his side of the debate is not silenced
by no one (or fewer) being on this particular, relatively small in the larger
picture, list. We can get that point of view by picking up the NYT or receiving any
major news outlet.
In the current war debate, although I have the impression that anti-war discussants
are in a majority, there seems to be a significant minority ON THE LEFT who support
the war. This seems to be a new situation for the late twentieth century left. But
since the list(s) probably accurately represents a split on the left beyond the lists,
I think we anti-warriors must engage this struggle in order to keep our thinking in
touch with real opinions of the left ( if you follow me).
This reasoning ( sort of :we need opponents here as sparring partners)may not be a
palatable basis for drawing Nathan back. Anyway, I think Nathan's departure is also
related to the fact that he probably was in the minority here, and therefore felt a
lot more flak than the war opponents. I haven't followed every post and exchange, but
I don't really think that the anti-warriors were less polite than the pro-warriors,
there are just more of the former. The sharpness of discussion was not greater than
typical in the many other disputes on the lists, and this issue is literally a matter
of life and death, although our debate probably doesn't directly impact the life or
death occurrences.
To sum up, I don't agree that Nathan had a legitimate gripe that he was treated more
impolitely or unfairly than he treated others (if that is what he thinks). On the
substantive issue, THE WAR, let me be frank and say that I think it is a measure of
the degeneration of the left that there is significant left support for the current
war. So, I don't view the debates as sorting out a truly new situation that might end
with a call for left support of U.S. imperialism inadvertently doing the right thing.
Rather, as I say above, the only value of these debates is for us anti-warriors to
sharpen our anti-war arguments against "real" opponents. Perhaps Nathan could sense
that he was not about to change anybody's point of view on the issue. So, maybe it is
better for Nathan to take a break from a fight in which he is so outnumbered.
Hopefully, this does not have to become a permanent separation.
Charles Brown
