Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

March 10, 2011

In response to Edward S. Herman and David Peterson

Filed under: Iran,journalism,sectarianism — louisproyect @ 6:52 pm

Yesterday I was informed that Edward Herman and David Peterson had responded a few months ago to my February 20, 2010 article titled The Latest Idiocy from Edward S. Herman and David Peterson.

There was a time when I would have paid closer attention to what the two had to say but have tuned them out because of their repetitiveness and prolixity. Basically, their methodology is the same one used by Michel Chossudovsky, MRZine, and some bloggers who have learned to put a minus where the U.S. State Department puts a plus as Leon Trotsky commented:

In ninety cases out of a hundred the workers actually place a minus sign where the bourgeoisie places a plus sign. In ten cases however they are forced to fix the same sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal, in which is expressed their mistrust of the bourgeoisie. The policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every sectarian a master strategist; no, the revolutionary party must each time orient itself independently in the internal as well as the external situation, arriving at those decisions which correspond best to the interests of the proletariat. This rule applies just as much to the war period as to the period of peace.

A few words about these two would probably be in order. Herman is an 85-year-old Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, something that amounted to a kind of day job I guess. (His first book was Principles And Practices Of Money And Banking.) He is best known for co-authoring “Manufacturing Consent” with Noam Chomsky. Unlike Chomsky—an anarchist—Herman has never written anything that amounts to a program for revolutionary change. His main preoccupation is with the propaganda system that American imperialism uses to make war on its enemies.

Somewhere along the line Herman hooked up with someone named David Peterson, who is a lot younger from what I can gather. About all I know about him is that he describes himself as an independent journalist based in Chicago. My guess is that he has never been involved with socialist politics. And if he has, the tracks are well covered.

As I said, the two are never at a loss for words. Their reply to me is contained in the third part of a 33,000 word article titled Iran and Honduras in the Propaganda System: How the Left Climbed Aboard the Establishment’s Bandwagon in obvious defiance of the stricture that brevity is the soul of wit.

After fortifying myself with a second cup of extra-strong coffee, I waded into their 3-part article to see what had motivated them to write such a tome. I suspect that they are incapable of writing fewer than 20,000 words but I am not sufficiently motivated to do the necessary research to verify this.

The main thrust of their article is to demonstrate that the U.S. has a double standard when it comes to Iran and Honduras.

The Honduran military executed its coup d’état against President Zelaya only 16 days after the presidential election in Iran, in the middle of a tsunami of U.S. and Western media coverage of Iran’s election and its aftermath, which saw the opposition’s claims of vote fraud5 spark massive public demonstrations against both the official results and Iran’s clerical regime itself, and also saw large and sustained expressions of solidarity with Iran’s “democratic movement” dominating the metropolitan centers of the West.  Yet, when the coup in Honduras took place against its democratically-elected and populist president, nothing comparable was to be observed in U.S. and Western media interest in this event and its aftermath, much less in public displays of solidarity on behalf of Honduras’ ousted president and its anti-coup protestors.

They liken Iran’s most recent election to the ones that took place in Nicaragua in the 1980s, equating a demonized Ahmadinejad to a demonized Daniel Ortega. As someone who was part of a delegation in Nicaragua to observe the election of 1984, I wonder where the authors get the audacity to compare the two. In Iran the election was between two candidates who had been sanctioned by the Guardian Council, a small group of clerics that operate independently of the will of the people. Furthermore, in Iran there is no freedom for political groups or newspapers that would challenge the right of clerics to set the terms of democracy. Imagine if people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell had the ultimate say on who could run for office in the U.S.A. And if you had started a socialist newspaper, you risked imprisonment or death. These are the brutal realities behind Iran’s electoral system that could barely interest Herman and Peterson. Perhaps if questions of class interested them a bit more, they would be a bit more sensitive to them.

When they get down to brass tacks in part three, they group me with Joanne Landy and Danny Postel, two individuals who would be shocked to discover me as a bedfellow. Landy was a member of the Council of Foreign Relations at one point, and used to attend events with Katrina Vanden Heuvel. Just my kind of folks. I won’t say anything much about Postel except to take note that he orients to the Iranian liberal intelligentsia while I am close to Marxist bloggers. I guess it is all the same to the nearsighted anti-imperialists Herman and Peterson.

To start off, the two intrepid anti-imperialist sleuths misunderstimate me, as George W. Bush would say: “As the U.S. wars of the post-Soviet era caused a peeling-off of leftist after leftist, the Marxmail administrator and blogger Louis Proyect resisted, remaining staunchly anti-imperialist.” Sorry, comrades, I am not just an “anti-imperialist”. I am an anti-capitalist, and—with all due respect to people like Naomi Klein–I am not just an anti-capitalist. I am an unrepentant Marxist. This means that while I am willing to take the side of Iran on the question of opposing sanctions and supporting its right to develop nuclear power (and arms, for that matter), I will not back any government that jails and tortures bus drivers for trying to start a union. Maybe Edward Herman got the idea when teaching finance at Wharton that it is sometimes necessary to keep labor costs down when raising capital for a bond issue but that is alien to me. It is all the more alien when trade unionists in Egypt and Wisconsin are fighting for their own rights as well. Don’t Iranian workers also have such a right? Or does that matter to people like Herman and Peterson who only understand the conflicts between states and not those between classes?

Apparently, I violated my oath to the anti-imperialist cause when “the eruption of election-related turmoil struck Iran in June 2009, and the Western establishment threw its collective weight behind the ‘Green Wave’ opposition.” They claim “Proyect suddenly did an about-face, and enlisted in the cause.”

Well, this is utter nonsense. I began to pay close attention to the brutality and neoliberal character of the Islamic Republic back in 2006 when Yoshie Furuhashi, the editor of MRZine who published Herman and Peterson’s article, began her fulsome praise of Ahmadinejad not long after giving up on socialism. Who would want to mess around with small groups like Solidarity when Ahmadinejad was deploying vast numbers of Basiji. Something told me that this was a pile of crap and I was determined to get to the bottom of that.

This led me to write a multi-part review of a book titled “Iran on the Brink” in 2007, a book I recommend highly, especially to Herman and Peterson who evidently are rather virginal when it comes to Marxist analysis of Iran. Here’s an excerpt from part one of my review:

“Iran on the Brink” provides historical background on revolutionary movements in Iran, starting in the early 20th century. Attempts to break with colonial domination and the native comprador bourgeoisie kept being thwarted, the most notable example being the coup against Mossadegh in 1953 that led to the Reza Shah dictatorship that was finally overthrown in 1979.

The authors focus on the emergence of shoras that arose spontaneously in factories and oil refineries around the country shortly after the Shah’s cronies fled the country. The shoras started out as strike committees but were then transformed into workers control bodies. They very much reflected the kind of aspirations seen in Venezuela today and target number one of Khomeini and his followers, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad included. A worker at a shoe factory spoke for all Iranian workers when he said:

Nowadays you don’t need to tell a worker to go and work. He works himself. Why? The reason why he didn’t work [under the Shah] was because he was under the boss’s thumb. He couldn’t speak out. Now, he’ll say: “the work is my own. I’ll work.”

Unfortunately, the shoras failed to become the new state power, just as Soviets had become in 1917. Unlike Russia, the Iranians lacked a revolutionary party that could coordinate the shoras nationwide and press the struggle forward. This is not to say, however, that there weren’t groups in Iran that aspired to Lenin’s mantle. There were more than eighty of them, in fact. Unfortunately, the only thing that united them was sectarianism mixed with an eagerness to adapt to political Islam. In 1979, the Iranian left was still stuck in the same mode that would destroy the left in so many countries, namely a dogmatic understanding of what it meant to be a “vanguard”. The particular irony is that Iranian workers would have been more receptive to the leadership of a revolutionary party than anywhere else in the world.

Among the most prestigious of the revolutionary organizations was the Fediyan that had conducted a guerrilla struggle against the Shah since 1971. Its main rival was the Tudeh, the official Communist Party. Both groups were heavily influenced by Stalinist top-down methods and were hardly in a position to engage with so profoundly a bottom-up phenomenon like the shoras. It should be added that the Tudeh did have an interest in the shoras, but it could be described as the kind of interest that the Democrats had in Ralph Nader. The Tudeh’s goal was to replace the shoras with conventional trade unions of the sort that they had operated in historically. Eventually, the Tudeh made a bloc with the Majority faction of the Fediyan that shared its hostility to the shoras and its belief that political Islam was progressive. With the two most powerful groups on the left holding such beliefs, one might conclude that the rise of Khomeini-ism had more to do with the bankruptcy of the left than its own dubious merits.

Khomeini soon developed a substitute for the shoras that was called the shora-ye eslami, or “Islamic council”. Rather than operating on the basis of class struggle, the new bodies would stress Muslim brotherhood. This was a brotherhood that first and foremost would put a ban on strikes, effective in March 1980. Strikes were now considered haram, or sinful. Just to make sure that nobody lapsed into sinful behavior, the government set up Revolutionary Guards (Pasdaran) that would break strikes and enforce discipline within the workplace. One metal factory worker described the kind of punishment Pasdaran meted out to the unruly:

They flogged one of my colleagues to death. They accused him of having cursed Imam Ali. First they brought him to prison, but then they dragged him to the factory and bound him to a machine. All production was stopped and we were ordered to appear in front of the scene. I could only stand to have my eyes on him for two lashes. Then blood was gushing from his wounds. He died after 50, 60 lashes. He was about 50 years old.

At any rate such workers could matter less to Herman and Peterson. They are completely absorbed by the fact that Ahmadinejad is being demonized by the N.Y. Times.

Moving right along, I am found guilty of not writing about Honduras:

Although chiding the present writers for our alleged inattention to class, Proyect—in strict parallel with Danny Postel, the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, the New York Times, and the State Department—had nothing whatever to say about Honduras, where the class nature of the 2009 coup and regime change is far clearer than it has been for the conflict in Iran.

I don’t quite know how to break it to these two jerks, but the fact that I have not written about Honduras should not be interpreted as support for the American-backed coup. I am not trying to compete with Counterpunch or ZNet. If you are looking for radical news analysis of current events, those are the places you are advised to go. My blog was launched with the intention of writing about whatever interests me at the moment, ranging from my struggles with glaucoma to musings on African music. And I have no plans to change that any time soon.

14 Comments »

  1. Thank you Louis Proyect!

    Such absurd ‘thinking’ as shown on the U.S. left by the likes of MRZine or Edward is extremely harmful, but more shocking than anything else, really. Thank you for exposing them and thank you for having the patience to actually read their garbage and respond.

    I must confess that I simply cannot even look at such garbage (or even visit websites like MRZine) anymore; especially when there is sooooo much going on, most of which are far more important (not to mention far more uplifting) than the sinister and idiotic line of thinking coming out of these bizarre minds!

    In solidarity,
    reza f.

    Comment by reza f. — March 10, 2011 @ 8:26 pm

  2. Herman is right.

    When Paul Berman wrote for the Village Voice that the Miskitos had been mistreated by the Sandinistas, was he incorrect? FSLN leaders later said they mishandled the issue. But obviously Berman could care less about the Miskitos. If he really wanted to help the situation, he would have been working to prevent US imperialism from recruiting Miskitos and adding to the conflict. Organizers in the US could affect only one thing at that time: push back on the Contra funding and bolster the FSLN, or engage in activities to foster aid to the Contras. Berman chose the latter.

    Whether the leadership of the Iranian nation is as progressive or not as the FSLN is immaterial to the sole question that exists for organizers in the US – in terms of the push for sanctions and war and harming Iran’s nuclear facilities, should that be resisted or not? There is nothing more to say or do for those in the US. The US desire to affect Iran thusfar has been to oust the secular, anti-imperialist Mosaddegh in the 1950s and install a pro-imperialist dictator. He destroyed the left in the country. Thankfully, he was ousted and we have another imperialist back in power. With no thanks to the US liberals who backed Mosaddegh’s ousting.

    The work of myself and others I associate and organize with in the US is to restrain US imperialism. Your casuist arguments with regards to Iran do not have an effect on this for me, I am still anti-imperialist, including in the case of Iran. I think you knocking Iran at a time when it is one of empire’s main targets is ill-advised. Beyond ill-advised is you actually trying to get us to believe that Furuhashi, Herman and company are Shiite fundamentalists, or that they would rather have Ahmadinejad in charge there then say, an Iranian Hugo Chavez, or Iranian Evo Morales, or Iranian Fidel Castro or Iranian Prachanda or what have you. This is preposterous.

    I look at the Joanne Landys and Paul Bermans and others ensconced in white US upper middle class academic and intelligentsia circles, and the idea that all of you people bashing the targets of American imperialism and claiming to be the voice of the working poor proletariat living in Mashhad is absurd. If I want to hear Marxist critique of Arab regimes I’ll read the late George Habash, or Leila Khaled or the like. I’ll conclude with her comments on Iran.

    “In Lebanon they distributed the pamphlets from the airplanes, saying that Hezbollah is not for you, Hezbollah is working for Iran and not for you. This is the psychological war also. But the people were not responding to them…I think that although we know very well that Hezbollah is supported by Syria and Iran, I think that this is legitimate also…Iran has a religious ideology, which I feel is dangerous. But when it comes to resisting the imperialist projects in the area, you don’t speak about ideology, you speak about resistance. Resistance is the concept, whether the origin of it is religious or not. That’s why they targeted Hezbollah, because it’s a resisting group.”

    Comment by Edward Sapir — March 10, 2011 @ 9:25 pm

  3. I think you knocking Iran at a time when it is one of empire’s main targets is ill-advised.

    Yeah, Militant newspaper sellers used to get their nose bloodied in the 1930s for the very same reason.

    Comment by louisproyect — March 10, 2011 @ 9:39 pm

  4. Good ol’ Herman. In 2005, he sent me $500 implying that if I stuck by “them” there would be no problem funding little Swans. When I asked who “them” were, I got no response. Then, when I took exception with his stand in favor of Democrats, especially in presidential elections (a stand, mind you, that is espoused by Chomsky and Z’s “revolutionary” leader Michael Albert), I was quickly relegated to the “vitriolic” (his word) left. No more money. No more contribution.

    In regard to Peterson: Does he truly exist, or is he an invention of the folks at wherever “they” are?

    Anti-imperialists for Democrats… Old story.

    I have to laugh…sorry.

    To be belittled by these folks, Lou, should be taken as a badge of honor and dismissed as intellectual sewage.

    Cheers,
    Gilles

    Comment by Gilles d'Aymery — March 10, 2011 @ 9:50 pm

  5. You obviously didn’t even bother to read Herman. He is well aware of everything you claim he ignores. This is just a shameless piece of lefter-than-thou spite against Ed Herman who is one of the best we’ve got.

    Comment by jock mctrousers — March 11, 2011 @ 12:23 am

  6. This is an essential debate. There are those who want to reduce the left to “anti-imperialism”, thus legitimizing almost anyone who resists the imperial reach of the US, as Edward Sapir does here. The left is that, but it is also much more, a radical vision for transforming society along socialist lines. People like you get that, as does As’ad Abukhalil, for example, who doesn’t permit his antipathy towards the US and Israel to silence him as to the abuses of Iran and the political failing of Hizbullah.

    Comment by Richard Estes — March 11, 2011 @ 2:23 am

  7. Right you are, Richard, this IS an essential debate, but where you and I and Louis differ is just as crucial, and that’s the case of Milosevich’s Yugoslavia.

    You’d do well to note how the supreme dialectician Proyect does not resort to the same old formula that we’ve been using to critique Iran & Libya. And until you figure out what that difference is then you’ll be forever barking up not all the right trees.

    Nevermind the materialist view of history, anybody who actually watched an hours worth of videotaped interview with Milosevich (I have) should be able to instinctively discern why he’s not in the same boat as any other so-called “bad guys”

    He certainly wasn’t in the business of jailing disgruntled bus drivers trying to form a union.

    Louis and I don’t buy a nickel’s worth of the so-called “genocidal propensities” of that poor dead bastard, and I say bastard only colloquially, because that shit, mass rapes, concerted genocide, etc, was largely fabricated out of whole cloth by imperialist turpitude.

    Sincerely,

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — March 11, 2011 @ 3:38 am

  8. Enough “talking” with these counterrevolutionary “anti-imperialist” nut-jobs.

    It’s time to smash them politically. Make them pay. In politically fruitful ways. And they can be made to pay, because they are on the *wrong side* of something big.

    Period.

    -Matt

    Comment by Matt — March 11, 2011 @ 4:03 am

  9. Karl, actually, I do get it with Milosevic, the US and the EU, particularly the Germans, intensified the ethnic unrest in Yugoslavia so as to open the region for econonic exploitation, a process that commenced with the preemptive recognition of Croatia by Kohl. The US finished it off when it tried to shove an agreement down his throat that would have forced the neoliberalization of the Yugoslav economy, and then launched the war when he rejected it.

    Or, at least, I somewhat get it. Milosevic played his own role in the intensification of ethnic conflict, which was regrettable, and subject to condemnation, but that didn’t make him a “war criminal” (a liberal concept that I try to avoid using, but I don’t have time to come up with something different here), especially as the Croatians and the Kosovars were just as bad, and possibly worse.

    With my more anarchist inclined approach, I don’t much like Milosevic for what he did, but I never supported the NATO intervention (and actually, when I first started my KDVS interview program, interviewed someone who opposed the bombing, and placed Serbian violence within a broader interethnic context), and recognized that, as much as I found Milosevic’s chauvinistic policies offensive, he was being targeted, not for that (after all, the US and NATO turned a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo after the war was over) for whatever remained of his socialist inclinations.

    Comment by Richard Estes — March 11, 2011 @ 4:49 am

  10. Once again, as Proyect did during the Iran unrest, was imply that because Ahmadinejad is hostile to worker’s rights (which he is) that the opposition Green Movement was against this and should be supported. The ‘unrepentant marxist’ wants to run after and cheer lead a movement that was led by Mousavi/Khatami/Rafsanjani/Karroubi, one of the leading factions of Iran for the last 30 years. Moreover, he ignores the fact that the Green movement campaign was attacking Ahmadinejad’s economic policy from the right.

    How ironic that while he is blaming other’s for running after the false banner of anti-imperialism, his anti-ahmadinejadism leads him down a stray path just as disastrous. How he can write tragic stories about the crushing of worker’s movements in the 80’s while ignoring that one of the biggest murderers was the hero of the Greens and calling for a return to principles of Khomeini is beyond me.

    It’s also unclear how one is to support the green movement outside of participating in the various monarchist/imperialist/MEK diaspora gatherings in the West. He also ignores the very important fact that Western support in a political environment like Iran’s is a political death wish. This is playing itself out in front of our eyes where the entire political leadership of the green movement has been marginalized and crushed, very easily because of Mousavi’s inability to distance himself from all the riff raff in the diaspora.

    Comment by beesat — March 11, 2011 @ 5:24 am

  11. A couple of factual notes, Louis. The second Pahlavi’s name was Mohammad Reza, not Reza. Reza Shah was his father who was forced to abdicate in favour of his son at the outset of WW2 by the Allies for pro-German sympathies. Iran was going to become an important coduit to get arms to the USSR and they were afraid the Shah would jump to the other side. Also, Khomeini’s ascendecy after 1979 revolution cannot simply be put to the Left’s inability to present a viable alternative. Of course the Left’s pathetic sectarianism was an important factor but they lacked the pupolar base in part thanks to 25 years of very successful political repression by the Shah combined with his alliance, albeit uneasy, with the Shi’a clergy, the non-Khomeinist ones. The Shah was a committed ant-communist, and attempted to use Islam (as was the case in many other Muslim countries) as a buffer against communism. The fact is that Khomeini was kept alive for that very reason. Khomeini was plan B. The SAVAK could have easily disposed of him all those years in Iraq, and certainly his plane on route from France back to Tehran could’ve been hit by an Iranian airforce jet but the Americans and the Europeans had gotten guarantees from the Shah, as per Berzinisky’s “Green Belt around USSR” vision. The biggest competition to the Khomeinists really came from Mujahedeen-e Khalgh, who were a completely different kettle of fish back then from what they are now.

    Comment by Mazdak — March 11, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

  12. Richard, any chance you could cite some of Milosevic’s chauvinistic policies?
    Incidentally, today is the fifth anniversary of his death at kangaroo court land.

    Comment by david montoute — March 11, 2011 @ 8:24 pm

  13. Beesat,

    You are openly insulting every Iranian outside the country, as well as MILLIONS inside. Some 4-5 million Iranians comprise the diaspora, and not all of them are monarchists and MEK people. The absolute majority are just regular Iranians who want to live free, and don’t even like to participate in any actual and organized political struggle. Tons of people escaped Iran for many different reasons, and there has been many waves of people escaping the country. To call us ‘riff raff’ shows only your ignorance and irrational hatred, which must be based on some form of racism more than anything else.

    I am a dedicated socialist, a free spirit, not anybody’s agent, and I have my own brain. The same goes for millions of Iranians who live outside Iran. The same goes for TENS of millions inside Iran. If we oppose the regime (as some of us have, for more than thirty years) it is not because we are agents of imperialism, not because we are monarchists, nor MEK followers. We are human beings who want to be free and who want social justice. We oppose the theocratic dictatorial system, and have taken to the streets in wave after wave, in various and different capacities, forms and shapes and in different numbers and strengths; for more than thirty years. And we will do so until these bastards are overthrown.

    Let ms ask you: Do you apply the same logic to your own society, and take as the same entity the union members in, say, UAW and the leadership of the union? What if somebody came along and said: “Unions want their rights in Wisconsin?!! Pahh!! You’re some sucker! Those union leaders area a bunch of freeloading fat cats and corrupt idiots who have been poisoning the labor movement in the U.S. forever! Now you want to defend them?” … This is YOUR logic at work, if applied to Wisconsin. And how would you like to be called ‘riff raff’ for that?

    If you do not think this is the case in Wisconsin (as I hope you do not), then why do you apply the same crooked logic to the people of Iran? Are you really incapable of (intellectually) imagining that the demands and needs of tens of MILLIONS of Iranians could be completely different and far more radical than some misleaders who impose themselves on a movement?

    Comment by reza f. — March 11, 2011 @ 9:14 pm

  14. #9: Richard. I’m not sensing you do quite get it re: Milosevich? Germany’s imperialist machinations in Yugoslavia are a given, and they were enormously pernicious, but that’s only the half the story, the other half is NATO’s perfidious role, owned & controlled by a degerenate Unlcle Sam not only in the post-Soviet epoch, but in mortal fear of his own tenuous survival, with a relentless & unparrallelled propaganda machine that would make even Goebbels proud. It’s like in the movie “The Big Lebowski” when Jeff Bridges (aka “The Dude”) says something like: “remember what Lenin said, who benefits, man.”

    Actually Lenin said the seemingly complex concept of “politics” can be reduced to 3 simple words: “Who Gets What?”

    The difference between Milosevich & Ghaddaffi ultimately boil down to the enormously significant differences in “property relations” between the 2 regimes. The latter has been reduced by forces largely without to Compradore Capitalism pure & simple, while the former was a genuine mix of what groups like URPE always dreamnt of, “Market Socialism” — a Soviet style command economy with a monopoly on foreign trade but “with benefits” to urban individuals, particularly the small producer — which is a such a revolutionary concept that it had to be absolutely smashed militarily by imperialism’s victorious corporate predatory turpitude with phospherous & so-called “smart bombs”.

    Moreover, look at bourgeois history books filled with the stupid notion that WWI (the War to end all War!) was started by a gunshot in Sarejevo and that there were supposedly all these feuding ethnicities murdering each other for thousands of years and who could possibly ameliorate that? Well Tito damn well ameliorated all of that nonsense, on a class basis, for almost half a century and not through an “iron hand” for crissakes but by a revolutionary economic system based principally on socialism, on afiirmative action toward the working class, particularly of historically oppressed nationalities, just like the Bolsheviks aspired to, that is, something hostile to the disgusting borgeois status quo. That’s what kept the motherfucking peace between historically hostile ethnicities. Such peace is a possibilty, man, Tito proved it, it’s just not possible under buorgeois rule. Bottom line is Milosevich’s regime, while hardly as principled as Tito’s, was still fundamentally based on Tito’s revolution and the class character of Tito’s state, which is somthing sorely missed in that region today which lives in the abject indentured servitude of predatory bankers, speculators & nouvo-riche landlords

    #8: Matt. I truly appreciate your revolutionary zeal, I really do, but like Trotsky cautioned about the unique heroism of individual terrorists”, you know, guys like Osama Bin Laden: “A bomb in hand can be a wonderful thing — but first let’s clarify ourselves” — maeaning, until this debate reaches a consensus on whose actually “counterrevolutionary” — then we ought to refrain from “smashing” anything.

    After all, this blog has somewhat collected an intellectual vanguard and perhaps we can persuade through rational debate and working class priciples a consensus on what is to be done without the alienating vitriol that I confess at times I’ve a penchant for.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — March 12, 2011 @ 3:17 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: