[Marxism] Betancourt's halo [SIC] under spotlight

[Jscotlive at aol.com]

Ruthless:
 
JScotlive's and some others' tendency to defend against criticism
anyone  and everyone who claims to be anti-imperialist and is under
attack from  imperialism, is revealing.

Reply:
 
Yes, I agree - it reveals an orientation towards anti-imperialism.
 
Ruthless:
 
Similar arguments, equally weak, were used recently to forestall  the
criticism of Hamas on the ground that they were "under attack".

Reply:
 
Yes, weak arguments such as supporting resistance to ethnic cleansing, war  
crimes, and settler colonialism. 
 
Ruthless:
 
Marxists *must* get out of this habit of defending some entities
merely  because imperialism attacks these entities. They *must* be
criticized for  their failings, whether they are under attack by
imperialism or not. That is  the only principled position for Marxists
to take.

Reply:
 
Yes, we must get out of the habit of defending people being murdered,  
colonised, starved, immiserated, and ethnically cleansed. Why? Well, of course,  
such people have the awful habit of worshipping a different god, wearing funny  
clothes, and appearing on the TV news waving guns in the air. Must they persist 
 in fighting back?. I mean, if only they would lay down their weapons, their  
homemade rockets and small arms, and go on hunger strike instead. That  way, 
when they're slaughtered I'll be able to impress my friends and work  
colleagues with my moral outrage.
 
I'm the Ruthless Critic Of All That Exists and I like my chitlens to know  
their place.