Then I refer you to the need to bundle this supposed "importance" of differences withing the ruling class with an actual working-class strategy that maintains political independence and revolutionary principle.
Again, I am not attempting "to suggest some form of collaboration or support with one of those factions." Were I to suggest limited tactical cooperation on an important campaign (i.e., Mideast policy, banks, or something else decidedly part of the consensus view) it would not be the ruling class factions I would be suggesting collaboration with. As for whether I think that the difference in, say, lives lost matters, I do think it is significant. It doesn't compel electoral participation or support of one faction or another, but it is a meaningful difference.
You're not the first person the site to think you're clever in achieving a communist society by pointing out the large differences supposedly resulting from small policy positions among factions of the bourgeoisie, all in an attempt to suggest some form of collaboration or support with one of those factions. You're new here, so I am going to try to cut you some slack and chalk it up to inartfully expressing what you're really intending to say.
Let's take a look at your quote: First you said: "Oh boy. Another Chomskyite. Just what the site needed." When I protested, you said: "It's an observation about how the inordinate emphasis on how supposedly small ideological differences create large differences in outcomes is straight out of Chomsky's anarcho-liberal playbook." All that it means, within context, is a significant tactical difference, it says nothing about strategic aims. That was why I emphasized that you would be unlikely to see much of a tactical difference in the examples of Honduras and Egypt, and why I said that there would be more continuity than change. If you read my explanation of American Iraq policy, you would see exactly how the difference materializes. The strategic outcomes, or at least the strategic goals, are almost always harmonious, but the tactical ones can vary significantly, in lives, for example.
I disagree. Calling you (or, more accurately, your statement) Chomskyite was a political judgment, not a subpolitical attack.
I apologize for referencing Rafiq. But I think your "Chomskyite" nonsense was also a cheapshot, and your tirade on the thread unwarranted.
It was a cheapshot you took. That was my point.
Comrade, I have no interest in discussing any disputes you have with Rafiq or anyone else for that matter. As a rule, from what I have read, I tend to agree with you. I only ask that you not make assumptions about my own politics on the basis of a single post communicating a news item with virtually no analytical content. If you want to see my own analysis, there are plenty of other threads you can read.
Are you not aware of the several dozen political criticisms I have leveled at Rafiq on the political portion of the forum? Probably not. Instead, you focus on light-hearted banter in a non-political portion of the forum.
