Man...I wrote up a pretty lengthy comment, and not understanding the preview/post functionality ended up losing it...(just a design suggestion, but it might be best to put "preview" and "post" buttons on the first screen, and if the user wants to preview he/she can, but can otherwise simply hit "post").

Anyway...

I'm afraid I'm just not grasping MacLeod's point (or perhaps I am, and it just isn't making sense).

If your moral system is only useful as a classifier ("It can tell us that a given act is dreadful..."), but not for anything beyond that, such as acting ("but it can’t tell us whether to say, ‘This is dreadful, therefore . . .’ or ‘This is dreadful, but . . .’ "), then I'd say it's a pretty poor moral system all the way around.

If you find out conclusively that your neighbor is molesting his 5 year-old, your morality doesn't just enable you to classify the act as "dreadful". It should also inform you about how to react to that information, should it not?

And in every moral choice there is the act of taking sides. In the example of above you are either implicitly acting on behalf of the child or not.

MacLeod refers to Lenin's theory of imperialism like this:

If imperialism is what that theory says it is - a monstrous octopus choking more than half the life out of more than half the world - then (almost) anything that weakens it is in the interests of the working class and of progress, (almost) regardless of how reactionary or anti-working-class imperialism's opponent may be.

And yet he's not very critical of the thinking here. Does MacLeod support this mode of thought?

He then asks:

If you can - 'critically', of course - support the muj against the Russians, why not the Taliban (and some of the very same muj) against the Americans and their allies?

Well, you can...if you're ignoring the character of all parties involved, which I would argue is not a very intelligent, or moral, thing to do. Simply supporting the less-industrialized country in a given conflict, no matter the make-up of their government, their approaches to human rights, freedom, democracy, and other liberal ideals...well, such an approach seems simplistic and reactionary.

So why is MacLeod giving it any credence?

Remember first of all that his specific examples are talking about people’s thinking within the radical left. He’s talking about (and to) people who take Lenin’s view of anti-imperialism —

that in any conflict between an advanced capitalist country (an imperialist country, as Lenin would have it) and a backward country (a colonial, semi-colonial, or dependent country, as Lenin would have it) they will back the backward country regardless of the nature of its regime

— as a given, and asking why in that context it would be logical to support the mujahedin against the Soviets but not against the US.

I don’t think he necessarily supports Lenin’s view, but he’s talking about people for whom it’s axiomatic. I think his main point is that the structure of the policies built on that axiom is the same as the structure of the policies built by the US on the anti-communist axiom during the Cold War — policies that led to supporting dictators, juntas, and, eventually, monsters like the Khmer Rouge.

Attacking the axiom itself would be a different discussion.

P.S. There used to be both “Preview” and “Post” buttons. I removed the “Post” button on the advice of other Movable Type users that forcing a preview confuses spambots, and so far it seems to be working. At some point I should probably make the preview page a little more distinctive. (And while I’m at it, figure out why the cookie functionality that’s supposed to “Remember personal info” doesn’t work.)

Well, MacLeod does say:

I'm not concerned here with whether the support was correct or not.

I don't know why he's not concerned with this. It seems like a logical extension of the discussion, and the much more interesting aspect of it. How hard would it be to say, "This reflexive support for one's enemy's enemy is wrong-headed, no matter who's doing it?"

But I suppose many people prefer to keep the distanced, professorial, noncommittal tone to their blogs...fair enough.

(and on the p.s., yeah...if it's a spam countermeasure, fair enough...it's not as user-friendly, but then again, most spam countermeasures aren't)

I think that in “I’m not concerned here,” here is the operative word.

He does take a next step, though not quite in the same direction you’re suggesting: “Better to accept that what ‘our side‘ is doing is wrong and do it anyway than to persuade ourselves it is right because it is in a just cause.”

Not on topic, but congrats on making the Locus recommended list. Yay! :-)

Hey, cool! Thanks!

Congrats on making the Locus list, David! "Fetch" belongs there as well.

Thanks! I hear Gardner liked “Fetch”, so maybe it’ll get an honorable mention in his Year’s Best.