RE: Response to "Elsevier and weapons trade"

[Gabor Lukacs <lukacs@cc.umanitoba.ca>]

Dear Marta,


Let me start from the end of your message, where you mentioned the
resignation of the entire editorial board of Topology. I find their action
quite reasonable and appropriate, because it is primarily an academic
issue. Furthermore, preventing access to knowledge serves the perpetuation
of poverty and the current division of power/property in the world. Thus,
the pressure excerted on the publisher this way has the potential of being
helpful.

Now to the original question. I do not question, even for a single moment,
the subjective good intent of those who protest and raise their voice.
Nevertheless, objectively, I do find it hypocritical to protest against
the arms trade, and not against the those who *use* or *buy* the arms. I
find it a cheap lip service to complain about prostitutes and remain
silent about the clients. What makes the arms trade profitable are
precisely those countries (among them our beloved Land of Freedom, the US)
who buy the weapons. I do not think it is sensible to make reproaches to
these companies.

Capitalism is about maximazing profit, not about the people's welfare.
(Even if many measures are sold to the public as such!) Thus, the
existence of the arms industry is just a consequence, not a cause. Trying
to make it vanish helps as much as curing the symptoms of the plague.

This issue bothers me for the same reason that I am bothered by
animal-rights activists (who feel sorry for the poor-poor dogs and cats,
but often seem to be less sensitive to the problems of their fellow
humans) -- it distracts the attention from the real problem, and creates
artificial ones.

There are many entities that could/should be boycotted. However, before
someone would join a boycott of Elsevier, they should ask themselves: When
did they visit the US last time...?

> It seems to me that you assume too much about those who were brave
> enough to let us all be aware of this issue, and to whom we should be
> grateful.

I think this is exactly the point -- I do not find it brave at all to
boycott a publisher. In fact, it looks like a very cheap way of relieving
oneself from the responsibility of taking a real action, and this is what
I find hypocritical about it. If someone is brave, s/he should refuse to
participate in conferences in the US, or even boycott US academics
altogether (as you all know, a similar initiative is in place against
Israel). Personally, I am not sure if this is the area where I would like
show my courage, but I would certainly admire anyone who would organize
such a boycott. Because THAT takes a lot of courage.

> nevertheless it is the duty of any conscientious scientist to raise
> his/her voice against any crimes against humanity, regardless of who
> perpetrates them.

I fully agree with you on this. However, in my opinion, the crime is not
manufacturing a weapon, but *using* it.

Let me repeat that I was not question at all the subjective good intent of
the posting or anyone involved.

With warmest regards,

Gabor Lukacs