Re: [Marxism] seeking explanation re Stann Goff statement

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Bond" <pbond@xxxxxxxxxxx>



> It's clumsy, but he seems to be saying that the U.S. public in general and
> social services recipients - not to mention consumers of petroleum
> products - in particular are the most virulent section of a global labour
> aristocracy.

I disagree, and I think you are stretching it too far.

It is obvious that Goff, who I admire and is one of the most brilliant
marxist writers out there today (even if somewhat academicaly clumsy - A
Joseph Dietzgen for the 21st Century!), is not drawing such a conclusion in
his short quib. He leaves the question open, and one of the answer to this
question might or might not bet the one you speculate.

He is making a polemical point towards the anti-imperialist left that the
trailing behind the "Schools not Bombs" liberalism creates an ideological
problematic situation. If we, as marxists, are to evaluate imperialism in
context, then calling for "Schools not Bombs" is idealism of the worst kind.
Goff is pointing this out, and asking a polemical, not rethorical (at least
not in that short quib) question. He is inviting us, as marxists, to provide
alternatives if we agree with his conclusions, and to debate with him if we
don't.

That is pure marxism, as in how Marx himself debated.

> Not convincingly explained below, but yes, it's not an incorrect argument
> from a marxist standpoint, is it?

You might disagree with the point, but it's rock hard marxism.

sks


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism