Re: [Marxism] seeking explanation re Stann Goff statement

[Dayne Goodwin <dayneg@xxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Rohan Gaiswinkler wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am new to this list (not so new to marxism).  I admire Stan Goff's
> marxist analysis of US military imperialism, but got lost with section I
> have put in bold type below [title: A Period for pedogogy;  source:
> counterpunch website].
>
> Do people think it's (a) marxist, (b) correct; and (c) what is he
> actually saying anyway?
>
> In Solidarity, Rohan G.
>

Hello Rohan, glad to see your comment as i just read Stan Goff's article
on Counterpunch site and also wondered 'what is he saying?' in that
section.  As usual, i generally liked everything else he had to say.

        i don't agree with Patrick Bond that Goff is talking about the
U.S. public and social program recipients as "the most virulent section
of the global labor aristocracy."

        i think Goff is describing his conception of the reality of U.S.
imperialism/capitalism which apparently includes both the idea that
imperialist war is a systemic necessity and the idea that imperialism can
not provide both 'guns and butter.' thus Goff's conclusion that calling
for money for human needs - jobs, education, healthcare - not war, is
misleading people about reality, inculcating illusions about
capitalism/imperialism, and "economistic."
        so my understanding of Goff's thinking is that revolutionaries
should educate the public about the inhuman, bitter realities of
capitalism/imperialist war.

        At one point Stan seems to call his viewpoint "socialist", if he
sees his own perspective as marxist, i wouldn't quibble or argue about it.
        But as a marxist comrade, i would argue with him that he is taking
an *ultraleft tactical stance*.

        Because i also want to educate people about the reality of
capitalism/imperialist war, i want to build the largest possible anti-war
movement that engages as many working people as possible in fighting for
the needs of working people *against* the interests of the capitalist
class.  i think calling for using public resources for the economic needs
of working people and not for imperialist war is a revolutionary demand
which can bring new/more people into the anti-war movement and also into
a concrete understanding of the conflict between the interests of working
people and the interests of the capitalist class.
        i think people learn more from fighting for their interests as
they see them, and learning from their own experience about the
nature/limits of capitalism - than they do from a priori lectures about
capitalism.

        i don't agree with Stan that it is "economistic" to raise the
demand 'money for human needs, not war' - especially when that demand is,
as it should be, combined with the demand for the U.S. to get out of Iraq,
bring the troops home now.  i think Goff is confusing a demand to meet the
economic needs of working people with the label/epithet 'economistic' used
historically in the marxist movement to refer to 'socialists' who
*counterpose* economic 'workers-immediate-interest' demands to political
demands like 'end u.s. occupation, end u.s. military intervention, bring
the troops home now.'
        in my observation the current anti-war movement in the u.s. is
combining these 'economic' and 'political' demands, not counterposing
them.  i think for Stan to treat them as if they are counterposed would be
an ultraleft mistake.
        comradely, Dayne


> I am thoroughly unconvinced by the economistic approach of talking about
> how much money is being spent on the war instead of social services,
> etc. Not only does this argument consistently get trumped by Orange
> Alerts and other forms of mass anxiety-production, it is a purely
> demagogic and dishonest point. "Money for people and not for war,"
> sounds great, but it ultimately reinforces commonly held notions that
> obscure the fundamental monetary realities of late imperialism--which
> the left is duty-bound to explain not exploit for polemical advantage.
>
> Money is neither a static nor a material value, but one that is
> ultimately symbolic of power, and its claiming-capacity fluctuates based
> on the realities and perceptions of power, as well as in response to
> speculative insults.
>
> US monetary supremacy in the world, upon which our imperial privileges
> rest, is directly dependent on our ability and willingness to wage war.
> Without that ability and willingness, the same dollars we are talking
> about will not likely be adequate for any of those alternative purposes
> under capitalist governance, because they would quickly become
> worthless. What do we tell the people then?
>

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