Re: [Marxism] Stan Goff and "economism"

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rohan Gaiswinkler wrote:
>
> I agree with Dayne and Eli's analysis and criticism of Stan Goff's economism 
> argument.  Because he's so sharp he is on many questions, there's a contrast 
> with how off-the-mark he is on this one.  To me this suggests he should be 
> part of this discussion, maybe.

Probably Stan will speak for himself ultimately, but there is another
point.

The slogan of money for social services not war is wrong because it is a
lie. If they reduced the military budget to zero tomorrow it wouldn't
(under present political conditions) add one penny to social services.
And it is economistic in that it suggests that it doesn't make any
difference how many Iraqi (or Vietnamese or Haitians or Serbs) the u.s.
kills but please don't step on our toes at home. All that "Peace
Dividend" that everyone talked about in the '70s, '80s, and '90s failed
to materialize. In fact, social services (as everyone on this list
knows) went steadily down from the end of the Vietnamese War on to the
present. Probably the end of the Iraqi Occupation will bring the same
defeats at home if the movement makes the mistake of promising pie in
the sky from the "Peace Dividend."

People fight in their own self-interest is true, but no one is going to
be brought to the anti-war movement by promising them a bigger social
security check 30 years from now (maybe) if we can persuade our enemies
to give us that cookie.

I don't agree with Pat's argument, but from any point of view the slogan
is a bad one for the anti-war movement to grasp.

Carrol


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