Re: [Marxism] I think Stan Goff is wrong tactically

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rohan Gaiswinkler" <rohanger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> I think Goff is counterposing anti-globalisation and ant-imperialism
> consciousness, and saying we have to focus > on the latter.  This is wrong
> tactically.

Finally! Some clarity! More light! More light!

I agree. Tactically slogans such as "money for XXX not bombs" should be part
of our arsenal, so to speak. Goff was provocative in this respect, but his
arguement was crearly a strategic and not tactical one.

And right now we are in strategic retreat, to use maoist terminology, we are
in a bend on the road.

Which I believe is the point Goff's provocation raises. We have not
recognized any changes in the situation. We are still figthing the current
wars as if it were February of 2003, when history had not been written, and
"Money for XXX not bombs" had seemed like an effective strategy to mobilize
an huge coalition of people. Not so today.

I have been shallowly critical of the RCP's "Christian Fascism" line, which
I expect all of you are already familiar with. But however flawed I feel
this line is, strategically it points in the right direction:

The anti-war movement failed in its principal, immediate demand to stop the
invasion of Iraq.  It is the time to directly and bravely confront the
economic, social and political (military) questions that made our demand
fail, in spite of the support of millions. It is time we engage these
millions in an open and honest conversation, listen to them, explain our
views, expose truths, and develop new tactics. And we must abandon the
"Money for XXX not bombs" strategy, we moust develop new strategies. I think
we still haven't hit upon it, but we must at least admit that the current
strategy is not a winning strategy.

This "Money for XXX not bombs" tactic might be useful in NYC, were a 2/3 of
the people understand that this war does nothing to increase their security.
But it means absolutely nothing in Utah or Indiana. And if we are to stop
imperialism, we need to engage those people. Ironically, Bill "The
Multi-bomber" Clinton is saying as much! (Of course, his conversation will
be of a liberal nature, but ours shouldn't) The guy is right, there is no
victory without the midwest or the south.

And in those areas, were even reasonable people, even pro-worker,
anti-homophobic, anti-sexist people, fear that they will be mass slaugthered
by a tsunami of suicide bombers. "Money for XXX not bombs" slips right of
their ears like grease off a roast pig. Goff insuficiently explains, but
points in a real direction, as of today economic losses of the working class
are subjectively less unimportant to them than the threat of being killed in
a "terrorist" attack.

Yeah, it sounds like mass line, eat me, thats my training. But what ever it
is that trots and revis call it, am all for it. Thing is we should stop
gripping to the past, defending our current mistakes, and have the
imagination to reveal that the world indeed encloses the dream of a
different thing.

sks



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