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

["acpollack2@xxxxxxxx" <acpollack2@xxxxxxxx>]

I'll reply to some of Carlos' points because he puts the old/new SDS/Maoist 
line so clearly:

-- "Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"And right now we are in strategic retreat, to use maoist terminology, we are 
in a bend on the road."

We are in a retreat because the ABB crowd has found a new excuse to stop 
building the movement.

"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."

It's still the most effective strategy: have we done all we can, along with US 
Labor Against War and others, to draw in millions of working people behind this 
demand? To hold labor and community forums around it as part of building to 
mass actions? Hardly. And by all we can I mean doing it year after year until 
the troops are home.

"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."

Again, just like SDS after their first demo: have one big demo, then confront 
the ENTIRE system. As opposed to what happened in reality: have more and more 
demos that are bigger and bigger, that inspire (and were inspired by) Black, 
women's, labor movements, each of which gets bigger ON THEIR OWN but because of 
that find ways to link without dissolving into a Democratic Party lowest common 
denominator.

"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."

Do you think it means nothing for hotel, airline, grocery and other workers 
losing their health care and pensions now, and who are in struggle NOW to save 
them?

"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."

I assume you meant "subjectively less important." But part of explaining the 
b.s. behind the "war on terrorism" is precisely explaining how it's a diversion 
from the working class' fight against its economic losses.

Finally: look at David Bacon's suggestion in his "Labor Needs a Radical Vision":

"A new direction on civil rights requires linking immigrant
rights to a real jobs program and full employment economy.
It demands affirmative action that can come to grips with the
devastation in communities of color, especially African
American communities. Some unions, particularly HERE, have
moved from rhetoric to actual contract proposals linking
immigrant rights and jobs for underrepresented communities.
But this is just a step towards unity, and it is already
endangered by proposals for new guest worker programs that
will pit immigrants against the unemployed.  As employer
lobbyists continually point out, jobs and immigration are
tied together.  Corporations will either pit people against
each other at the bottom of the workforce, or labor will
unite them in a struggle for their mutual interest."

Here we have concrete suggestions for material demands affecting workers of 
color, as opposed to Stan's vague denunciation of white-skin privilege. And 
here also we have concrete proposals for the labor movement to organize around; 
to the extent that happens the separate antiwar movement can appeal to its 
members to join labor's mobilizations -- and vice versa. And the more that 
happens the more socialist organizations will grow by recruiting from both 
movements.

What Stan proposes instead is to dissolve the antiwar movement and call it 
socialism.

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


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