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

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <acpollack2@xxxxxxxx>


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

35 years ago and you are still cling to it? Hey, I will admit it. Thats my
background. I have an original Harvard strike t-shirt back in PR. But
please! This is 2005. I was born 5-6 years after the last SDS congress. Can
we move on?

> -- "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.

Always blame the other guy. That is indeed the way forward!

Of course, at least you admit that, for whatever reason, we are in retreat.

> "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.

I am amazed at the complete confusion of tactics and strategy I have seen in
this discussion. Holding labor and community forums and other such tactics
are not only tactics for a "Money for XXX not bombs" but tactics even the
Republican party follows. To say that a strategy is failure solely because
"we haven't worked hard enough for it" is very quaint, and an insult to the
millions, yes, millions, who lost countless nights organizing for the first
wave of the anti-war movement. "We haven't worked hard enough" is a fig leaf
for "I don't want to work hard for anything but a liberal demand".


> "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.

Actually, the opposite has been true. Since the huge demos of February 2003,
the demos have gotten smaller and smaller.

But I fail to see how your comment contradicts my statement. I would argue
you agree on principle with what I am saying, but some sectarian gremlin got
activated within you that begs you to differ.


> "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?

I don't think it. Ask them yourself. Ask a worker in Indiana what is a
greatest threat, losing his pension or being killed by a suicide bomber.
S/he will take the suicide bomber most of the time. That is the reality. It
might not make any sense to us, but it makes perfect sense to them. And I
belive we can address that concern by being more blunt and more direct in
our conversation with them regarding imperialism. We must take up a "the
real terrorists are" strategy.

> 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.

And we need air to breathe. I will repeat myself, there is no disagreement
in that, but it is not being done effectively, as the downward spiral of the
movement shows.

> 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.

And an interesting concrete proposal, but being being concrete, it doesn't
mean it's right.

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

Nope. What he calls is for socialists to start behaving like socialists, and
not like liberals. In other words, instead of trailing behind the ABB crowd,
go ahead and do our homework. There is a huge difference. He is in essence
trying to get us to stop doing the Democratic Party's bidding, like we are.

Is that REALLY too much to ask?

This is very telling of the sorry state of socialism in the USA. Everyone
adores Stan, the alpha male ex-military man who tells it like it is, that
is, until he mentions the "S" word, next to the "A" word and proposes the
"R" word as a solution. And of top on that he goes into gender politics!

Then, he is the most evil ultra-left thing this side of the MIM.

sks


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