Re: [Marxism] Some comments on Stan Goff's post

[Josh Saxe <joshsaxe@xxxxxxxxx>]

Joaquin Bustelo wrote:
"I think groups need to begin acting NOT with the idea that we should
achieve a higher level of unity, if possible, but with the understanding
that unity is today a central political task to which other tasks need
to be *subordinated,* as well as the most realistic and direct road to
advancing towards certain strategic objectives (for example,
"transformation," a "structured" left that is much more rooted among the
oppressed nationalities, that includes a higher proportion of women, and
that is much younger)."

Everything you're saying sounds great.  Except I have serious doubts -
will you indulge me (?), because I'd be really interested in hearing
your response.

Isn't the disarray of the left simply a reflection of objective
conditions?  We haven't seen a major struggle in this country since
the 1968-75 period.  That's almost two generations of left activists
existing like fish out of water outside of significant challenges to
capitalism.  Our politics have little relevance to anyone outside real
struggles of millions of people.  Little groups exist who think they
know a way out of this impasse and are trying out their perspectives
in practice.  _No one's_ found proof for their perspectives.  When one
perspective is failing, why not split and try something a bit
different?  Or if you've never seen _any_ perspective bear fruit, why
not stay forever in the group that brought you to politics even if
that group has major problems?  I think that's the basis for left
disunity.  I think people in left groups are far less dogmatic than
people on this list maintain - it's just they don't see anything else
working.  Certainly empty discussions won't convince people to give up
perspectives they'd invested flesh and blood into, only historical
events and visible success of other perspectives will do this.

So I'd say, unity would be nice, but proving that a left perspective
can actually produce results is a million times more important.  If
the ISO were to grow to 2 or 3 times its present size, for example,
outstripping other groups in size at that ratio, I think there'd be a
basis for a significant regroupment of a number of smaller
organizations around the ISO.  But that wouldn't be so much a
coalition of factions as a recognition that the ISO's perspective had,
in the real world, proven the most effective.  The unity would reflect
a gravitation of other revolutionaries towards perspectives that were
working.

Maybe we should shoot for something less than organizational unity and
something more than the classic anti-war coalition or whatever.  Maybe
in an area where the left is relatively strong, say, the San Francisco
Bay Area, or Chicago or whatever, some kind of electoral campaign for
city council or something like that could be built, around a single
candidate.
Josh

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism