Carrol Cox cbcox at
Tue Dec 12 18:01:28 MST 2000

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

> The clear "line in the sand" that we should be drawing now is that
> between those who oppose capitalism & imperialism and those who
> oppose "globalization" while accepting the TINA.  And we should be
> drawing this line without sounding sectarian -- a difficult task.

It always turns out to be difficult, but I want to suggest that *at the
present time* (and I'm thinking only of the U.S.) several criteria
(or "principles of unity" as we used to call them) are beginning
to emerge that would reach out to a rather broad (but still left)

1. Rejection of the Democratic Party as a locus of progressive action.

2. Opposition to all U.S. interference in the internal affairs of other
nations or in conflicts between other nations. (This is awkwardly
stated, but I really don't think I want to be in the same party with
anyone who supported NATO aggression in Yugoslavia. Also
I want to incorporate a principle that honors Nestor's arguments
re Peron & similar figures in the third world.)

3. Acceptance and encouragement of independent action on the
part of women and black americans. (This can probably be
extended, but I dislike long lists and I think these two imply
the whole list.) [Incidentally, this would honor the little that is
legitimate in the weasel-worded statement from Butler that
Doug quoted. I'm working on a response to that post.]

4. Internal debates to be based on the content not the wording
of statements. (I'm assuming a movement that includes both
marxists and non-marxists, and I want to exclude that form of
red-baiting which attacks marxist's right to exist under the
guise of objecting to their alleged 'jargon.') This would also
exclude such bullshit as Lou and Wojtek regularly crank out
in which they substitute sneers at "professors" etc for
any sort of principled debate.

The list is both incomplete and badly formulated. But I think
it points to a kind of movement or mass party which would
have to include those groups which in the present context
are symbolized by "Lou" and "Doug" -- but I would guess
Butler would not belong (not because she should be
excluded but because her thought is fundamentally
apolitical -- as Doug's is not, however much he may
pretend the contrary -- and she wouldn't participate).


P.S. A speculation. There are two professed anarchists on
the lbo list (probably more but these two are the most
articulate). My guess is that one of them (Bob Fitch) would
grumpily go along with the movement envisioned here. I
disagree with him frequently, but he reads posts by
marxists and responds in a principled manner, and he
does have things to say. Chuck0 -- I have put him on
my filter and no longer see his posts. But again -- the
party wouldn't exclude him, he would exclude himself.
Just as, for example, certain posters on this list have
excluded themselves because of differences over

More information about the Marxism mailing list