[Fwd: post S26 (Jim O'Connor)]

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at SPAMosu.edu
Tue Oct 10 17:33:30 MDT 2000

> > >In the following post Jim Oconnor has made an eloquent statement to >the
> > >effect that an independent anti-capitalist (and not merely
> > >anti-globalist) organization is needed. I think this need should >become
> > >more central to discussions on marxist maillists.
>I disagree with Jim O Connor's proposal of  forming an "independent"
>anti-imperialist struggle as it is written above. I wonder what O' Connor
>has in mind when he implicitly separates anti-imperialist struggle from
>anti-globalist struggle, given that these two forms of struggle are
>logically inseparable. Globalism and capitalism are the sides of the same
>coin -- imperialism--  so we should be struggling against both, not only
>one.  I am not quite sure about the context of Connor's discussion on LBO
>list at the moment, but given the realities of imperialism and what is going
>on in Yugoslavia today, it is _not enough_ for us to be an independent
>Marxist only. What is this for my sake? Neutrality? On the contrary,  We,
>Marxists, _should_ TAKE A POSITION on the side of the oppressed (Milosovic's
>party) against US strategy of Americanizing Balkans and the puppet
>opposition of Kustanica's forces sponsored by the US finance capital. We
>should be on the side of the *imperialized* countries and their right to
>national self determination (unity) against imperialist strategy of
>exporting bourgeois democracies and counter-revolution, as it pertains to
>Yugo today.. Being an anti-imperialist without being on the side of the
>oppressed is a silly talk. It at most means political pacifism, but sill
>gives lip service to US. I think that O Connor should have talked about
>Yugoslavia in his post, not only Seattle. This is a dead horse topic. I am
>curious to know if he is following the news at all???

Mine, O'Connor is not suggesting that we separate anti-imperialist
struggles from anti-globalist struggles.  In fact, in the case of
anti-globalist protests in the United States (e.g., Seattle, D.C.,
L.A., etc.), anti-imperialist voices of the kind you have in your
mind have been nearly entirely _missing_ from anti-globalist
struggles, because they have been mainly populated by trade
unionists, environmentalists, liberal NGO types, etc.  (with a small
number of anarchists, socialists, and assorted radicals as
exceptions).  The tone of anti-globalist protests, if anything, has
been social-imperialist & anticommunist in the USA (e.g., mindless
attacks on China).  O'Connor is criticizing that, in the USA (and
probably in the West in general), most anti-globalists have been
neither anti-capitalists nor anti-imperialists.  O'Connor writes:
"They [anti-globalists] are against certain corporate globalization
practices, e.g., export platforms that grow at the expense of union
jobs in the US.  Big green is also not against corporations as such:
they depend on big money for their grants etc.  They just want the
corporations to tread more lightly on nature. Meanwhile, labor is for
globalization, to the degree that globalization expands US exports
especially by unionized employers, e.g., Boeing.  And the big unions
here are more or less deaf to the demands of the antigloblist
movement in the South, e.g., technology transfer and market opening
in the north."  Hence his argument that "This kind of thing is
exactly why we internationalists, socialists...need an independent
organization so that we can propose independent solutions," that is,
independent of those who simply want to reform corporate practices.
Otherwise, how do we change the dominant tune of anti-globalist
protests in America from protectionism to anti-capitalism &

I do not know if O'Connor's proposal is a viable one.  That said, if
you disagree with O'Connor, Xxxx, you have to criticize his argument,
instead of a straw man (an argument that he does not make but you
ascribe to him).


More information about the Marxism mailing list