further on Stan Goff

Xenon Zi-Neng Yuan wenhuadageming at comcast.net
Fri Aug 1 06:38:27 MDT 2003

At 04:44 PM 8/1/2003 +0800, Daru Rateau wrote:
> >>"I'm sure he can learn from analysis that is better than his, as can we
>No doubt - but one was not provided.<<
>Wow, that's a friendly way to start a discussion with a fellow list
>participant! Makes me want to read on. I hope the regular five have their
>gongs ready.

people do exchange a few barbs here on occasion. besides, starting off your
message with a blunt "stan goff wrong" wasn't necessarily "friendly"
either.  also, alam is right - you actually did not offer much in the way
of analysis; what i read is mostly quick statements of your opinion and

> >>The EU opposition was not a smokescreen, counterposed to the "real"
>movement. That is false praise for the movement, which, in fact, was
>largely predicated upon benevolent assumptions about the United Nations
>and various European nations .<<
>I think I can deduce what certain politicans tried to get out of all the
>various negotiations at the UN and NATO. I won't speak for a billion people.

huh?, and so meanwhile people can't deduce what the mass character of the
movement actually was?  from my own participation and from everything i've
read and heard, the mass mobilization against the invasion was indeed as
alam and goff describe.  people that otherwise were pro-american,
pro-neoliberalism, etc, took part in a movement that included slogans such
as "give the inspections time", "no blood for oil", etc.  simply put, you
would not have gotten the millions on the street so urgently that february,
all across the world, and particularly in the core imperialist nations, if
instead the main message pushed here was "US soldiers are war criminals" or
something of that sort.  (there were individuals and small groups which
did, but they either grew to be hecklers or politely subordinated
themselves to the broader current that could be seen all around them.)

> >>I also doubt the European countries which opposed the war did so as any
>kind of "smokescreen". Their geopolitical objectives do not include
>seeing US hegemony expand forever. Not to go Wallerstein on you, but
>what they did was accede when necessary.<<
>You mean like Schroeder, who said he opposed the war, but let the US use
>its bases in Germany without so much as a word of criticism?

seems like acceding to me.  can you or anyone suggest how they (the
bourgeois leadership) could have done otherwise at this current point in
germany's relationship with the US (politically, economically, militarily)
and with the EU still in infancy?  from what i heard (please confirm),
german citizens have tried to stage protests at those bases - what has come
out of it?

> >>As far as "Support the Troops" is concerned, there is a fundamental
>disconnect in American society which I believe is now more aptly termed
>the American Master Race: denial. The minimum program under current
>conditions is to demand unconditional withdrawal of troops. This will
>not be done by insisting they all be tried as thieves and criminals
>under international law.<<
>Minimal program is sort of like minimal wage. An oxymoron.
>We know who is going to be tried as criminals or sued and it won't be the
>Americans. See the piece about the pilots suing for Iraq to the tune of
>hundreds of millions of dollars.
> >>I think what Goff is doing is operating within the political parameters
>that best serve the end goal of organizing some opposition to the war
>within the ranks of those who are fighting it.<<
>I don't.

again, not really analysis, just a few declarations  (not that that's bad
in itself.  just be careful to pass it off as analysis - believe me, i've
slipped up like that before myself).  you don't even seem to give much in
the way of a detailed or even semi-detailed plan as to how YOU would go
about spearheading the "real" movement either.


More information about the Marxism mailing list