further on Stan Goff

Daru Rateau darurateau at doramail.com
Fri Aug 1 07:14:41 MDT 2003

In reply to xzy

By the time it gets to this point, most can't really follow who has said what. So I'll cut to the chase.

>>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. <<

I didn't know Stan was on the list. I was responding to something that wasn't by Stan. Anyway, I think I've made it clear it wasn't about Stan in particular, but the sort of thinking he claims to represent.

 >>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

Yes, but in the philosophy seminar the professor would say, o.k. xenon, that is your opinion about his analysis. Why do you think that? Why do you think it is too weak to stand as analysis and only, as you deem it, opinion and interpretation?

dr earlier:
>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.<<

I think if you read carefully, alam and goff aren't in that much agreement. I don't think goff helped his case by talking about leftist idealists as missing the boat. There was no boat to catch at the UN.

>>  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. <<

Who here has said this? War criminals are war criminals. If someone committed illegal acts, then they are war criminals.

And who says all the demonstrations were like what you saw in the US? And who says all the demonstrations were in the developed world? I suggest you read some of Pilger's coverage of the movements worldwide.

>>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?<<

But he was referring to the leaders and politicians, and so I pointed out Schroeder's duplicity.

>>again, not really analysis, just a few declarations  (not that that's bad
in itself. <<
But again, Prof asks, how so?

 >>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.<<

Why ask something of someone you wouldn't ask of yourself?

Let me review, (1) I disagree with Goff's 'expert' analysis that an invasion of Afghanistan was what the Bush regime intended all along. And I've explained why. Information in support of my position is all over the internet and all over lists like this. I don't know for sure about DoD plans on Afghanistan, but I do know for sure about the very specific, bi-partisan plans for regime change in Iraq.

(2) I disagree strongly with the idea that unequivocal support of the troops must somehow be tied with calls to bring them home. In theory, the troops aren't in control of the military. A civilian government that is supposed to be responsible to the population is in control. Also, I know that the support for troops is often translated as narrow interest politics on behalf of vets who support the Republicans.

(3) Finally, let me reiterate. I disagree with Goff and anyone who also thinks it, that the UN was somehow the key arena of an anti-war struggle. It never was, since the US had committed to attacking Iraq from the late 1990s. 'Infantile leftists' and idealists did not stop the war from happening, but neither did Goff and all the people who proclaimed, I support our troops. OTOH, I don't think anyone has demonstrated that somehow 'infantile leftists' and idealists ruined the peace movement.

Thanks Xenon for the enlightening discussion.

Get your free email from www.doramail.com with 30 Megs of disk space in webhosting and e-mail storage!

Powered by Outblaze

More information about the Marxism mailing list