Comments on: Stan Goff rejects Marxism: a reply

By: Gilles d'Aymery

Gilles d'Aymery — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:28:00 +0000

When will people get real? Lou, how much time do you need to squander on people like good old Stan? It would be much appreciated by the idiots of this world (of which I belong) were you to focus on the realities we confront and stay away from intellectual masturbations. Love your take and wish you’d take it in more creative and thoughtful directions.

Life’s too short.

By: dirk

dirk — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:51:40 +0000

I just recently printed off Stan’s post,so I could study it better.Reading off a screen,just does not cut it.Anyway,I think some are “misinterpreting” Stans post.
It is not so much a rejection of Marx or his work as it is a rejection of organized groups,parties that identify as Marxist,Marxist -Leninist,…
I would agree such orgs have little chance of raising above sectarian politics never mind reaching out and touching the working-class with any authority.
Marx’s ideas are but away of understanding capitalism,Marx never intended to provide a “blue print”,indeed such an endeavor would be impossible.
As for Stans remarks on “industrial utopia” he is mistaken.As Louis points out Marx was very conscious of ecology and the idea humankind must live within sustainable means.Nothing comes from nothing,as the saying goes.
So again,over all I agree with much of what Stan writes.There is no future for sectarian politics,Marxism is not a thing or a mantel one takes on.Its but a tool to understand the world,a way of thinking and logic through materialism etc..
I flirted with the idea joining the CP of Canada but the reality of the world as opposed to that of the CPC seemed just to far apart.Their politics just seemed to absurd at times.Thanks to Marx and his favorite saying “doubt everything”I managed to avoid getting caught up in sectarian politics.It is kind of ironic,my studies of Marx’s works “saved” me from joining the “Communist” Party.
But this is not to say the CP or some of its more dedicated members did not do some good work.But again as Stan pointed out much of this good work was done outside of the CPC,indeed the good work itself grew out of activism etc that was also outside of the CPC

By: Modern Pitung

Modern Pitung — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:29:51 +0000

Correct the last sentence of the first para: “he has left FRSO/OSCL amicably.”

By: Modern Pitung

Modern Pitung — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:28:06 +0000

Having seen the situation evolve, Fadero is the one who is most on target here. Democratic centralism — which we have always maintained as different from bureaucratic centralism — was always at the core of FRSO/OSCL’s practice and theory. Left Refoundation did not change that. In the end, Stan left both because his personal situation changed and because he changed his mind on a lot of things that can’t be boiled down to individual changes within FRSO/OSCL or some defection from Marxism to the Frankfurt School per se. And by all his talks on that topic, he has FRSO/OSCL amicably.

As for your asides (and they are asides), that Stan is somehow a unique apostate from Marx (and Lenin) on critically assessing the military and the working class, I believe this rosy picture of the working class doesn’t do any well. There’s a whole body of work dating to Marx and his “labor in a white skin is not free until labor in a black skin is free” that treats the working class with enough respect to point out its mistakes. That it makes the white working class “look bad” isn’t half as bad as the fact that the white working class acts badly (that is to say, acts in a self-negating manner).

By: louisproyect

louisproyect — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:34:46 +0000

Kalkin, Stan was quite friendly with Mark Jones, a good friend of mine who died of cancer about 5 years ago. Mark and I were very forceful on the issue of Marx as ecologist. I can understand somebody first coming around Marxism not knowing about this, but Stan is another story altogether.

By: Kalkin

Kalkin — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:14:34 +0000

Stan can’t be entirely blamed for not seeing an environmentalist tradition in Marxism. It’s present in Marx but too few modern Marxists spend any time talking about it…

By: Doug Nielson

Doug Nielson — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:59:31 +0000

Oops! I should have said: In other words, he will attempt to confuse the subjective with the objective, the personal and the political.

By: Doug Nielson

Doug Nielson — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:50:41 +0000

Thank You Louis! Your critique greatly reinforces my impression that Stan’s remarks were made, as he explains, “after months of intense reflection”. He makes no claim to having spent months of “intense investigation.”
I found valuable insights in his piece but it is good to see your exposure of some of the weaknesses.

His third sentence indicates a tendency to confuse his weakness for his strength: “I will not attempt to separate the personal from the political reasons”. In other words, I will attempt to confuse the personal and the political.

By: Steve Philion

Steve Philion — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:09:27 +0000

Good response Lou. Stan Goff does much good work, but this response to Marxism is not really what it appears in the end. One just has to read Bellamy Foster or James O’Connor’s work…or talk to Eric Mann at the Bus Riders’ Union even better to know that Stan’s take on Marx and environmentalism is deeply mistaken.

By: dirk

dirk — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 01:30:18 +0000

I find it amazing how so many people put forth criticism of Marx,based on false readings or here say.Stan should know better ,how could he make an argument based on Marx’s supposedly “industrial Utopia” ,when any very quick reading of Marx’s basic works quickly show such notions to be false.
I find that many people who quote Marx or criticize Marx are basing their arguments or views on third party readings.This has got to be at the root of so much of the false readings and understanding of Marx and his works.
For sure his works are many and can appear to be daunting,but one has to take it on(it not as daunting as it might look).If one is ever to understand Marx’s views not third parties etc…