[lbo-talk] Krugman: "The question then is why."

Carrol Cox cbcox at ilstu.edu
Mon Jul 18 18:16:44 PDT 2011


On 7/18/2011 7:00 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> At 07:36 AM 7/18/2011, Wojtek S wrote:
>
>
>> [WS:] Why does a course of action that has zero chance of success mean
>> anything?
>
>
> Because it means that there is at least some sliver of opposition.
>
> You often complain here that you've offered one or another alternative
> way of thinking that no one pays attention to. If success is your only
> criteria for worth, then why should anyone pay attention to you?

This post reminded me of a post I had sent to the e-list of our local anti-war group (BNCPJ) just yesterday. It began as follows:

****It is essential to maintain a nominal but visible condemnation of the continuing US and NATO war on the Middle East and on Central Asia, a war that has been going on since the overthrow of Mossedegh by the Eisenhower Administration and (later) the intervention of the Carter Administrationin Afghanistan. That attack (which is also the cause of terrorist attacks on the U.S. and EU) is an assault on human decency and a continuing drain on national resources. It cannot go unchallenged.

BUT. There is always a But. Let us face the fact that we are not going to stop the war; that only under special conditions, is a serious mass anti-war struggle possible.*****

I don't know why others might ignore Wojtek's suggested alternatives, but for myself I only consider an idea an alternative if it is offered within the context of organized non-electoral left action. And of course _all_ useful suggestions for left activity involve goals with a zero chance of success in the immediate context. Those that aim at such success usually belong to the category of "crackpot realism." They reflect political amateurism.

Carrol



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list