Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:21:26 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: AUT: Grundrisse/MBM


On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, rc&am wrote:

> Hi franco,
> 
> 
> i am not particularly concerned with the distinctions between, or even the use
> of, offensive or defensive as a way of characterizing, judging or
> differentiating between particular campaigns, movements etc.  the reasons for my
> disinterest in doing this are perhaps particular to a certain view: that a
> particular movement may, in its demands, ways of thinking about itself and the
> world, be quite limited and nominally 'reformist' but the effects of such a
> demand, or of the very existence of that demand at a particular point in time,
> have historical (or perhaps less immediate) consequences which are anything but
> intentional, which overflow the expressed intentions of those who participate.
> so: this would be to note the distance that pertains between 'subjects' and
> 'effects' (to put it in these terms), a recognition that 'effects' are not
> always to be sourced to this subject, that the 'effects' do not originate in
> subjectivity as a matter of course. this seems to me to be an illustration of
> some of the problems associated with a subjective 'emphasis': that of knowing
> subject and that of the subject as origin.
> 
Angela: Frankly, I don't follow your argument. Certainly it is generally
true that actions take place within an environment in which many forces
(often contradictory) are at work. Certainly it is generally true that as
a result actions generate, either directly or indirectly, consequences
quite different from those intended -or those one might expect if the 
world was a simpler place. BUT, 

1. its not at all obviouis why this should lead to a disinterest in the
tides of the class war

2. to say, on this basis, that "the 'effects' do not originate in  
subjectivity as a matter of course" seems a gross overstatment. At most it
seems justified to say 'effects" do not SOLEY originate in subjectivity
(IF by that we mean the actions taken).

3. When you write "a subjective 'emphasis': that of knowing subject and
that of the subject as origin" I get the impression that your concept of
"subjectivity" turns on a question of consciousness --whereas for some of
us who use the term, "consciousness" is but one issue among others and our
primary interest is not the traditional one as to whether people have
"class" consciousness, but what they do, the actions they undertake, and
of course how they think about it. But as your remarks suggest it is quite
easy for people's actions to have significance in ways they have not
conceived. As for the second part of your phrase, see the previous point.

Harry
............................................................................
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173  USA
Phone Numbers: (hm)  (512) 478-8427
               (off) (512) 475-8535   Fax:(512) 471-3510
E-mail: hmcleave-AT-eco.utexas.edu
Cleaver homepage: 
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index.html
Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html
Accion Zapatista homepage:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/
............................................................................




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---