Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:05:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: AUT: Andre Gorz


At 09:08 AM 9/28/98 +0200, Ilian wrote:

>Hi comrades.
>
>Richard Singer wrote:
>>        ... I appreciate the fact that Gorz, in the essay that I read (which
>
>> was written way back in 1967), wrote so clearly about the distinction
>> between reforms from above -- i.e., forms of appeasement offered by the
>> state -- and reforms achieved through pressure from below.  I am already
>> fond of quoting the following paragraph:
>>
>>         "Certain maximalists conclude from this that reforms are meaningless
>> while the capitalist state continues to exist.  They are right when it is a
>> matter of reforms from above, volunteered and institutionalized in cold
>> blood, but wrong in the case of reforms brought about in hot blood by active
>> struggle from below...
>
>You can bet that the capitalist authorities will not volunteer a cut in profit
>to bestow on the working class.
>
>Thus, any "reform" is a result of class war struggle. The same as improved
>condition and/or wage resulting from strike, so is every other achievement of
>struggle. Be it improvement in "social wage" through government and municipal
>services, or cut in taxes... etc. or a rise in the minimal wage...
>

        You are right to an extent, but I think it makes a difference
whether a reform is achieved via direct struggle on the part of the people,
or whether a reform is just some gimmick tossed at the people by a
politician to stave off any trouble in advance or to win some votes at
election time.  The issue is one of connectedness between the people and the
political process. 

>> The emancipation of the working class can become a
>> total objective for the workers, warranting total risk, only if in the
>> course of the struggle they have learned something about self-management,
>> initiative and collective decision -- in a word, if they have had a
>> foretaste of what emancipation means."
>
>The main thing is hope and feeling of power resulting from successful struggle.

        The question is, power for whom?  Do people really feel much power,
personally, if every action is the result of choices and commands made by
remote leaders?  

>The success in a strike or another kind of struggle is much more important than
>any "organizational learning".
>

        But this "organizational" learning is extremely important in that it
is crucial, if we are to create a society where people really have autonomy,
for people to understand what it is like to be a vital part of the
social/political process.  In the present climate, especially here in the
U.S. (as opposed to parts of Western Europe, where I understand that there
is greater participation and where there seem to be more concrete autonomous
movements), most people have forgotten what it is like to have a say in the
management of their own society.  In trade-union actions as in elections,
people are usually asked merely to vote on options provided by the leaders.
They are neither asked nor encouraged to take action or make concrete
decisions individually, and they rarely feel as though they are anything
approaching equal participants.  

>For sure, management of struggle through direct democracy and not by any
>vangardist or other authoritarian methods, contribute to the feeling of each
>participant that s/he contributed a significant share to the common achivement.

        I think it contributes to more than just "the feeling"; it
determines the nature of the struggle and the ultimate changes that are
likely to take place.



Richard Singer















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