Subject: Re: AUT: Me and my interests
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 00 03:37:14 +0000
From: kubhlai <kubhlai-AT-proweb.co.uk>


Steve wrote....
>b) The traditional formula of course is that organisational forms are a 
>function
>of particular class compositions.

The problem with the masses today is that their class backgrounds are 
complex and variegated (I dont know if the word "lumpen" is applicable?) 
and such confused backgrounds thereby tend to give rise to the phenomenon 
of confusion in organization (ie, more often than not, the lack of it).
This creates something of a quandary; most of us believe passionately in 
SELF organization at the same time as acknowledging that it rests upon 
common interests -- usually "class". The only way out of this I can see 
is to devise strategies for deliberately bringing common interests into 
existence, rather than to rely upon their a priori existence.

It could be said that Hitler and Goebbels based their strategy on 
creating an ideological *illusion* of such a unity (in a mystical concept 
of "germanism"). Islam partakes partly of this, but also imposes certain 
social rules which more genuinely underpin common interest -- (such as 
islamic banking practices). It's no accident that recent successful 
protests in the west have revolved around issues with appeal that crosses 
all class boundaries; for example anti-road campaigns, healthy food 
campaigns, right-to-roam, even suspicion of global capital (which is 
shared even by pretty big business interests).
Might there be a lesson or two here? 
First, that activism does not necessarily have to be based upon classes 
(which divide us) but tends to crystalize around things which unite us.
Second, that (therefore) we should look at making better use of 
organizational structures which bring about our unity (housing-coops, 
syndicates, nonprofit banking) *before* revolution, rather than debating 
the shape of such things in a hypothetical post-revolutionary scenario. 
(An absurdity for those of us who believe strongly in self-determination 
anyway). 
To restate this second point in a way relevant to other recent posts -- 
the withering away of the state does not necessarily have to be held in 
suspension pending a state-capitalist Revolution with a big-R. (Marx 
never thought it necessarily did have to I'm told).

Just a thought.

kubhlai



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