File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0101, message 69


From: "Chris Wright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Subject: AUT: Fw: Musings
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:06:05 -0600


This was another critique from a comrade of mine.  I think the question of
the prescriptive nature of my approach has some value.  As autonomists, the
problem is not to tell people what to do, or to always have an alternative,
but to present a political critique and analyze what something means at each
moment as we see it.  This is not to say that we should not be prescriptive
in certain situations (I am against people being scabs, cops, Klansmen,
mysoginists, etc.), but Peter may be right that voting does not fall into
the category of being oppressive, but rather of trying to feel a way out of
being oppressed.

At the same time, I don't think we should have voted for Gore, Bush or
Nader.  Simply from the perspective of what increases our ability to act
collectively.  Then again, organizing to win the right to vote in the 1950's
formed a major part of the Black struggle in the U.S. and it would have been
sheer idiocy to oppose such a demand.  However, I feel a tension between
fighting for everyone's right to participate fully without the onus of white
supremacist or patriarchal oppression, but that does not mean I would
actively organize for getting someone a post as the first Black manager or a
Black mayor.  How to relate to such sympathies seems very complex and
avoiding being prescriptive may be the only way to involve a political
critique with the defense of the idea of self-determination (not exactly
support, but critique without prescripted options.)

I am not certain on this by any means, but I hope it generates more
discussion.
Since this relates to the earlier criticisms, I am lumping them together.  I
certainly would like to see more discussion.

Cheers,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <PeterHudis-AT-aol.com>
To: <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:49 PM
Subject: Musings


> Dear Chris,
>
>     Just got finished "cleaning up" from the D.C. trip (it's deadline week
so
> all sorts of things got pushed back a bit!) and had a chance to reread
your
> leaflet. Since I know you're looking for responses I might as well send
you
> my musings now.
>
>     The piece begins very well by focusing on the racist character of the
> electoral fraud and the refusal of Gore and the Democrats to fight it, but
> then veers off to a prescriptive discussion of whether or not we should
vote
> which, frankly, seems to miss the mark.  The question is not whether
people
> should vote or shouldn't vote. The question is what is the MEANING of the
> fact that they vote or don't vote. You mention the 49% not voting as
showing
> "disillusion with this sham," on which I surely agree, but what does it
mean
> that the turnout in many states from the African-American community was so
> huge? Surely they know better than anyone in this society the sham nature
of
> the system. So why the huge turnout? What does it mean? Instead of
exploring
> that, which could have become a way to developing the positive,
subjective,
> resistance-side to the conditions you begin with, we get a prescriptive
> discussion of what we ought to do in terms of voting "in general."
>
>     There are plenty of times when voting is a waste of time. There are
also
> times when it has a symbolic value. There are a few times when it is
> absolutely crucial (just think how different things would have been in
1932
> if a united Left slate contested the elections in Germany!). The job of a
> leftist, it seems to me, is not to preach to people as to whether they
should
> or shouldn't vote, mainly because l) voting means different things in
> different contexts, and 2) it's futile in any case, since given the change
in
> contexts people will make up their own minds as to what to do. You assume
> here that voting disempowers people, which may be true much of the time,
but
> I didn't notice that the huge Black voter turnout prevented them from
taking
> to the streets afterward; nor did I notice that they were on any kind of
> "sedative." So I think your discussion of this is a bit abstract and
overly
> prescriptive.
>
>     I guess my reaction to the paragraphs which follow on what to do in
lieu
> of voting is somewhat similiar. Certainly, I'm all for people slowing down
at
> work and trying to stiff the boss, but folks hardly have to be informed of
> the need to do that since they already do it everyday, in one way or
another.
> It seems to me what needs to instead be brought out is the significance of
> what they are already doing, since  most probably don't realize the huge
> political and indeed philosophical implications of their seemingly
"simple"
> everyday acts. That would in turn become a bridge for saying why
involvement
> in some of the "bigger" (i.e., more publicly recognized) "political"
issues
> you mention flows from what they are already encountering in their
> experience. As a whole, I guess there's a bit too much of the smell of the
> "ought" approach here for my taste, which may be due to the different
> directions we're coming from in terms of political backgrounds.
>
>     The material I liked best was the last three paragraphs, with its
> emphasis on our ability to reclaim our collective power. But since a
central
> part of our collective power is not just our practical energy, but also
our
> minds, which capitalism works damn hard to separate from our practice, it
> would have been good to say a few words about what ideas, theories,
complexes
> of thought can aid our effort to comprehend  capital and what it means to
> uproot it. Otherwise, the job of uprooting capital ends up sounding so
> awesome that folks doubt that they really CAN do it by themselves, despite
> the clear fact that capital can't exist without us.
>
> Later,
>
> Peter
>
>



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005