From: "Chris Wright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net> Subject: AUT: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: autonomist crisis theory Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:51:42 -0600 Your response is pointless. So all I can say is... brilliant. I think you are just a troll, then, as we say in the Linux community. Please troll somewhere else. Cheers ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Carlile" <dagda-AT-eircom.net> To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 5:09 AM Subject: AUT: Re: Re: Re: Re: autonomist crisis theory > You response is just not convincing > > -------- > > Thank you for the helpful and perceptive posting. > > However, you happen to be wrong. I did not even use the word "individuals". > Not once. I did talk about micro-sized struggles, which could include > actions in departments by a group of people, or small strikes, or slowdowns, > or all kinds of struggles that small (understood here as something that may > be isolated in one fashion or another and which does not involve large > numbers of workers or a central point of production that shuts things down) > groups or individuals wage. So where you get the idea that I only mean > "individuals" is not clear to me, except that you read what you wanted to > read, but not what I wrote. > > But even so, mass struggle (you know, hundreds of thousands and millions of > people, that kind of scale) is not the only way in which people struggle > with capital. Nor is it the only important form of struggle. Nor do > individuals cease to exist as legitimate actors in the class struggle. All > of those small struggles, some of them seemingly individual struggles, work > like grains of sand between two gears, slowly eating away at the functioning > of the gears. However, as I implied in a later post, the indivdual grains > of sand also happen to be the prerequisite for the bucket of sand poured > into the machine sometimes. the two have a relationship. If individuals > and small groups did not resist, then we would have to leap from no one > struggling to mass struggles, out of nowhere. > > I am NOT claiming that each act of insubordination is as good, as effective > or as conscious as the next. Every thief violates the sanctity of property, > but not every act of theft hurts capital. Some can reinforce capital. Some > don't. I know someone who "aquired" equipment from work, and the other > workers took up the idea as a way to get back at the company. that > eventually led to an attempt to organize a union, but the original act came > from someone consciously stealing as a means of sticking it to the company, > and sharing that perspective with her co-workers. I also know people who > steal and want to be rich. > > To make some absolute separation between individual struggle and mass > struggle is to lose the links in how insubordination, struggle, is > omnipresent, how the rejection of the capital-labor relation permeates all > levels. That would be 'petty bourgeois'. On the other hand, to make a > virtue of individual struggle, at the expense of ignoring mass struggle, > would be wrong and 'petty bourgeois'. To see that the crisis of capitalism > involves both individual, small, medium, large and mass struggles altogether > is to recognize that crisis flows from struggle, not from 'structural > problems'. Strucutralism is another 'petty bourgeois' approach because it > denies agency to the class for self-emancipation. Class struggle then just > 'mediates' structures, rather than creating those structures. > > Of course, using 'petty bourgeois' in this way tells us nothing because it > fails to show any serious linkage between class and ideology. It is, > rather, ham-fisted denunciation that discourages conversation and dialogue. > > Finally, someone asked a specific question: if crisis is caused by struggle, > then how can autonomist Marxists see the current slide into recession as a > product of struggle? What can we possibly mean by struggle? Or do we have > to go back to the structuralist, "objective laws of motion of capital" > approach common to Leninism, Social Democracy and most academic Marxism? > > If you have a good answer for that, THAT would be helpful. > > Cheers, > Chris > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karl Carlile" <dagda-AT-eircom.net> > To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 12:32 PM > Subject: AUT: Re: Re: autonomist crisis theory > > > > The latter part of this posting cannot be taken seriously. Under this > > perception class struggle is no longer the struggle of the class but > simply > > the resistance of individuals who are members of the working class. Very > > petty bourgeois. > > > > Regards > > Karl Carlile > > > > Visit our Communist Think-Tank Web Site at: > > http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ > > > > Join our Communist Think-Tank Mailing Community at: > > mailto:rev-commies-subscribe-AT-eGroups.com > > > > > > --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005