From: Rowan Wilson <wilson_rowan-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Linebaugh and Rediker, _The Many-Headed Hydra_
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 13:59:32 -0000


Hi Andromache, Chris, Rob, Jon and all

Andromache, when I said 'ultra left/Seattle', this was just a clumsy 
shorthand for the recent resurgence of non-hierarchical struggle.

Rob and Chris, i very much agree on the need to place current forms of 
racism in the historical context of capitalism (and thanks for the bits of 
history too, btw). However, I would like to be fussy and add that it is also 
vital to see capitalism in the context of racism and patricarchy - that is 
to say capitalism wasn't born outside of these 'isms'. Capitalism didn't 
just draw on versions of racism then present, it is also a product of these 
'isms' itself.


Cheers
Rowan


>From: Chris Wright <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
>Reply-To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: AUT: Linebaugh and Rediker, _The Many-Headed Hydra_
>Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:03:43 -0600
>
>Good day to you too, Rob!
>
>Thanks for the comments.  I agree with the bent of what you are saying, and
>since I made brief comments, let me just add that we don't have any easy 
>way
>to separate the binary opposition of exploiter/exploited from the 
>fragmented
>relations that appear as race, gender, sexuality, etc..., either in 
>analysis
>or in practice.  As such, I don't think we can separate every struggle out
>neatly and just say "Hey, everyone has their own struggle."  That would be
>exactly the mistake of Foucault.  Rather, we have to see how all the
>struggles interpenetrate.  Each racialized group has its own conflicts of
>class, gender, sexuality, etc.  There is no way to discuss politics in the
>African American without confronting the problem of the "Black bourgeoisie"
>and the class fracturing of that community.  But that could be said for all
>of these different oppressions.  rather, I suggest we try to engage them at
>all levels at once, in way that recognizes the complexity of these problems
>and does not add Leftist fetishism to all the rest.  Obviously, any 
>specific
>fetishized relation may weigh heavier at any given moment, but that is a
>political problem we can only deal with if we start from the idea that this
>world has both the binary opposition of class created by the separation of
>doing from doer and a multiplicity of other power relationships which arise
>from that polarity without being reducible to it.  That is the really
>short-hand answer, btw.
>
>As for pre-existing oppressions, I agree.  It is not like patriarchy, for
>example, just magically appeared with capitalism.  Capital drew on the
>already existing subordination of women, BUT it radically reconfigured that
>oppression in response to its own mode of existence, its own historical
>peculiarity.  That's why I am cautious about talking about certain forms of
>oppression outside their historical context.  The form they take, their 
>mode
>of existence, makes them different, even when they have similar 
>appearances.
>The importance of history is to understand the specific ways they exist
>differently.  Bourgeois history exactly moves to conceal the specificity of
>certain types of relations because it needs them to be eternal
>characteristics of 'human nature'.  The devil is in the details, or in this
>case, the spectre.
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rob Schaap" <rws-AT-comedu.canberra.edu.au>
>To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 1:02 PM
>Subject: Re: AUT: Linebaugh and Rediker, _The Many-Headed Hydra_
>
>
> > G'day Autonomists,
> >
> > Quoth Chris:
> >
> > >The idea that racism has an origin in the late 18th/early 19th century
>does
> > >not necessarily have any bearing on whether racism as we know it is
>peculiar
> > >to capitalism.  Then again, and i have not read the book so I am only
> > >commenting on what I have read in this discussion, the idea of a 
>starting
> > >point in this sense, of an origin, has its own problems.  Part of the 
>way
>to
> > >unravel the problem requires us to understand that the form of the
> > >oppression, its mode of existence, is essential to understanding why it
>is
> > >different.  That mode of existence has to be connected to our history, 
>as
> > >well.  And racialization has to be understood as a process, an ongoing
> > >process which did not "happen" in the 18th century but which continues 
>to
> > >happen today.
> >
> > Sounds right to me.  But it's always hard, I think, to draw neat lines
> > between those components of a living prejudice which draw their
>nourishment
> > from current functionalities for capitalism (eg undermining the
> > 'class-for-itself' moment so central to, say, Lukacss theory) and those
> > which are spawned or sustained by capitalist relations, because they
>excite
> > that initial search for alternative meanings, for filling the empty 
>holes
> > the alienation excavator gouges into us.
> >
> > Then you get to having to distinguish between (often pre-modern) 
>residual
> > cultural components (eg Christianity per se) and the tendentious
>inventions
> > of the past (and the demagoguery often at the root of it - eg. the
> > bible-based economics and bible-based public responsibility stuff that's
> > sweeping the US apre-coup).
> >
> > I do think that not every component of our being, and not every moment 
>in
> > our lives, is written by capitalism - some of it is residual, some of it
>is
> > stuff not commodified yet, some of it simply coz capitalism can't do the
> > job, and some of it is, dare I say it, human essence.  But I'm 
>blabbering
> > off-topic now ...
> >
> > Anyway, I only mentioned my reservations because it's often well to 
>remind
> > ourselves, obvious though it probably is, that shit happens in all
>worlds -
> > and that we cannot ensure the absence of 'isms', needless cleavages and
> > lingering exploitations, in a post-prol-revo.  Isms are material 
>realities
> > - they're structures - and their existence and potential to hang on need
> > expressly to be factored into our sensibilities, publicity, strategies 
>and
> > hopes.
> >
> > I kinda like the sort of approach Albert and Hahnel were talking about 
>in
> > their *Unorthodox Marxism* way back in '79 - I' seem to have lost it for
> > the moment - not quite autonomism, perhaps, but a way of signalling to 
>the
> > many and varied seekers-of-a-better-world and rejecters-of-shit a sense
> > that stuff's connected and that we are all therefore connected, too.  
>I'm
> > no All-Power-To-The-Party man, but neither am I committed to some
> > fetishised autonomy whereby, for instance, the racially oppressed think
> > race is all, the sexually oppressed that gender is all, and the pinkoes
> > among us  mouth sympathies at 'em without actually factoring their
>concerns
> > right at the front end of our efforts.
> >
> > No sign of that here just now - but we've all seen examples of this 
>kinda
> > stuff on other lefty channels, eh?
> >
> > Anyway, I'm just avoiding work ...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rob.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.



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