From: "commie00" <commie00-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Italy
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 00:32:59 -0400


> > i can't think of any references off the top of my head, but i'll try to
seek
> > them out.
>
> So you have no references but it's just something you "heard".  See, it's
> basicly a falicy spread by anti-syndicalists.

read what i wrote, jamal. i said that i can not think of any off the top of
my head... does this mean that they do not exist? of course not. they do
exist. i've read it in more than one book, including several i'm sure were
by anarcho-syndicalists.

its just history jamal. its the way things have been. you seem to see any
criticism of any types of anarchism you like as somehow either a person
criticism of you, or an attempt to defame anarchists in general. this is
simply not true, and only leads you into defenses of "anarchists" as some
sort of whole that is untendable. anarchists are individuals, and thus they
make mistakes, including mistakes that you would deem unanarchistic.
however, in your apparent puritanism, you just claim that these people (such
as, perhaps from you perception, post-leftists). this is really dangerous.

> > btw, i didn't say this to attack syndicalism, but just to help us keep
in
> > mind that anarchists, like any group of people, are wide and various.
and
> > the switch from anarchism to fascism does not necessarily mean a
weakness in
> > the ideas of anarchism, it just means that anarchists have been victims
of
> > fascist ideology like a lot of people. it doesn't matter if your a
> > post-leftist or a syndicalist.
>
> And it doesnt matter if you are a marxist or autonomist either, right?
> Try to keep some wider perspective.. you tend to get narrow.

what do you mean. of course it doesn't matter if you're a marxist or
autonomist either. ANYONE can fuck up.

case-in-point: i am intensely critical of negri. i think he's made a lot of
critical errors of late, but that doesn't mean he's a total fuck up, and not
a sincere revolutionary. in fact, i have made use of the analysis he
develops with hardt in _empire_ to further my understanding of how
globalization operates, how imperalism is a thing of the past, etc.

however, i do not except what is written in _empire_ in its entirety. i
think the anlysis of "multitude" and "empire" as a class dialectic is full
of errors stimming from their rejection of dialectics, and their not
understanding how the working class exists inside and against capitalism...
instead i think they have retreated into the mystification of class
relations, as have most people who reject dialectics.

this also goes with the so-called "leninist autonomists" (tho i think
calling them leninists is an exageration). there are many who are doing good
work, but i am still critical of things they have taken from leninism.
case-in-point: the article on the arm the spirit website which makes class,
race and gender oppression into three disinct forms of oppression (a mistake
anarchists requently make). this is, in my opinion, a notion which comes
from leninism, which is based in a capital-centered view of capitalism, and
thus defines class as an economic catagory. also: the leninist perspective
loses sight of how capitalism is a recuperating system. that is: it realizes
and supresses all forms of domination and production which come before it.
thus, if patriarchy exists, it is capitalist-patriarchy. and if you look at
capitalism from a working class point of view, which understands that
capitalism IS the class struggle (the capital / labour divide... see harry's
_reading capital politically_), then the struggle against patriarchy /
phallocracy / sexism is intrinsically an aspect of class struggle. (for more
on this, see the selma james article in the most recent bad days will end.)

etc. etc. etc.


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



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