From: "Peter Jovanovic" <peterzoran-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Theory in search of practice?
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:03:56 +1000


hi all

Scott Hamilton wrote:
>The most striking feature of the responses to the >piece I posted on the 
>current crisis ('Autonomist >Analyses of the Crisis?') was the ease with 
>which my >promotion of an anti-imperialist line was dismissed by
>those who hold, presumably, to 'post-imperialist' >positions influenced by 
>Empire and similar texts.

as i wrote on the Love and Rage list (paraphrasing Dauve) i am opposed to 
imperialism but i am not an anti-imperialist because that implies support 
for national liberation movements. 'Empire' is a fairly separate issue. i am 
opposed to any assault on Afghanis whether it is by the US alone or 
'Empire'.

>My claims that Afghanistan has a right to defend >itself and that national 
>liberation movements are >worthy of critical support were treated as not so 
>much >incorrect as insane.

like all nations Afghanistan is something of a fiction - there are rather 
Afghani capitalists, peasants and proletarians and their interests are not 
the same. no doubt you would say something similar about New Zealand but 
it's a pity that you like many others can only see an undifferentiated unity 
among the populations of third world states.

>If Osama bin Laden had appeared >to make a pitch for the merciful Allah, he 
>could not >have gotten a more incredulous response!

well unlike you Osama doesn't pretend to be a revolutionary and then turn 
around and give tacit support to anti-proletarian scum like the Taliban. the 
Taliban don't even have any of the limited virtues of previous groups like 
the Viet Cong or Sandanistas. it's sad to see self-proclaimed autonomists 
falling into the usual leninist trap of supporting whatever dubious third 
world movement comes along because there is little of visible interest at 
home.

>Some sociologists of knowledge have developed the >concept of 'blackboxed 
>propositions', or claims that >are so well-established that they are taken 
>for >granted, require no justification. It appears that,
>for many on this list, one or another critique of >anti-imperialism has 
>become 'blackboxed', and that any >arguments which consciously or 
>unconsciously cross its >shadow are doomed to ridicule, if not rebuttal.

a few stray leninists aside Aut-Op-Sy subcribers are communists of various 
tendencies. i'd say an integral part of being a communist is opposition to 
all nationalisms. that doesn't mean we should simply repeat our opposition 
ad nauseam as ideology. we should try and understand various particular 
nationalisms without losing sight of the fact that all nationalisms are 
anti-proletarian.

>I don't want to challenge the above-mentioned >critiques of 
>anti-imperialism directly,

surely if anti-anti-imperialism is so bad you should tell us why.

so much as >wonder about the effect or lack of effect that they >are having 
on the concrete political practice of their >holders. What differences in 
programme and practice >are theories sponsoring? Are those who hold to them 
 >taking part in anti-war activities with an
>anti-imperialist orientation, or do they believe >these activities to be 
>beyond the pale?

i've attended both of the very lame anti-war demonstrations in Canberra  and 
i'll probably go to the organising meeting tomorrow. the anti-war activities 
here are hardly of an anti-imperialist orientation - many of the speakers 
have called for the UN instead of the US to deal with the problem of 
terrorism. despite such reformist crap there is space for an anti-capitalist 
anti-war critique to be made and i really should write a leaflet on the 
subject to give out at the next demo.

If they have >avoided anti-imperialist anti-war activities, have
>they found or created alternative anti-war activities >to join? If they 
>have taken part in anti-imperialist >anti-war practice, then where does 
>this leave their >theoretical repudiation of anti-imperialism?

only idiots would try and organise around 'victory to the taliban'. however 
liberal here in Canberra most people are simply opposed to the war which is 
a much better place to start than anti-imperialism.

>The other day I posted the text of a leaflet produced
>by the ad hoc Anti-Imperialist Coalition here in
>Auckland. I feel uncomfortable with aspects of this
>leaflet, and very uncomfortable with the broader
>politics of some of the constituent groups of the AIC,
>but I feel that there is no sane alternative to
>participating in the coalition.

presumably the AIC involves a lot of Trots. just because we sometimes have 
to work alongside them doesn't mean we have to submit to their crap politics 
like you seem to have done.

>The AIC and the whole anti-capitalist left, then, have >to steer a 'middle 
>way' (excuse my Buddhist jargon, >but at least one member of the AIC is a 
>Buddhist!) >between on the one hand ultra-leftism

i take it you are using 'ultra-left' in the usual Trot way as an insult 
directed against those who advocate an uncompromising communist line against 
their crap politics. i think that for all it's current limitations the 
anti-war movement is worth getting involved but those limitations make it 
even more important that we advocate a genuinely revolutionary position.

>, which would >make it invisible to the mass of the anti-war movement
>by taking it outside that movement, and on the other >hand tailism, which 
>would make it invisible to the >anti-war movement, *inside the anti-war 
>movement*.

as opposed to tailing the reformists you seem to be tailing the Trots by 
signing up to moronic anti-imperialism.

>Is there an analogy here between the AIC's approach >and the way that the 
>Wobblies work with mainstream, >reformist unions?

as i understand it both during their heyday and currently Wobblies seek to 
create independent unions. the Wobblies staunchly opposed all sides in World 
War One - you'd do well to follow their example.

trade unions and nationalism are both forms of mediation of proletarian 
needs but trade unions rarely end up slaughtering proles en masse like 
nationalists usually do. trade union struggles arguably offer much greater 
prospect of independent proletarian action than nationalist struggles.

peter

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp



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