Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:52:53 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Scott=20Hamilton?= <s_h_hamilton-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: AUT: No Class War, Except In Critical Support?



Hi autopsy and Love and Rage,

The debates on critical support and national
liberation are very important, even if following them
properly would constitute almost a full-time task! I
hope I can justify cross-posting, lazy references to
the Communist Manifesto and a somewhat polemical tone
by pleading shortage of time...  

In arguments about critical support for national
liberation struggles and states attacked by
imperialist powers the phrase 'No war but the class
war' has been something of a talisman. Adhering to
this phrase seems, for some at least, to imply
rejecting any notion of critical support. Even those
who are unconvinced by such a rejection seem unwilling
to address the meaning given to the phrase head on:
they express their sympathy for critical support in
apologetic terms, suggesting that unfavourable
circumstances make disloyalty to the magic words
occasionally unavoidable. 

I want to argue that it is *fidelity* to the phrase
'No war but the class war' which should justify
critical support for national liberation struggles
like the Palestinians' and the defence of oppressed
nations like Afghanistan. In support for this view I
want to cite the most-cited phrase of that most-cited
text, the Communist Manifesto, "The history of all
hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles". 

If class struggle really is the motor of history, then
it must manifest itself inside all of the significant
agents of history: it must oil and turn all the wheels
of the machine. It cannot be something which occurs
only at certain, privileged times and places - in 1936
or in 1956, in Genoa or Kronstadt; it must be present
in all times and places.  I consider a recovery of
this recognition to be one of the principal
achievements of autonomist Marxism. What some
autonomist Marxists seem to be having a harder time
accepting is the notion that working class struggle
may appear in the most varying and varyingly promising
contexts and forms: in the armies of oppressed
nations, as well as autonomous workers' collectives;
in seminary schools, as well as in Capital reading
groups; and in nationalist demagoguery, as well as in
Marxist leaflets.

The job of Marxists, surely, is to identify the class
content of social phenomena and to intervene where
they see the opportunity to influence the fate of
struggles which these phenomena are engaged in, not to
wait on the sidelines, mutely postulating ideal
conditions which candidates for their help must meet.
Chris Wright made a point perhaps like this one when
he noted that most people don't have the ability to
choose the forms their politcal struggles take.

Neil (who, admittedly, is not an autonomist Marxist,
but does seem to agree with the people I am criticisng
here) has criticised critical support for Afghani and
Iraqi national self-defence by pointing to the massive
numbers of desertions the Iraqi and Afghani armies
have suffered. In my view, this point strengthens
rather than weakens my position. Is it really credible
to imagine that the deserters only became agents of
class struggle when they left their armies? Were they
robotic killing machines before they went AWOL, any
more than workers are robotic work machines before
they go on strike or occupy their plant?

Evidence for the potential of critical support is
provided by the recent rebellion of Palestinians
against their own leadership, at the refugee camp of
Rafah  (see the report at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,561007,00.html)

Here we have people who have, possibly with the
support of revolutionary theory (the report mentions
the involvement of the Marxist PFLP) followed the
logic of national liberation struggle to the
conclusion of an attack on their own inchoate ruling
class. Did they begin to wage class struggle only when
they made their dramatic attack on Arafat's regime, or
were they waging class struggle inside the national
liberation struggle, against both the Zionist regime
and Arafat's bureaucrats? Is this recent, dramatic
attack a unique, mysterious phenomenon, or an event
which is organically connected to the wider struggle
in Palestine, a product both of the class nature of
the anti-imperialist struggle for Palestinian
independence and the class nature of the contest which
is prompted inside this struggle by the contradiction
between its base and its leadership? 

Those who reject critical support with the phrase 'No
war but the class war' run the risk of abstaining from
class war, in the name of class war. An example of the
sectarianism and irrelevance this fate may hold is
provided by some of the posts of Peter Jovanovich.

In his reply to me on the autopsy list ('re: Theory in
search of practice?', reproduced at the bottom of this
e mail) Peter rails against critical support as the
accomplice of Trotskyism. In his own post, however,
Peter exhibits all of the very worst features of
Trotskyism.

By dismissing without explanation holders of theories
of imperialism as 'moronic' and 'idiots', he reminds
list members of the sectarian manner with which some
Trotskyist groups have made themselves notorious.

When he proclaims that only those who reject critical
support may call themselves Communists, Peter echoes
the absurd exclusivism of those Trotskyist sects that
claim to be the sole and fragile repositories of
Marxist truth. (It would be interesting indeed to see
what the tens of thousands of self-described
Communists involved in real life 'moronic'
anti-imperialist war in places like Nepal, the
Phillipines, and Colombia would make of their sudden
demotion they have suffered, via a computer terminal
located safely in the First World!)

Peter also reminds us of the worst aspects of
Trotskyism with his decision to prefer, for wholly
sectarian reasons, the liberal, pro-imperialist left
over his natural allies on the anti-imperialist left.
He claims, after all, that the 'pro-imperialist'
liberal left is a 'much better place' for him to work
than the 'anti-imperialist' left. Here it seems that
fashionable 'post-imperialist' theories are leading
not to new forms of politcal practice but to a
swapping of an anti-imperialist for a liberal,
reformist milieu. Peter rejects people who believe
along with him in anti-capitalism and class struggle,
yet is prepared to work with those who embrace
capitalism and deny class struggle.

A spectre is haunting Peter's post - the spectre of
Louis Proyect.

Cheers
Scott

PS A couple of qualifications to the above statements:
although Louis Proyect's behaviour on this list  was
very bad, and deserves invocation in any account of
sectarianism, it seems that it is not representative
of him. In any case, people can visit the extensive
archives of his Marxmail site, at
http://www.marxmail.org/, and decide for themselves. I
apologise, too, to any Trotskyists on these lists who
think that I have branded Trotskyism as a whole as
irredeemably sectarian and marginal. I don't hold to
this view, but I do think it is undeniable that the
tradition that takes Trotsky's name has featured some
very sectarian, quixotic outfits. Finally, I don't
mean to imply with the comments made above that
everything Peter has ever posted on these lists is
sectarian and dogmatic. I do however think some of his
recent posts on critical support have been very bad,
and deserve a strong response.   


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

  
 







====For "a ruthless criticism of every existing idea":
THR-AT-LL, NZ's class struggle anarchist paper http://www.freespeech.org/thrall/
THIRD EYE, a Kiwi lib left project, at http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/
and 'REVOLUTION' magazine, a Frankfurt-Christchurch production, http://cantua.canterbury.ac.nz/%7Ejho32/

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free -AT-yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free -AT-yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie


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