From: "Peter Jovanovic" <peterzoran-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: No Class War, Except In Critical Support?
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 13:22:17 +1000


hi all

my new sparring partner Scott Hamilton wrote:
>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.

i'll echo Andrew Flood and ask you tell us exactly what you mean by 
'critical support'. but yes i do not support 'critically or not' any state 
or would be state such as the FARC.

>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.

the crux of this matter is whether you think proletarians should be forced 
to fight and die for 'their anti-imperialist govt'. anyone who thinks that 
the Iraqi and Serbian conscripts who ended the Gulf and Kosovo wars by mass 
desertion were wrong to do so are not  revolutionaries in any meaningful 
sense because they are opposed to the self-activity of the proletariat.

>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.

a mere three months ago i would have confidently called myself an 
autonomist, now i'm not so sure and prefer communist as a label. one of the 
reasons is this openness to nationalist recuperation that some autonomists 
seem prey to. of course to be fair the autonomists i most admire, Midnight 
Notes, and Harry Cleaver, don't fall into that trap. as to this alleged lack 
of openness to the rich diversity of struggle you are the one who would seem 
to be against Afghanis asserting their autonomy from the Taliban.

here's a snippet from an article about Bordiga by London commies Antagonism 
that sheds some light on this issue. the full article san be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3909/bordiga0.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the superficially orthodox Leninist appearance of Bordiga, there are 
significant contributions that his work and that of the movement he 
represented, offer to the communist movement. His objection to parliamentary 
activity was rooted in a principled opposition to democracy as such. His 
critique of the councilism of Gramsci and others developed into a critique 
of self-management. He also made an important contribution to the 
understanding of the capitalist nature of the Soviet Union. Together these 
aspects of his work provide a vital correction to the errors of councilism 
particularly of the Cardan/Castoriardis variety, but also of the 
German/Dutch communist left, communist-anarchism and the situationists. (The 
opposite could also be said, that the German left, the situationists and the 
communist-anarchists provide vital corrections to Bordigism.)

The work of Bordiga and the Italian left can be regarded, to some extent at 
least, as representing one pole of a continuing dialectic within the 
communist movement. Theoretical and organised communism bases its ideas and 
practice on the real movement of the proletariat in its antagonistic 
struggle against capital. Theoretical communism is an attempt at a 
distillation of the lessons learned by proletarian struggle. However, there 
is a continual contradiction in this endeavour. The learning of lessons from 
previous struggles tends toward an ever more coherent theory manifesting 
itself as a principled
programme. But adherence to this programme necessarily means maintaining a 
critical attitude to proletarian struggles. Therefore what tends to happen 
in practice is that the principled communists tend to become more and more 
distanced from the actual struggle of proletarians. Bordigism as a 
principled movement based on an 'invariant' programme is one of the purest 
examples of this pole (along with the impossiblism of the World Socialist 
Movement).

The opposite pole to this dialectic is represented by such movements as 
Autonomism, and to a lesser extent the councilism of Echange et Mouvement. 
Autonomists in particular make continuous efforts to remain in touch with 
the proletariat's struggle. This unfortunately leads to a continual revising 
of political positions or rather a refusal to hold to any principal. For 
example, the uncritical attitude of many Autonomists to the Zapatistas in 
the Chiapas, shows an unwillingness even to insist on the proletariat's 
autonomy from nationalist movements.

As we have said before, what is needed is a synthesis of the principled 
theory of those influenced by Bordiga, for example, with those tendencies 
that stress self-activity and spontaneity, and which keep in touch with the 
latest developments in proletarian struggle and class composition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
personally i wouldn't dismiss the Zapatistas as readily as Antagonism do but 
i agree with the rest.

>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?

no one on this list has claimed anything like the above. i presume you want 
to allow that Afghans conscripted to fight for the Taliban are engaging in 
class-struggle just by fighting the US. a reasonable analogy is to ask if at 
work i do exactly as i'm told and work as hard as i can am i engaging in 
class struggle?

>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.

which are exactly? surely one of the very worst features of Trotskyism
is the rush to support any dubious national liberation struggle going. for 
all that i may be ultra-ultra-left and sectarian i have not committed that 
error.

>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.

i didn't dismiss "holders of theories of imperialism as 'moronic' and 
'idiots'," rather the idiots and morons are the ones who see anything worthy 
of support in the Taliban. in my debate with Chekov about 'Empire' on the 
L&R list i never called him an idiot. for all our differences on imperialism 
we both hold to a 'No War but the Class War' position. i'm not going to 
recant my abuse of you because i'm sick of having to fight this battle with 
supposed revoultionaries who fall into the nationalist trap.

>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!)

i see you have mastered the cheap trick of disallowing criticism for third 
world movements because they are in a dangerous situation and we are not. 
the mere fact that some movement is in grave danger does not mean that they 
are what the proletariat needs. the Nepalese and Filipino Maoists and the 
Colombian Stalinists you are presumably referring to might call themselves 
Communists but they are certainly not communists. in case you don't 
understand the distinction Communist refers to the Communist Parties and 
communist to those who consider themselves part of the proletarian movement 
for the negation of capital. any communist movement that might develop in 
Nepal or the Phillipines or Colombia would be forced to fight the Communists 
there. which side would you be on Scott?

>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.

given that i don't consider myself either an anti-imperialist or a leftist i 
don't see why such people are my natural allies. the rallies here have had 
speakers who have called for UN intervention but these people weren't at the 
meeting i went to last Tuesday which was dominated by Trots. i wrote 
"however liberal here in Canberra most
people are simply opposed to the war which is a much better place to start 
than anti-imperialism." i wasn't referring to the usual political 
opportunists but rather the people who aren't normally activists who showed 
up to the demos and meetings. to try and organise around 'critical' support 
for the Taliban would almost certainly drive these people away let alone 
those outside the anti-war campaign. but no doubt the AIC's support for the 
Taliban will be well hidden in the usual Trot manner. something i find 
puzzling is who exactly are your anti-imperialist allies? the Oz ISO/SWP 
haven't used anti-imperialist language in their anti-war stuff and i think 
the ISO is the main Trot group in NZ. could your allies be the Sparts, but 
how would they reconcile support for the Taliban with their loudly 
proclaimed support for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

>He claims, after all, that the 'pro-imperialist' >liberal left is a 'much 
>better place' for him to work >than the 'anti-imperialist' left.

there aren't (yet) two spearate anti-war groups in Canberra so i have no 
choice about where to work if i want to get involved in anti-war stuff.

>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.

while Trots may loudly proclaim their anti-capitalist and class struggle 
politics they only want such things if they are properly mediated by parties 
and unions which thus makes them capitalist. i'd really like to form a 'No 
War but the Class War' type group but Canberra is not London and we'd only 
get a handful of people, so i have to work with the single group that 
includes Trots and liberals much as i dislike their ideas.

> >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.

you still haven't exactly told us why anti-anti-imperialism is bad or 
exactly what you mean by anti-imperialism in this particular case.

anti-imperialism is bad because it stops us from connecting with any real 
proletarian movement that might develop.

peter AKA Proyect the Second


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



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