File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0112, message 1


From: "cwright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Subject: AUT: Re: re: the real movement definition again
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:28:42 -0600


Harald,

I'm happy to drop this for now, in so far as I don't really disagree with
most of what you said.  Its a shame you think I disagree with you on this.
Let me say a few things and then I will drop this for now.

1.  I do not think of consciousness as separate from activity or as
irrelevant.  Rather, I do not think that consciousness generally precedes
activity in a mass or people.  However, if that mass does not become
conscious in the course of struggle, then capital (in this or that form)
will provide a consciousness and the struggle will be defeated.  I don't
think we disagree on that.

2.  The self-activity of the class necessarily involves consciousness.
Communist self-activity requires the development of a mass consciousness.  I
am worried that while you pose capitalist consciousness as imposed in a
myriad of different ways, you tend to see consciousness in general as
imposed on workers.  rather, the conditions of life will put workers
materially (and therefore at least partially consciously) against capital.
Our relation to the rest of the class is less as consciousness raisers than
as people who exists to try and polarize and clarify a consciousness which
is already coming about.  Marx sees the working class as the revolutionary
class in part because revolutionary consciousness will come from the working
class, NOT the middle class or bourgeois intellectuals.  So do I.  In your
opinion, fascism was a part of the working class, btw.  IMO, it was
predominantly a middle class movement.  That is another can of worms.

3.  I like the last two paragraphs a lot.  Contrary to the idea the I am
separating consciousness and practice (since all practice in human life
involves thought), I am opposed to the privileging of consciousness
separated from practice, which I sometimes think you do.  Our consciousness
arises from within the human social relations we find ourselves within.
That is why bourgeois ideology will dominate while we live in bourgeois
society.  The process of defetishization however, which I see as a key way
of conceptualizing this, involves the totality of human practice, which
includes consciousness.  We do however disagree on the conclusions we draw
from this and we both see each other as in some way opposed to what we both
nominally agree to.  I could prolly find some e-mail where I have made
almost exactly the same argument you make in the last 5 or so paragraphs.

Which means we may be arguing about something else here than our arguments.
Maybe we suffer from 'lingering after effects of an old argument-itis'.
Anyway, I am also reading some more in-depth material on the IWMA, so maybe
we can exchange notes some time.  Unfortunately, I am reading Negri's Empire
at the moment and it is annoying me to no end.  But I said I would bite the
apple, no matter how sour, again.

Cheers,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:01 PM
Subject: AUT: re: the real movement definition again


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwright <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
> To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> Date: 29. november 2001 4:01
> Subject: AUT: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the real movement definition
>
>
> Chris, I willl not enter further into any discussion about the
> First International.  I may or may not follow up the discussion
> about the devolopment of social democracy with Commie00.
> I do not know. What can generally be said about the First
> International is that is a topic where very many have strong
> opinions but on which hardly any has a comprehensive know-
> ledge. I include myself among the semi-ignorant here. I am
> tempted to finally go the task more systematically, both because
> I am sort of fed up with this generalised level of ignorance on
> this recurring topic (even if with decreasing significance) but
> also because it is interesting period. What I would be
> foremost interested in is however what happened at the
> local level within the sections. I have a pretty clear picture of
> the Spanish section  ... but when I go to the others, my
> knowledge decreases drastically.
>
> You write:
>
>     This whole question of 'the real movement' is important,
>     Harald, exactly because all of our discussions over
>     the last few months since 9/11 have revolved around exactly
>     how that plays out.  In this way, the discussion of the real
>     movement is very current and at the heart of our
>     disagreements.
>
> You also say:
>
>     I am stubborn on this because it relates to how we under-
>     stand the movement to a new society: is it the result of the
>     self-activity of the class, of which our activities and ideas
>     form a part, or is it a product of consciousness, a 'communist'
>     consciousness brought about by 'the vanguard party'?  In
>     essence, I am saying that we (you and I and Marx) really
>     agree.
>
> We do agree on that communism can only come about
> through  the self-activity of the class. I also believe that
> a degree of communist consciousness already exists
> and has always done so. That no society could exist for
> long without it, not even a capitalist one. But I would also
> claim that the self-activity of the working class (or part
> of it) can bring us fascism, in particular in periods with
> a high level alienation.
>         Self-activity is fine. But it matters if that self-activity
> consists in beating up people "who are not like us"
> or if it consists of practical solidarity. Both acts will
> change people's consciousness. But given that human
> beings are not robots each of these acts will also be
> preceded by consciousness. The subconscious is also
> involved for sure, but there is no way you can base a
> free society on that alone.
>         As far as I can see, you tend to restrict the concept
> of consciousness to an individual level, rather than seeing
> its social dimensions. The combined impact of the world
> of media is very much a socio-material reality. Thousand
> upon thousands of Afghan refugees being formed in
> Quran schools since early childhood backed up by the
> power of money from Saudi Arabia and The United
> Arab Emirates, as well as by Pakistani public founding
> also very much is so.
>         Similarily the many meeting places of the old working
> class movement as opposed to the increasing level of
> atomisation of today, is very much socio-material conditions
> affecting consciousness. And it matters! Long before
> 1936 the combined circulation of the CNT and anarchist
> press in Spain was greater than that of the bourgeois
> press. And it mattered, just as all their Atenos did, where
> evertything from jazz, film, biology and revolutionary
> politics etc, etc could be, and was discussed. Places
> for learning, laughter, theatre and more convert activies.
>
> Similarily there is an incredible level of intellectual activity
> involved in any wildcat strike, before during and after.
> Every worker on the shopfloor knows that consciousness
> does matter. It is only "intellectuals" who are able to
> abstract so much from reality that they can convince them-
> selves that this is not so.
>
> I find yours (and I believe also Commie00's) tendency to
> pose consciousness and praxis in two different worlds,
> rather than in one of interaction, to be a complete
> abstraction. To me it is also very strange this tendency
> to equate the concept of consiciouness with some self-
> defined and eternal vanguard, rather as something growing
> out of a far wider collective process of critical dialogue,
> ideally fully generalised. The later by the way brings us
> to the core of Bakunin's concept of consciousness,
> knowledge, freedom and solidarity. The watchword of
> IWW, "an injury to one is an injury to all, " understood
> not just as a moral imperative but as a fact of life, is
> based on the same understanding.
>
> I find a tendency within autonomist marxism to on the
> theoretical level embrace a form of super-anarchism, I
> personally also find unmateralistic. As social animals
> we do influence each others whether we like it or not.
> So we should try to do it in the most constructive way, and
> yes, try to forward our ideas. What is more, vanguards
> are not only a unavoidable fact of life, but something
> we should view as something positive. What is negative
> is when vanguardism ceases to work both ways, when
> it becomes onesided rather many-sided. But there is
> always someone who takes the initative, who comes up
> with an idea first, have more knowledge on a particular
> topic, or more skills within a certain area. This
> increases our combined freedom as long as it is not
> turned into frozen hierarchies.
>
> There are two sides to the question of the "real movement".
> One and probably the least interesting, is what Marx "really"
> meant with it, and I think you are right in saying that he
> thought about it as a motion, as a verb, but I am not so sure
> that changes anything very much. I actually wholly agree that
> Marx understood the movement  as more than just "our party."
> The other thing is how it will tend to be understood and (mis)used.
> The third question is of course if the concept has any real
> meaning beyond  what happens happens.
>
> If we say it teaches us to not intervene, then we at the same
> moment set ourselves outside the working class. And we at
> the same time reduced it to some kind of scientific object.
> This can logically entail two things (though as people tend
> to be inconsequent this is not given) either complete passitivity
> or, and here enters Leninism, see the working class as an
> object to be manipulated. Motion becames another term
> for natural law.
>
> Let me go back to the following: "I am stubborn on this because
> it relates to how we understand the movement to a new society:
> is it the result of the self-activity of the class, of which our
> activities and ideas form a part, ...."
>
> I have absolutuely nothing against the above formulation. I
> just found it meaningless to think of this process outside of
> consciousness. On the contrary I believe such a process
> involves an ever-increasing level of counsciousness about
> how, why, where, with the usual set-backs of any learning
> process. So thus I find the second part of the sentence pretty
> meaningless "or is it a product of consciousness, ....."
> To be fair, you continue, " 'communist' consciousness
> brought about by 'the vanguard party'?"  But from a classical
> anarchist understanding of consciousness such a way of
> posing the question becomes meaningless, as classical
> anarchism assumes  that the level of consciousness that
> can be reached by a few is lower than what can be reached
> through the participation of all. And as such full communist
> consciousness can only be reached through all.
>
> Harald
>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005