Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:40:59 +0000 (GMT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Scott=20Hamilton?= <s_h_hamilton-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: capitalist cuba?


 
Not for the first time, I wonder about the
relationship, or lack of relationship, between Peter's
theory and the realities of political activism.

Mohammad Alam seemed to me to have written a very
reasonable, thoughtful message which tried to defend
certain aspects of Cuban society without apologising
for others. Alam explicitly criticised Stalinism and
acknowledged the complexities of the Cuban situation.
He did not engage in any personal abuse of those who
took a different line on Cuba. Yet Peter has decided
that Alam's piece is 'crap', that Alam is a Stalinist
('icepickhead'), and that Alam exists on the 'other
side' of the class struggle. Peter has made the same
sort of comments about Leninists and social democrats
(he tends to conflate the two categories) on many
other occasions, on this and other lists. 

If Peter's comments have any real meaning for him,
then I assume that he believes that all organisations
and movements with Leninist and/or social democrat
participants are analogous to Popular Fronts, and have
to be criticised and avoided. It would be interesting
to know what sort of political practice he has
evolved, on the basis of such a principle. I noticed
him recently on an Australian e list,  advertising an
'Argentina Solidarity' demonstration in Canberra; did
he seek to exclude Leninists-social democrats like
Alam from that event? Did he intervene at the planning
meeting and demand a ban? Did he question those who
turned up, to make sure they were 'pure'? Why didn't
he note at the bottom of his advertisement that
certain elements were not welcome?

If Peter thinks that Alam is on the other side because
he sympathises with some aspects of the Cuban state,
how could he he treat the 99.99% of Australian workers
who have illusions in one or another aspect of the
Australian state, which is surely as capitalist as
Cuba's? Would they be allowed onto the Canberra
picket?
Does Peter respond to the first sign of statist
sympathy from workers he leaflets or talks politics to
by dismissing their views as 'crap' and characterising
them as being in the bosses' camp? Surely he should,
if he is to live up to his words on this list?

Another person here who intrigues me is Michael
Handelman. Michael began the Cuba thread by asking a
question which relied on an assumption which Louis
Proyect questioned. Instead of engaging with the
interesting discussion which followed this
questioning, Michael sighed magisterially at reasked
his question. 

If Michael has ever tried talking anticapitalist
politics to the working class he will know that one of
the most common responses goes along the lines of
'You're talking about Cuba/Russia/China -
Communism/socialism didn't work there, did it?'
I don't mind this response - it's direct and 
undogmatic,  far better than the euphemisms that
disguise middle class and academic hostility. I
wonder, though, how Michael deals with it. It relies,
after all, on an understanding of societies like Cuba
which is similar to Proyect's. Does Michael simply
turn away, disgusted that anyone could be so ignorant
as to equate statist capitalism with communism, or
does he actually try to have a respectful dialogue
with someone who dares to disagree with him? If he
does the latter offline, then why does he do the
former online?

It's time certain list members had a reality check,
lest they turn into copies of the dogmatists and
sectarians they love to condemn.

Cheers
Scott


 

===="Revolution is not like cricket, not even one day cricket"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


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