From: "Nate Holdren" <nateholdren-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Imperialism = main contradiction?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:42:26 -0500


Scott-
You're right that political talk is only useful if it actually helps us in 
doing politics. I personally disagree with the thesis that imperialism is 
the main contradiction in capitalism today. That said, I do support 
basically everything that you've said re: israel and palestine. I think the 
idea that the palestinians need to wait until the revolution would be 
laughable if it weren't so damaging. A similar idea was present at some of 
the antiwar activities I went to here in Chicago, as if people in 
Afghanistan have time while the bombs are dropping to wait to the for the 
revolution.
At the same time, if the Palestinians win their struggle, even for a secular 
state replacing Israel, that alone won't necessarily be an anti-capitalist 
victory and there will continue to be struggles in that new state afterward. 
In other words, while supporting Palestinians is a worthwhile thing that 
revolutionaries ought to do, it's not in itself revolutionary. A parallel 
would be drives to unionize. I've been involved in work doing solidarity 
work with workers trying to unionize and being denied that right by 
employers. I think this is a worthwhile aim. Sure it'd be better if the 
workers were fighting not for a union but for revolution, but given that 
that's not the case, it'd be better for them to win the union than to lose 
it. That's how I see the situation w/ Israel/ Palestine.
Someone, I think Greg, identified two trends in world capitalism, one 
regressive and one progressive, the first being something like maintaing one 
country (the US) in power, the second being something like Negri and Hardt's 
idea of _Empire_. I'm not sure what, if any, difference these two models 
make to practical work supporting struggles like that of Palestinians and 
worker trying to unionize. I think under both models we should support these 
struggles. The difference, though, is in how we assess those struggles, as 
being entirely opposed to capitalism or as being not necessarily 
revolutionary but still worthwhile.
I hope this clears up how some of us try to balance our ultra-left 'purist' 
tendencies with our practical on the ground organizing work.

Nate

>There has been enough anti-anti-imperialist rhetoric
>on this list to fill the Marianna Trench. It all
>sounds frightfully radical and pure, but it never
>includes anything relevant to actual political
>practice. For instance, nobody on this list has been
>able to formulate any demands based on the
>anti-anti-imperialist perspective applicable to
>Palestine today.
>
>Most of the left calls for one or another type of
>Palestinian state in the Holy land; the best parts of
>the left call for the destruction of Israel and the
>establishment of a secular Palestine in its place.
>
>What is the anti-anti-imperialist alternative to the
>call for the establishment of a Plaestinian state? I
>have asked this question before, but never received an
>answer. Political theory is useless unless it can
>sponsor some sort of political practice - where is the
>anti-anti-imperialist practice, in relation to
>Palestine? Where is the solidarity, and where are the
>demands?
>
>At least Peter has had the honesty to admit to not
>being able to put his theory into practice.
>
>Cheers
>Scott
>
>
>
>====>"Revolution is not like cricket, not even one day cricket"





_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com



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