From: topp8564-AT-mail.usyd.edu.au
Subject: AUT: Hindsight was: Perplexing Ilan
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:36:50 +1100 (EST)


Quoting Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba-AT-online.no>:

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thiago Oppermann <topp8564-AT-mail.usyd.edu.au>
> Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:41 AM
> Subject: Re: AUT: Perplexing Ilan
> 
> 
> Thiago Oppermann wrote: "Yes but how can I tell if supporting the
> greens in my local town will, in twenty years time, lead to them
> throwing their lot in with the the bombers? How would anyone
> have guessed the way Joschka Fischer went? ... Human affairs
> are radically unpredictable..."
> 
> The surprising thing would have been if the German Greens
> had _not_ ended up somewhere near where they actually did.
> When all historical experience pointed to that they would,
> then why be surprised. I cannot see anything radically unpredictable
> in this. On the contrary, all too predictable.

Really? Or is this obvious in hindsight only?  Fischer was very radical once 
upon a time. The R.A.F. had nice things to say about him - not that this is any 
reason to like him.

There are plenty of examples of people on the left unexpectedly switching sides. 
David Horowitz, for instance. Sure, we look back and think see that there were 
all these extremely dodgy signs in his writing and behaviour from the late 
1960s, but who could have guessed he'd end up in bed with neonazis? 

What organizations today, which are in a comparable position to the German 
Greens in 1978, do you think will be in a coalition with the social democrats in 
twenty years time? Think of the calculations involved: increased popular 
support to create a voter base, changes in political attitudes over twenty 
years, changes in mainstream attitudes, economic developments in the scale of 
decades, geopolitics, the weather, shifts in cultural attitudes, stuff we can't 
even begin to imagine. 

My point is this: how confident are you, Harald, of the inference that some 
group today will follow a trajectory like that of the Greens.  

Human affairs are very complex and unpredictable; perhaps we can point to 
features of organizations and personality traits which make them more cooptable. 
But we cannot argue backwards from the putative fact of future cooption. 

In other words, would it not be right to have supported the greens in the 1970s, 
insofar as they were doing reasonable and productive thing and were as yet not 
coopted, and then criticize them and finally dump them as they move to the 
right? (Just as it was right to criticise the dodgy signs, which a few people 
perceived very early on.)

Similarly, is it not right to support groups that today look good, but which 
might, due to unforeseable circumstances, look terrible in 2022?


It's not as if we have to choose everything now.


> No less clear, on the contrary, is the question of Leninsm. When
> Leninism conistently has functioned counter-revolutionary
> throughout its history, you have to be a fool not to take pre-
> cautions. There is no particular reason to repeat the same
> mistake over and over again. We are not talking up individual
> persons here, a point that is important ...  And any self-
> declared anarchist may end up a counter-revolutionary as
> well, just as many a self-declared Leninist will end up the
> victim of Leninism.

Yes. But Leninism is arguably pretty horrible even on paper.If you set out to be 
a Leninist, it will be bad if you succeed, probably worse if you don't. There is 
no dodgy inference from unpredictable future states of society required to 
decide Leninism is likely to be a catastrophe. 

Moreover, I don't see a reason of principle why people who say Leninist things 
can't do very good deeds, just as people who say anarchist things can do bad 
deeds


> 
> There are no guarantees in labels. And there are still a lot of
> unanswered questions within the anarchist tradition, as
> there also are within more marxist inspired anti-statist traditions.
> But the question of Leninism has a very, very long time ago
> basically been answered once for all.

Has it? Or was it rather that there were unique historical circumstances? 

> 
> Not everything went well in Spain as you've noticed, but then
> there are not many anarchist around who would defend the
> government collaboration, which hardly is or was part of
> any anarchist theoretical framework .(.. though not even those
> who did take part in this collaboration particapted in the
> violent suppression of workers) But why would anyone call
> themselves a Leninist if they do not as a minimum defend
> the counter-revolutionary politics of of Lenin and the
> Bolshevik party in power, if not in every detail. One must be
> a great fool to trust a group, party or current who does. Why
> collaborate with currents who defend the oppression and
> exploitation of the working class in the name of the working
> class?
> Not everything is radically unpredictable... some
> things are sadly predictable. That there exist well-meaning
> members of Leninist parties/groups, just as there exists
> well-meaning persons within other parties, does not at all
> change the answer to this question. On the contrary.

Of course some things are predictable. The question is th degree of confidence 
we have in our predictions. I believe that the strength of inference required to 
support blacklisting greens and little trots is beyond us.

I think this anti-Leninist attitude is a little ill-conceived: it is as if the 
people in the Leninist parties are reduced to drones - all their actions are 
subsumed to the fact they are leninists, their opinions are rendered meaningless 
by their belief in leninist organisation. I think this is factually mistaken, 
and also unwise.   

Thiago

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


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au


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