From: "Nate Holdren" <nateholdren-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: AUT: hindsight
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:08:03 -0500


Thiago-
Well put. I agree. The formulation "oppressors of tomorrow" and the like was 
made in the spirit of Ilan's with Ilan's post that struggles which move the 
revolution further away are not worth while. Which I think boils down to 
counter-revolutionary struggles shouldn't be supported by leftists, a point 
that looks facile when state so baldly. You rightly point out that assessing 
exactly what is and is not counter-revolutionary is sometimes a very complex 
and fallible process and may not be the most useful criteria in all cases. 
The point about fallibilism, that we make our decisions based on our limited 
and finite perspectives and that our attempts at prediction are all a bit 
sketchy is a good one. This also seems obvious and uncontroversial if 
phrased right - that we have to make all our strategic and tactical 
decisions based on info on hand and we have to always be willing to revise 
our decisions and stances as events unfold.

cheers,
Nate

>From: topp8564-AT-mail.usyd.edu.au
>Reply-To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: AUT: Perplexing Ilan
>Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:52:32 +1100 (EST)
>
>Quoting Nate Holdren <nateholdren-AT-hotmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Thiago-
> > I'm replying to your question to me about establishing who tomorrow's
> > oppressors are and to your reply to Ilan's comments.
> > First, "supporting tomorrow's oppressors" may have been an unwarranted
> >
> > rhetorical flourish.
>
>On the contrary, I mean what I said literally. I meant: supporting today 
>people
>who look reasonable and do and say good things, who, due to unforeseen
>developments, become utter bastards. Pretending we are in 1974, Joschka 
>Fischer.
>Pretending we are in 1967, David Horowitz (up to a point).
>
> > In the one example Ilan has given, he talked about
> > not
> > supporting movements that would divide the working class, such as racist
> >
> > trade unionists. I think that's a fairly obvious and really not all that
> >
> > interesting of a point. It's a safe bet that given a chance, racists
> > will
> > probably do something or support somone oppressive. Therefore, if we
> > support
> > racists we're supporting people with ends counter to our own (people who
> >
> > could be overly grandly called 'the oppressors of tomorrow').
> > This isn't a very interesting point, nor a very controversial one. It's
> >
> > really all I meant to say though.
>
>Fair enough; I think this is a good point. My point isn't controversial 
>either.
>I just want to say that it is better to not support racists because they 
>are
>racist, rather than to draw a convoluted hypothesis about the effect of
>supporting racists on the prospects for long-term revolution.
>
> > The example of the german greens is a good one. I'd vote for a green
> > candidate in an election, because I think the green would probably be
> > better
> > than any other candidate (if I voted) in supporting my interests. The
> > green
> > politician still might (probably would) end up being a hated class enemy
> >
> > later, no surprise right?
>
>Depends. Suppose you voted for the AG Greens thinking they were going to be
>pacifists, and then it turns out that they are sending the Luftwaffe out to 
>raid
>the Serbs. There is an element of sheer deception involved; but who knows? 
>There
>were some serious strains in the German government at the time. There was
>the whole circus and the elimination of Oskar Lafontaine. Maybe the Greens 
>could
>have forced a peace line through; perhaps to someone voting in 1997 (is 
>that
>when the elections were - I don't remember) this was a plausible scenario - 
>ie.
>that the Greens would put a stop on war talk.
>
>What they could not have foreseen is the extent to which the rhetoric of
>humanitarian intervention would have spread. Sure it was there, and we can 
>trace
>its history, but the ascent of this discourse to hegemony - to the extent 
>the AG
>Greens would believe in it - was, in my view, surprising.
>
>And how would anyone have guessed the enormous change from this discourse 
>to the
>present war on terror? Anyone, that is, other than Osama bin Laden.
>
>It is easy to make a fundamental stand and not compromise with anything or
>anyone. All you have to do is follow what C.S. Pierce called the method of
>tenacity. Don't open the paper, since it might convince you of something 
>you
>don't want to be convinced of. But the moment you start making choices as 
>to
>whom you want to support partially, who are your tactical friends and foes, 
>who
>is good but needs criticism, who is bad but can do good things - well, then 
>you
>have to be prepared to face the fact that reality can't be settled with
>pronouncements of doctrine.
>
>Thiago
>
> >
> > Nate
> >
> >
> > > >> I am curious how you establish who the oppressors of tomorrow
> > are.
> > > >
> > > > It is easy to predict when you understand class society and the
> > dynamics
> > >of
> > > > blocking of the free-from-authority access of working people to
> > means of
> > > > production.
> > >
> > >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...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> How do we know the trajectory of long-term struggle?
> > > >
> > > > If humans were not able to predict long-range trajectory - the
> > rockets
> > > > would not have reached the moon and the stars.
> > >
> > >...in a way newtonian physics isn't.
> > >
> > >Throwing a rock at the moon is pretty easy physics; there are only
> > two
> > >objects involved, the rocket itself being to small to matter. Three
> > >objects,
> > >however, and you have chaos.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> Has someone worked this out?
> > > >
> > > > About 57 years ago the scientists have already found the dynamics
> > of
> > > > authoritarianism in Humans. (You can even measure it quite easily
> > > > with the appropriate scale.)
> > >
> > >No kidding. Better let the scientists run the show then, he?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> Is there a blueprint somewhere I can check to see which struggles
> > to
> > >support
> > > >> today and which ones to oppose?
> > > >
> > > > People with authoritarian tendencies are searching for
> > "blueprints".
> > > > More flexible people find it more contributing to have a good
> > theory
> > > > with application principles.
> > >
> > >Ok, so there are no blueprints. Tell me, isn't "authoritarian
> > tendency"
> > >something which you observe today? If so, is there also a
> > "inalterably
> > >antiauthoritarian tendency" which we can observe today, which would
> > >guarantee that the anarchists of today won't , in 20 years time,
> > become
> > >slimeballs?
> > >
> > >Don't get me wrong: I share you hope for antiauthoritarianism- I just
> > don't
> > >have faith in it.
> > >
> > >Your original claim was we should not join any movement which ran
> > counter
> > >to
> > >long-term revolutionary goals. I don't see how you can do this unless
> > you
> > >claim to be able to predict , in the long run, what will happen to
> > society.
> > >You now say that you cannot specify what these may be, and instead
> > propose
> > >that we ally ourselves with "antiauthoritarians". Ok, that is wise, but
> > who
> > >is to say that the actions of antiauthoritarians will necessarily
> > bring
> > >forth revolution? It need not be. Antiauthoritarian is a very loose
> > >description, and people change all the time.  So this principle,
> > alliance
> > >with the antiauthoritarians may clash with your first , ie. not
> > acting
> > >against the long-term revolution.
> > >
> > >I think that you have not followed the logic of your thoughts through
> > to
> > >their conclusion. It's not a bad conclusion, it just means we drop the
> > talk
> > >about "revolutionary ends", and the silly stuff about scientists
> > knowing
> > >stuff about human behaviour they don't know.
> > >
> > >Truly antiauthoritarian thought demands justification for the authority
> > of
> > >goals: long term revolutionary goals included. And what did you
> > provide?
> > >Appeals to an analogy to natural science and psychology goofballs.
> > That's
> > >not very encouraging.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> Not even Marx, the arch-teleologist, did this, as Carrol pointed
> > out.
> > > >
> > > > If the new born children were conditioned walking on a clear
> > > > blueprint for walking... we were all of us reptile.
> > > > Ilan
> > >
> > >?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- 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 ---




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com



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