From: "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au>
Subject: Re: AUT: Perplexing left silliness
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:42:05 +0800


Andy  what I said is not so hard nor as a contradictory as you appear to read into it.

As for class alliegences they are solid and grow out of the very complexities of life. Solidly proletarian loyalities can be found in the oddest places and amongst the oddest people - the question of being for the people or being a game player is not that hard to distinguish.

As for my comments about being all communists under one flag - that was actually my attempt to be generous - that is I consider as a communist all those who are for the proletariat as my comrades whether they view this the same or not (being a communist, a real communist rather then a prentend one, is my highest individual praise - I thought this was obvious given my clear bias on the issue). Again I feel you are reading far more into this statement then was intended.

As for Vaneigem, with whom I am not familiar, well I would not pass a hasty judgement but the quote seems rather niave. Are hierachies in themselves the problem? This seems a fairly childish fixation as all soughts of hierachies can be created for all soughts of reasons, some of which I would be most in favour. I would rather be a passanger on a plane under the expert hands of the pilot then attempt to fly the plane by committee. I assume the quote was used for its reference to playfulness, I would have thought it more petainent not to take our selves all that seriously - but this could be playfulness as well.

Now Orwell references on the other hand are always good and though I cannot recall the article directly I know how he bucked against the simplicity of that there are only two sides to the question - but this is not what I am saying - there may be only two sides to the war (between classes) but I can't see how that translates to there being only two ways of conducting the war (which I think was what Orwell would have been referring to - the rather simplistic stalinisque view of either you agree with everything we say or you are on the other side).

Perhaps the point of all these posts is not to make too much of the limitations of expression and attempt to understand the meaning of what is said - after all dashing these things off does not lead to the best use of language or always the clearest forms of argument.

Obviously I rather now regret the expression I used seeing it has led to so much banter but no real substance. I regret the mode of my expression but not the intended sentiments, which I stick to _ I consider all those on the side of the working class and struggling for the working class to be comrades however much I disagree with their views (to this end I know some impeccible christians whom I would call communist though they would disavow any such title).


Cheers Greg

Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/)
* Powerful filters.
* Create you own headers.
* Have email types launch scripts.
* Use emails to automat your work.
* Add comments on receive.
* Use scripts to extract and check emails.
* Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions.
* LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX.
* A REXX interpreter is freely available.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________



--- Message Received ---
From: "-AT-ndy" <andy-AT-xchange.anarki.net>
To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:35:12 +1100
Subject: Re: AUT: Perplexing left silliness

"An efficiently hierarchised army can win a war, but not a revolution; an undisciplined mob can win neither. The problem is how to organise without creating a hierarchy;... the only safeguard against authority and rigidity setting in is a playful attitude."

-- Vaneigem

In plain English:

It seems to me to be contradictory to maintain that, on the one hand, "we" are part of the communist movement, wave the red flag and are on the side of the working class, and on the other hand, to claim that reality may not be reduced to simple formulas.

Another problem: that, in the context of a discussion of the left / sectarianism, one of the key issues is precisely who is on what side, and are there only two? (Orwell made some interesting remarks about this in 'Notes on Nationalism' I think.)

Seriously,

-AT-ndy.

PS. Why do your posts go way over there >?



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


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