Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:35:16 +1100
From: "-AT-ndy" <andy-AT-xchange.anarki.net>
Subject: Re: AUT: Silly perplexing the left


Greg Schofield wrote:

> As for class allegiances they are solid and grow out of the very complexities of life.

And then melt into air, given the simple truth that the bourgeoisie must constantly revolutionise culture?

> Solidly proletarian loyalties can be found in the oddest places and amongst the oddest people

"Gabba gabba we accept we accept you one of us."

> - the question of being for the people or being a game player is not that hard to distinguish.

Really? In some circumstances, perhaps. In others...

Some of the worst crimes in history have been undertaken in the name of the proletariat. In other words, I think a distinction needs to be made between, on the one hand, the effects of people's actions, and, on the other hand, their intentions and/or self-justifications. (I'm sure Marx said something about this yeah?) After all, what politician doesn't justify his or her actions by reference to The Public Good or The National Interest? And how many times have workers been asked to sacrifice themselves with the promise of jam tomorrow? Didn't red, brown and black fascism emerge cloaked in the rhetoric of
'socialism'? Aren't 'socialist' politicians and parties often the ones responsible for implementing neo-liberal policies?

It seems to me that the history of communism is one characterised by constant betrayal and disillusionment, whether these feelings have been sparked by events that occurred in 1917, or 1921, or 1939, or 1956, or 1968 or...

> 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 pretend 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.

I appreciate your generosity Greg, but it's my experience that the line 'We're all comrades here' has just as often been used to stifle debate as it has to promote basic human solidarity. In fact, I think a parallel can be drawn between the notion that 'we're all communists' and the notion that 'we're all australians' or 'we're all brazilians' or 'we're all canadians'. In fact, that's why I tried to draw your attention to Orwell's essay on nationalism (see below).

What purpose does such rhetoric serve? Many, obviously. But (imo) perhaps the main function is to induce conformity, conscious or un-conscious. After all, if *I'm* a communist, and *you're* a communist, and *he's* a communist, and *she's* a communist, and *we're* all communists... well, what *does* that mean, in practice?

Also, as Ilan has pointed out, if one examines the actual history of the left / communism over the last 100 years or so, whatever the rhetoric, it's hardly A Very Brady Adventure is it? Authoritarian socialists often react to references to the long history of their repression of anarchists by accusing anarchists of being pathological - Jesus, won't you guys ever shut up about Kronstadt? - but it seems to me that the real disease is historical amnesia.

Finally, what's a 'pretend communist', and are these any relation to 'pretend anarchists'? When Trotsky was questioned by a group of Syndicalist delegates to the Profintern in 1921 re thirteen anarchists imprisoned in Moscow, he replied that:

"We do not imprison the real Anarchists. Those whom we hold in prison are not Anarchists, but criminals and bandits who cover themselves by claiming to be Anarchists."

Which is a neat way of returning to the point I tried to make initially: who's on what side?

NB. I'm not necessarily referring to individuals in this instance - Anne and Bob and Carmela may be 'Leninists', but that doesn't mean that as an 'anarchist' I can't co-operate with them on *some* level, or that we both can't laugh at the Spartacists.

    ***

"The workers' flag is deepest black
Red flags are just for autocrats
The working class will smash the state
We'll shoot the vanguard while we wait"

[Sung loudly to the tune of 'The Red Flag', apparently by anarchist students in the 1960s]

Well, whatever. More information on 'The Symbols of Anarchy' may be found at:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append2.html

> As for Vaneigem, with whom I am not familiar, well I would not pass a hasty judgement but the quote seems rather naive.

Raoul Vaneigem was a member of the Situationist International (1957-1972). I'm pretty sure that the quote comes from his book *Traité de savoir-vivre à l'usage des jeunes générations* or "The Revolution of Everyday Life". It's available at all bad bookshops and also online at:

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/all/all/pub_contents/5

...Oh, and for what it's worth, I think he was anything but naive. (Well, apart from that incident re the Brooklyn Bridge.)

> Are hierachies in themselves the problem?

I dunno about them being *the* problem, but I think they're definitely *a* problem: who likes to be bossed about ...all the time?

> This seems a fairly childish fixation

Even if it were a fixation (of whose?) I don't think it would be childish. In fact, I'd argue that the desire to live freely is the wellspring of revolutionary thought and action. Well, I would argue that, 'cept I'd probably sound like a wanker.

> as all sorts of hierarchies can be created for all sorts of reasons, some of which I would be most in favour.

Hmmm, an interesting proposition. Why class? Why the state? Don't Marxists maintain that these structures arose out of necessity - given an expanding human population requiring more resources in a situation of relative scarcity, more intense forms of the exploitation of Nature developed, forms that required increasing levels of specialisation, leading to stratification and the emergence of classes and the state...? Which is a kinda round-about way of suggesting that *maybe* some forms of hierarchy are justified, but that all require justification, and most fail the test.

> I would rather be a passenger on a plane under the expert hands of the pilot than attempt to fly the plane by committee.

Er... I think you're confusing 'hierarchy' with 'authority'. What makes the pilot an expert? I would've thought that it was the fact that her demonstrated ability to fly a plane is one not shared by her passengers. I mean, I understand your point, but I don't see it as being evidence that a determined resistance to hierarchy is silly or immature. In other words, when the plane lands on the tarmac, are our only alternatives technocracy (expert) or bureaucracy (committee)?

> I assume the quote was used for its reference to playfulness,

- yes -

> I would have thought it more petainent not to take our selves all that seriously - but this could be playfulness as well.

Um, I'm not sure what you mean. What could be playfulness "as well"? The desire not to take ourselves too seriously?

> 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 stalinesque view

> of either you agree with everything we say or you are on the other side).

Two things. First, even if there are only two sides to the war (boss v. worker) and multiple ways of fighting it (knife, gun, cream pie) it remains possible for a means of fighting for one side to be transformed by events into a means of supporting the other. For example, some people argue that, whatever their original function, contemporary unions serve to confine workers' struggles to those channels consistent with the ongoing reproduction of capitalist society as a whole rather than promote their expansion into a more general contestation. This raises a more general question, which is that if someone is
pursuing a course of action that you believe is contrary to the interests of the working class, may they still be considered to be 'communists'? Or, what places someone on the side of the working class other than their own belief?

Secondly, Orwell's essay examines a certain 'attitude of mind' he dubbed 'nationalism':

'By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad." But secondly -- and this is much more
important -- I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and
recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.'

In this context, examples of 'nationalism' include 'Neo-Toryism' (a "positive nationalism"), 'Communism' (a "transferred nationalism"), Trotskyism (a "negative nationalism"), even 'class feeling'.

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

So, no real disagreement there I suppose?

> 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.

Yeah, which is why I generally tend not to dash things off. I mean, I have enough problems understanding other people's ideas without having to contend with the additional problem of them being poorly expressed, a problem which can usually be fixed with a little (more) time and effort. In short, expression good comprehension easier makes.

> Obviously I rather now regret the expression I used seeing it has led to so much banter but no real substance.

Down with Banter®! Long live 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 impeccable christians whom I would call communist though they would disavow any such title).

Yeah, well I'll see you and raise you 10: I know some Catholics who are avowed anarchists.

TV party tonight!
TV party tonight!

-AT-ndy.



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