From: "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au>
Subject: Re: AUT: Silly perplexing the left
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:47:34 +0800


Life is too short for this nonsense.

You win, I lose - bye, bye Andy


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: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:35:36 +0800
Subject: Re: AUT: Silly perplexing the left

Greg Schofield wrote:

[snip]

> And on top of this you deliver:
>
> "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"
>
> Well what can I say compared to finding superficial and spurious differences, what a blessing this has had on debate. And what a fine example you present in this dismal thread. Ironically this started with me venting my spleen at childish labeling and its bedfellow arguing by association by selective historical reposte.

Uh-huh. Well, I'm not even really sure what the above means - do you vent your spleen so as not to have to get up later from your bed on those historic occasions when you choose to take a nap? - but my own 'intervention' was prompted by what I thought was a fairly glaring contradiction between claiming that on the one hand 'we all live in a red submarine' etc. and on the other hand claiming that trying to reduce theory to formulaic expressions such as these is misconceived.

> And then out of the blue, along comes Kronstadt, accusations that I am authoritarian,

When did I accuse you of being authoritarian?

> that by trying to extend some kind (however ill advised) invitation to grow past name calling that without ever having uttered a word against anarchism, you say:

Name calling? I'm not the one who declared that "there is only one flag and it is red", "one name and it is communist" and "either you are on the side of the working class or you are not"! I mean, if you bothered to read the anarchistfaq you might have discovered that there's more than one flag, we don't all consider ourselves 'communists' and, as Scott says, revolution isn't a cricket match.

    ***

"The general drift away from the red flag towards the black must be placed in [its] historical context. During the later part of the 1870s and in the 1880s the socialist movement was changing. Marxist social democracy was [becoming] the dominant socialist trend, with libertarian socialism going into decline in many areas. Thus the red flag was increasingly associated with the authoritarian and statist (and increasingly reformist) side of the socialist movement."

As far as I'm concerned, it still is, which is why I'd rather fly  the black flag.

Not that any of this symbology really matters, of course ;)

> "Authoritarian socialists often react to references to the long history of their repression of anarchists by accusing anarchists of being pathological"
>
> I suppose this is attributed to me.

And you'd be wrong.

> But I will make it simpler for you there is a pathology here but I don't think it has much to do with anarchism.

"Dr. Landy says I should just smile more but sometimes I just wanna..."

> I especially like how you took my illustration by what I meant by issuing the invitation, by reference to some christians as:
> "Yeah, well I'll see you and raise you 10: I know some Catholics who are avowed anarchists."

Yes, further proof that I'm insane. (Btw, they're otherwise known as the Catholic Worker Movement, and when they're not playing poker they spend at least some of their time turning swords into ploughshares.)

> And let me not forget the incisive comment:

> "TV party tonight!
> TV party tonight!"

Yeah, that's the chorus line from a song by a band called Black Flag - somebody wrote that they'd been listening to Black Flag and I thought that they might appreciate the gratuitous reference. (I could make a gratuitous reference to Bob Dylan if he's more your vintage.)

> But what is really precious beyond words is your statement:
> "Down with Banter! Long live Real Substance!"

Yeah I apologise for that. I think I've spent too much of my life reading The Worker's Vanguard, and find it hard to resist the temptation to reduce everything to a slogan...

Down with Mindless Sloganeering! Long live Invitations to Grow Past Name Calling Without Ever Having Uttered A Word Against Anarchism!

> Real substance, and down with banter indeed.

Harrumph!

> I did however enjoy your quotes from Orwell, but even Orwell is not a God and in this tiny detail I disagree.

Bless you my son.

> Finally Andy your statement in repsonse to mine that:
>
> >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."
>
> You mean this is the result of fully worked out, considered, properly drafted and edited response which has taken time and effort to prepare?

Yes and no. I actually copied it from the guy sitting next to me.

> I hope that you are exaggerating. I mean if this is what you choose to spend so much of your energy on, may I ask: Towards what end?

By all means.

> Is this meant to edify me or the list?

I'm tempted to make some dumb joke about Iron Maiden at this point but I doubt anyone but me would find it amusing.

> Do you expect me to simply throw up my arms at as series of vaguely associated accusations, or members of the list rejoice in this attempt at political posturing?

What was that Greg? The thunderous applause seems to be drowning you out.

> I mean this last charge seriously,

And believe me, I take it seriously.

> "posturing" because you have not addressed anything I have in fact said, or intended to say, by any fair reading of what I have written, what you have choosen to do merely pick up phrases and impune views that are no-where stated.

That's not true. For example, after having declared that we're all communists, you then proceeded to made a distinction between 'real' communists and 'pretend' ones: I asked - 'What's a pretend communist?'.

You claimed to know nothing about Vaneigem, and in response I informed you that he was a member of the SI, had written a book called 'The Revolution of Everyday Life' (from which my quote was drawn) and even provided a link to it so that you could find out more (if you so desired).

You asked 'were hierarchies the problem' and I said I thought that while they weren't necessarily *the* problem, they were nevertheless a central concern and (imo) were a source of many people's revolutionary aspirations. (I also provided what I believed to be a Marxist account of the origins of classes and the state but it seems you would rather pass over this in silence.)

You qualified your claim that there were only two sides in the class war by noting that this didn't necessarily mean that there were only two ways of prosecuting it. I asked if it was possible for some means of prosecuting this war to be counter-productive (ie., to be in the interests of the class enemy), in which case, how was one to determine who was on the side of the proletariat? "Or, what places someone on the side of the working class other than their own belief?"

In fact, I'd say that I responded to *everything* you said! But if you think I've misconstrued any of your statements, you're free to elaborate on why.

> If this is your idea of playfulness, what is your idea of fun - pulling wings off flies?

Hey, what a great idea!

> Andy I don't usually take this tone with anyone, but in this case I think it justified. Of course you take some small satisfaction in exposing me as something of a political prig, but to tell the truth this is one of my milder vices and I would readily admit to it anyhow.

Well there's no use denying something that's patently obvious is there?

> How about going through any of my other posts to this list and arguing with something of a little more substance than this.

OK, but only if you first agree to go through my previous post and attempt to address the issues *I* raised.

> You mentioned unionism below I have at least one post on that topic which directly answers your position.

Yeah well, one thing at a time Greg.

> As far as I can make out the entire point of this exercise can be condensed into a single sentence "Communist bad, anarchist good."

Then I think you haven't really been paying enough attention.

When I make a reference to Marx's observation that 'All that is solid melts into air' in response to your claim regarding the seeming solidity of class allegiances that "grow out of the very complexities of life", I'm also referring to the purpose of the aut-op-sy list: "to provide a forum in which to explore the changing nature of class composition and class struggle within the planetary work machine".

According to you, class composition is "solid" and determining who is 'for the people' or 'a game player' is a straightforward exercise.

I disagree.

You claim that distinguishing who's on 'our' side is a simple question to resolve.

I disagree.

You claim that declaring that 'we're all communists' is unproblematic and merely a generous gesture on your part.

I disagree.

Further, I've attempted to spell out *why* I disagree. Instead of reducing my reasons for doing so to even further simple formulas - 'Communist bad, anarchist good' - why don't you address these issues?

Some of my best friends are communists,

-AT-ndy.



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


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