Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:57:36 +1100
Subject: Re: AUT: Historical as against ideological analysis
From: Thiago Oppermann <topp8564-AT-mail.usyd.edu.au>


Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this itself a rather abstract and
ideological argument? Are we meant to sit around here and discuss what
"types of activities work"? Or rather: discuss whether discussing this would
be productive. 

This is bordering on self-parody. Please lead by example, Greg.

Thiago


On 3/16/02 12:24 PM, "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au> wrote:

> Nate how true.
> 
> I mean this for as far as I am concerned in a short paragraph you have hit the
> nail on the head.
> 
> Lets make a few assumptions.
> 1) Not only are the problems not resolvable ideological, they are not
> ideological problems in the first place.
> 2) Within each ideological "set" there are class friends and class enemies.
> 3) Continual ideological disputation (disputes which hieghten differences)
> serves only the class enemies.
> 4) Practical activity does not assume ideological conformance, and because of
> this promotes working unities of class friends.
> 
> These four points should only be taken as general indicators and are made more
> for the sake of argument then attempting to present some finalisied thesis.
> But if we do assume them then we are lead fairly directly to your paragraph
> below.
> 
> 5) What type of activities work, bearing in mind we start this discussion on
> an internet list (it must make this as its reference point otherwise it ceases
> to be practical).
> 
> Nate I would be vitally interested, though there seems no great point being
> made here to whether you find this logic accptable and in keeping with your
> own response - if it is I have some further suggestions to offer and tease out
> the logic of the above a little further.
> 
> Greg
> 
> --- Message Received ---
> From: Nate Holdren <nateholdren-AT-hotmail.com>
> To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:15:11 -0500
> Subject: Re: AUT: Historical as against ideological analysis
> 
> hi Greg-
> I wonder how this call for unity could play out. If it's true that a lot of
> disagreements aren't resolvable at the ideological level but only at the
> historical and practical then it's probably most productive to pick a
> situation or situations and talk about that?
> nate
> 
>> From: Greg Schofield <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au>
>> Reply-To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>> To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>> Subject: AUT: Historical as against ideological analysis
>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:19:53 +0800
>> 
>> After haviong some pointless debate in another thread I would like to draw
>> attention to a simple and unedifying habit of the left.
>> 
>> Using ideological labels and arguing against the label.
>> 
>> Not good comrades, but all too common.
>> 
>> Many of on this list make free use of the label "leninist" as shorthand for
>> a laftiosm which is felt to lead to authoritarian statist solutions which
>> crush the human spirit. There is nothing wroing with this as far as it
>> goes, but how far does it go?
>> 
>> It may be prefectly legitimate and useful to use this to classify a whole
>> set of ideas, a number of related faults in theory and particular political
>> stances. I have no problem with this at all. On the otherhand it can be
>> used as an empty label, where all things that are disliked, or associated
>> with what is disliked can be conveniently dumped - I have real problems
>> with this.
>> 
>> Arguing against labels follows this latter pattern, in a sense it is a
>> number of associations which are being argued against, some no doubt are
>> closely historically linked, but may not actual be closely related (in
>> terms of cause and effect), likeswise the label can be so generalisied that
>> it is not specific at all - the "Leninist" against which so much is being
>> argued becomes a fiction, something so bodey-man-like it can fit anyone and
>> no-one.
>> 
>> My impression is a little of the latter is happening and that it is a
>> common trap of reducing important questions to all become ideological ones.
>> Against this I would place a historical analysis, looking at all the same
>> things (statists, command economies, oppression, repression, failure,
>> horror and all the rest) but seeking answers at a different level of
>> analysis.
>> 
>> Elsewhere in this list I attempted to specifiy this as a general tendency
>> within the 20th century for the petit bourgeoisie to abandon pribvate
>> property and become managers and bureracrats. I would point out that at
>> various points this has been a radical movement (not necessarily a good
>> one) and could explain striking similarities to aspects of fascism (for
>> instance), Sovietism and modern corporations.
>> 
>> In otherwords, the apparent richness of ideological differences is
>> underpinned by a significant historical shift in class forces. To this
>> degree that some "leninists", "anarchist", "libitarian", "stalinist",
>> "Maoist", "Trotskist", etc etc etc ad infinitum, tendencies and ideological
>> manifestations reflect this radical petit bourgeois. Hence "post-modernism"
>> etcs may also find their place alongside "national socialism" and much else
>> beside.
>> 
>> From this standpoint while agreat deal of hay can be made of ideological
>> positions, the truth may be that such ideologies refelect many different
>> things besides radical middle class aspirations. That is that much might
>> not be resolvable at the ideological level at all.
>> 
>> If we were to shift focus based on such a perspective, much that we take
>> that separates us at ther moment may well dissolve itself into merely
>> differing traditions of thought and perhaps not much more. On the
>> otherhand, others who appear to be our co-thinkers and allies may well in
>> class terms be no such thing. I am not suggesting a witch-hunt but rather
>> the need for re-alignment and a lot of good will and honest sorting-out of
>> differences.
>> 
>> I will however, go another step with reference to another thread. The class
>> alliegances might not all be that difficult to determine, after all at such
>> a time of near completre dissarray of the left, only two logical positions
>> seem pereceptable. Those who whish to mainatain the often false
>> distinctions which are symprtoms of the left's decline have an interest in
>> that decline and by extension an interest in maintaining the social
>> condition where by the middle class under prevailing forces gains mor and
>> more of a bureacratic foothold within society (not withstanding their
>> avowed disapproaval). Against this, as again reflecting the class forces as
>> they are now are all those who want to move past the impasse, destroy
>> sectarianism, and explore the areas of porudctive unity despite the dead
>> hand of traditional alliegances.
>> 
>> Of this second impulse the working class, largely defeated, has a definite
>> interest in a political regroupment, not despite the classes disinterest in
>> the left but rather because this disinterest is the heart of the problem.
>> 
>> Sometimes in history the way the cards fall, the class position of people
>> is as clear as glass. The test is simple and straightforward, the
>> objectives pregiven and obvious.
>> 
>> I ask comrades to give serious thought to the issues raised here, the idea
>> is not difficult, the proof easily rendered from personal experience. Even
>> a small list such as this, which is blessed with diversity just as much as
>> it is cursed by it, provides grounds for begining the shift of emphaisis
>> towards something more productive.
>> 
>> However, such a shift must begin with self-criticism, we must individually
>> and collectively become conscious of those assumptions and practices which
>> contribute to the problem (no one escapes this) and then become determined
>> to rectify them.
>> 
>> This list would be a fine place to begin because unlike most others which
>> have settled into like minded comforts, this list is very diverse (partly
>> reflecting that it is relatively new) and the lack of common assumptions
>> may well be a great asset if we collectively address the problem in a
>> serious manner.
>> 
> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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