From: "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au>
Subject: Re: AUT: Historical as against ideological analysis
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 14:07:53 +0800


Thaiago, why is it that everyone on this list seems to intervene with a "dig" rather than try and address what has been raised despite how it is being expressed?

Thiago,

In several threads on this list I have raise the historical tendency in the 20th century for the traditional petit bourgeoisie (small property owners) to transform themselves into a large managerial bureacratic "middle class". I have tried to argue that for much of the last century this has been achieved by a radical alliance as can be seen within the history of the communist movement but can also be seen reflected in another radical alliance in fascism.

I have tried to point out that socilly the USSR seems to have prefigured much which now exists in multinational corporate capitalism (large bureacracies, bureacratic planning and a strong tendency towards totalitarianism - to give examples).

I have then tried to reflect this back on the sectarian differences of the present left, the pre-occupation with ideological differences and "branding" (if you like this better) and a general utopianism in terms of action.

I am putting forward two things here.

1) there are class historical reasons why the left is fragment and the process of middle class transformation is still going on - now with the belessings of largely socialiosied capital.

2)the pointless nees of arguing by proxy on the basis that the labels within the left mean anything much at all.

To this there are a number of things which directly stem from this, albeit practical on a very small scale.

1) The need to hieghten the content of debates by paying close attention to the ideas being expressed rather than either the mode of expression or the professed "ideology".

2) Find some common ground not based on contending bodies of theory but in their application. And in terms of my personal practice: 

A)For instance, I personally and theoretically dislike anarchism, but a debate on anarchism is a waste of time and a diversion - this comrade is putting something into practice, even if that practice is restraint. By the way my  list of my dislikes is extensive but pratting on about them is counter-productive, I wish more comrades writing to this list kept in mind that taking cheap shots at contending views is not at all hard and the fact that everyone does not do it is a monument to such restraint (unseen as it is).
B) I have not in any of these posts disparaged anyone for their claimed or attributed "ideological" beliefs, and while I have been less then evenly tempered in many of my remarks I would say in my own defense that arguing by association is common in this list and in my book, at least, it is one of the lowest forms of argument and the least acceptable.


3) Define a practical activity based on where we currently find ourselves (ie on the net discussing things). This is where I would like to take things but so far only one comrade (Nate) has responded directly and I have only suggested this direction without going further.

Yes there are types of activities well worth discussing in detail before anything is done - one of which is putting forward what can be done on the net.

And please do not get abstractions mixed up with ideology, they are two entirely different things - there is nothing terribly abstract about using a catch-all label and condemening people's views by association and straw-man arguments, but I think we would both agree it is a terribly ideological past-time.  I have tried to raise these objections and objectives in a general way, and have adopted a level of abstraction purposefully designed (but perhaps not successfully) to step around some ideological minefields.

There is no escaping using terms associated with ideologies, but it is not the terms being used but how they are being used that is important. I have pointed out a single historical phenomenon which I believe is capable of explaining some of the severe problems that face the left today, that much of history for 20th century was determined (limited) by a radical class alliance, one half of which has dissapated (its radicalism sated by having found a future in accord to the needs of capital) and left us holding the ideological bagage. I don't believe you have to be of any ideological persuasion to concede this (that is if it is percieved in the first place - the historical phenonmenon not its ideological consquences). Yes the idea is abstract but not I think ideological.

To sum up practically in realtionship to this particular list:

First if we could establish a mode of expression that allowed comrades of very different traditions to find what common ground they can rather then raise even more sectarian barriers, then this is the foundation for doing anything else.

Second, if we can talk together productively we can begin nutting out what can be done (given our present orgnisation - ie on the net through this list).

Third if we reach some general agreement about what can be practically done, given our "net" existence - there are some really interesting possiblities arising from this on which I have some very earthy and practical suggestions to make. However, something of both 1 and 2 have to happen to make 3 possible.

I have hope for this list because of its diversity and unsettled nature may be an asset, but before this is possible it must grow past some of the more obvious problems it is having with itself.

Thiago you will probably see this as more self-parody, I cannot help that. I can say that it does cohere as a single concept and one I think does not owe itself to any particular school of thought. If my attempts to express it are ludricious then I will have to live with that, but the thesis is not so easily dismmissed I think.

Greg


--- Message Received ---
From: Thiago Oppermann <topp8564-AT-mail.usyd.edu.au>
To: aut op sy <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:57:36 +1100
Subject: Re: AUT: Historical as against ideological analysis

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 ---