Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:02:12 +1100
Subject: Re: AUT: Historical as against ideological analysis
From: Thiago Oppermann <topp8564-AT-mail.usyd.edu.au>


On 3/16/02 5:07 PM, "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au> wrote:

> 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?
> 

I just don't think this debate is likely to be very productive; I think we
should avoid the dynamic whereby we start discussing possible topics which
might be worth discussing so that we can work out what we should be
discussing....

> 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).

Well, I don't find this to be a very useful observation. Was the USSR
tyranical? Yes. Are corporations often tyranical? Bingo again. So what? The
social systems are in so many ways radically different, the burden of
argument really is on you to show that there are similarities beyond them
both being objectionable.
> 

> 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.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, it's just that I don't see any hope
of moving away from such fruitless arguments merely by pointing out that
they are fruitless. I was serious: lead us by example.

> 
> 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:


How about talking about some concrete stuff for a change? And I don't mean
talking about talking about concrete stuff.

> 
> 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).

Well, how is this for taking a pot shot: 'I personally don't like x
doctrine...a debate on x doctrine is a waste of time and diversion'

> 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.
> 

I am not suggesting that you are rude, only that this debate is barren. On
this note, by the way, I'll shut up...

Thiago



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