From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: AUT: Re: self-valorisation
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:30:04 +0100



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Geo Maher" <geomaher-AT-yahoo.com>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: 27. februar 2003 15.28
Subject: AUT: self-valorisation


> hello all
> 
> been lurking for a while, but now i have a question. i
> am doing some work on autonomist thought in italy, and
> specifically on its respective theoretical, strategic,
> and tactical elements. however, with relation to the
> specific term "self-valorisation" i am coming up
> against (seemingly) conflicting accounts of whether it
> represents an overall strategic orientation (ie, punto
> di vista operaio) or a tactical element (ie, as the
> positive element of the refusal: self organisation,
> etc). i know that harry cleaver places emphasis in RCP
> on its tactical content, but the use in Negri's
> "Domination and Sabotage" seems vague. 
> 
> Any help would be appreciated. 

Not directly to your question but a question of
a more general nature from what you write above.
Is it very meaningful to draw a clear distinction
between tactical and strategic. Anarchists have
tended to refuse to do so, and I think for rather
good reasons, stressing the intimate relation
betwen means and ends. Added to this, seeing
tactical as something seperate easily lends itself
to instrumental thought.  Some rather bad
historical experiences followed from that.

Harry Cleaver can answers for himself, but my
understanding of his writings suggests he sees
it in much the same way, if expressed in different
words and terms. Am I right in this?

Harald




Harald









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