Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 00:36:28 -0500
From: neil <74742.1651-AT-compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: A Reply to Noam Chomsky


>
>  Chris says;
> The emphasis on abstensionism misses a few things.
>
> First, for most people who do not vote, it is not for the same reasons
that
> we do not vote.  Nor will we convince many people to not vote.  Our power
is
> not in our pedagogical or mass consciousness altering ability.  That is
> little different from Social Democracy and Leninism.
>
> Neil thinks and questions;
>
> You are not a Leninist or Social Democrat because in
> your political work , you are emphatic about defending
> class struggle political positions (e.g. anti-parliamentarianism).
> And what do you do when the non-communist worker asks you
>  about the bourgeois elections?
> Won't you tell him/her your analysis, no holds barred?

Chris says;

This is funny.  Do you oppose their fighting for a wage increase either even
though communism means the abolition of the wages system?  It is one thing
to put forward a call for such minimalist demands, it is another to oppose
them.  But then you believe that there would be no difference between Bush
and Kerry.  IMO, anyone who thinks Kerry and Bush are the same is
delusional.  That does not mean I am voting, since I don't tailor my
politics to the bourgeois event of the moment.  Better to show the real
problems with both parties, with the state and with capital.  It may seem
abstract, but no trap is nastier than the trap of defining one's politic on
their terrain.

Neil says;

You are putting up a smokescreen , i never oppose workers
defending their real day to day interests with their 
own demands against bosses. My questions were fair ones, not hostile,
your clear answers, not sneering and evasions would be welcome. 

Chris says;
 Actually, I was addressing Dave and New Dem.  I personally think that a vote
for Nader is much like any other vote, a sign of relative powerlessness, but
it would indicate something more interesting to see something like an
independent candidate who appealed to people.  Not because it would be good
in itself, but because a more active, public political life would be better
than this.

Neil, looking at possible scenarios.
you may get your wish soon as the world crisis deepens, it will
affect even the USA  more and  bigger sections of the  'middle classes' will
be looking for these 'saviors' even more .This could pose
a danger for the workers activites.

Chris says; 
What's up with the 'multitudes' thing?  And what is wrong with pocket pool?
Are you also against touching yourself?  Another Leftist prude?  And I,
since I have no organizational delusions, speak to people, not forces (real
or imagined.)  And we should all talk to people, but is it my job to
convince 'the masses' one person at a time?  Underneath this is a very
pedagogical politics with little or no distance from Social
Democracy/Leninism.

Neil replies,
Your pocket pool is not such a good thing if you tend
to make a career out of it. Best not to overplay it,
no pun intended.
How do you actually know of my 'pedagogy' on this front
of analysis? Have you read our journal, The New Internationalists?
(Have you discussed with us at any  public event? critiqued
our leaflets, etc. )
Its a nice 38 pager that deals with some of this. It's
only $2.00 post paid . Try it ! You'll like it. (Well some of it
maybe!)
NI, Box 57483, Los Angeles, CA 90057

IGs
Neil



      --


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