From: "steve again" <stopera-AT-operamail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:33:56 +0100
Subject: Re: AUT: A Reply to Noam Chomsky


Hi Chris,

There's a few things I'd question in what your saying here.

> The emphasis on abstensionism misses a few things.

Sure!

> 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.

Yes. But agitation is also a way of talking to people, of saying "this is what we think this means. This is what we think people not voting means."

> Second, voting is not the worst thing that people do.  Being involved in
> active electioneering is a whole different ballgame.  Supporting Nader and
> or asking him to lead an abstention campaign we are too tiny to lead is
> worse than voting, as it sows more illusions.  

um, yes

> Voting does not stop anyone
> from going on strike or doing most other activities.

Not as such, but certainly socialdemocratic politics says, "don't take illegal or hazardous action, wait till election time and get your representatives to sort it out for you." This ideology does not exist in a vacuum nor entirely seperate from all workers. Some people do go along with this, and will attempt to dissuade others from acting in their own interests.

> Third, in a period like this, it is unclear what abstaining means to most
> people.  More likely depression and disgust than active refusal or
> resistance, judging by the abscence of other actions.

Yes, but people who argue for abstention also try to put it in some oppositional or radical context. So the isolated but mass disengagement that happens now is interpreted as something that is negative to the status quo.   Abstensionism tries to ally this already existing disengagement with some other activity. Its not (always) just a championing of non-participation in elections, but also an attempt to relate to what some people are really doing, as well as to dispel illusions of others. That doesn't mean its not problematic, but I think you are caricaturing the arguments here.

> Fourth, why do Leftists have this overbearing need to tell people what to
> do?  I know it is more work to show how, even if they are different, Bush
> and Kerry  are each in their own way working to defend capital, but it is
> more interesting.

Yes, but you seem to turn this around and say, "don't tell people what to do" - I think you've said this in other mails anyway. But does this not-telling-people-what-to-do only apply to yourself and to Leftists, etc, or is it a general position that no one should tell anyone what to do? I'm thinking in a practical struggle strikers might tell others not to cross their picket line, or beforehand might tell their fellow workers that they should strike too. Its easy to think of any collective activity where one group tells another what they should be doing. I doubt that you mean to prohibit this kind of activity, this kind of telling, so, are you yourself also allowed to tell people what to do, or do you see yourself as somehow completely distinct from the mass of people in this respect? I think in the latter case this is elitist and obviously again sets the few of "us" as being superior to the mass of "the rest".

I'd say, you're right that Leftists tell people what to do too much. Most Left groups and most Left people think they have to have a position on everything, a line, a recommended course of action. But a lot of the time, for most people, the answer is, "well, I don't know". 

Just to confuse the issue. I'm not taking part in any abstension campaign in the forseeable future, but I wouldn't say others shouldn't take part in them if they want to. :-)

> From Echanges et Mouvement Presentation Pamphlet:

This whole passage seems a bit mechanical marxist to me. Its a simplistic base and superstructure approach. They seem to say 'the class struggle, (ie strike activity) is real, and what people think and do outside a strike is irrelevent and can have no impact on this'. This is of course in line with E&Ms activity which is primarily to circulate info on struggles, and sometimes analysis. I don't think its much like your own point of view though Chris.

> For similar reasons it is useless to call for the rejection or support of
> parliamentarism. The fate of parliamentarism depends exclusively on class
> struggle inside the capitalist system. 

Surely its wrong to seperate "parliamentarism" from the "capitalist system" as E&M do. Was there an identical "parliamentarism" that existed prior to the existence of the "capitalist system". Was there a "capitalist system" a world system that didn't include a parliamentarism? Even Nazism and Stalinism had their own sham parliaments, as well as existing in competition with the existing parliamentary states, and as well as coming before and after parliamentary regimes in their own territories. Parliamentarism as system and as ideology seems fairly well entangled with the capitalist system.

>Whatever may be the reason for those
> who want to call themselves "revolutionaries" not to participate in
> parliamentary work or not to vote in an election workers have other reasons
> when they don't go to the polls. If they stay at home on election day, they
> don't do so with revolutionary ideas in mind. 


This clearly shows the absolute distinction between "us, the elite" and "them, the mass of workers" in E&M's worldview. Actually some workers do abstain with revolutionary ideas in mind. Furthermore, the abstentionism of "revolutionaries" (ie those who favour revolution) is a conscious expression of the activity of large numbers of proles. Surely some of E&M have been or are workers - this passage simply denies there own existence and is obviously ideological.

>They abstain because
> parliament, parliamentary parties and politicians don't have anything to say
> to them, because they have understood none of the poltical parties is
> defending their interests and that it does not make much difference if this
> party or another is in office. On the other hand workers who go to the polls
> and share parliamentary illusions will not refuse to participate in
> unofficial strikes or factory occupations if they seem necessary. 

As I indicated above, this is not really true. Some people with parliamentary illusions will refuse to participate in unofficial strikes because of those illusions.

>Both
> categories behave in the same way in practice irrespective of their attitude
> in elections. They do so without a revolutionary theory about parliament and
> without being conscious that they are attacking the order of bourgeois
> society.

If only it were true, as E&M seem to think, that 1) people's ideas don't matter and 2) that they will anyway attack and destroy bourgeois society, and create communism, without the use of their grey matter!

Personally I think that ideas do count for something and that part of a revolution will be the change of peoples ideas, not all before nor all after the fact, but integrally to the process.

cheers
Steve
-- 
_____________________________________________________________
Web-based SMS services available at http://www.operamail.com.
>From your mailbox to local or overseas cell phones.

Powered by Outblaze


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