From: "Richard Singer" <chardsinger-AT-lycos.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:47:54 -0500
Subject: Re: AUT: Tariq Ali: change the world by taking power


"Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no> wrote:
 
> <<I've got to disagree with Chuck here; no need to make this kind of
> generalization.  And no need to think that anarchists don't have
> the brutal thug potential either.  (I'm sure we can pick characters
> and moments from history to prove that point too.) >>
> 
> That anarchists have "the brutal thug potential" no less than
> others, is precisly *the whole point*. That is *the* classical
> anarchist argument against the illusion that the state can
> become a means of the working classes emancipation. If it
> was based on that anarchists were some kind of saints, the
> argument would not have been valid.

Yes, I'm aware of that and I knew someone would point that out.  I've used the same argument against people who've come up with this stereotype that to be an anarchist or socialist "utopian," you have to believe all people are good by nature.  I've said, no, I don't believe at all that people are inherently or naturally good; that's why I don't want anyone to have power over me. 

> It is a question of structures/
> socio-material relations, not personal traits. Although 'brutal
> thug' is hardly either the point here, rather the reproduction
> of power relations, not at least within a context where
> capitalist relations in general also have to be reproduced.

Couldn't agree more.  But how good are most anarchist goups at avoiding reproduction of the same old power relations in one way or another?  The point I just addressed in my last long post...

> This also to maintain the power of the state to impose
> reforms. You cannot use the state as means of reform
> without at the same time imposing obedience - in the final
> instance at the point of the gun -, without reproducing
> the hierarchical structured socio-material relations and
> the whole psycology that comes with it.

No real argument there.  But I wouldn't use this as a reason to oppose all reforms.  Reforms are better when they're the product of a grassroots movement of the people, even if the state uses power to make those reforms.  The more the reform is linked to collective democratic power, the better.  But I certainly don't think we should discount all reforms just because reforms aren't revolutionary.  Does anybody here really, completely believe that?


Richard

-- 
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10



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