Re: AUT: Anarchism & Marxism - who gives a . . .?

[billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Bartlett)]

Harry M. Cleaver wrote:

>First, I made no such rejection. What I rejected was a) a standard
>formula, e.g., Leninist or whatever, to be applied irrespective of the
>class composition, and b) the notion that a single strategy is adequate to
>any given class composition; in other words because the composition of the
>class is complex at any point in time there are many strategies at work,
>and what is needed is to assess their effectiveness in relation to each
>other.

Yes, that's exactly how I understood your position, there is no confusion.
I agree with you that a standard strategy irrespective of material
conditions is absurd, but I disagree with the notion that social complexity
indicates that "many strategies" are appropriate.

As far as I'm concerned, "many strategies" has been tried, and failed. The
revolutionary left has been divided for most of this century and it hasn't
brought us any closer to success.

So to me a rejection of *a* strategy is effectively a rejection of
strategic thinking. The working class can't follow more than one strategy
for achieving a particular objective. We can have different strategies for
achieving different objectives of course and different objectives are
appropriate in different circumstances.

But I need more convincing to come around to the notion that we can all go
our own separate ways and still be able to arrive at the same destination.
Mainly because there are some obstacles on the way that will require us to
all work together to overcome them.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---