Re: AUT: strategy/ies

[billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Bartlett)]

Harry M. Cleaver wrote:

[...]

>> So to me a rejection of *a* strategy is effectively a rejection of
>> strategic thinking.
>
>Rather narrow-minded don't you think?

No. [innocent expression] Why do you accuse me of that?

>The choice is not an either/or between "one strategy" or "going our
>separate ways." I wrote: "there are many strategies at work, and what is
>needed is to assess their effectiveness in relation to each other."

Why would we assess the different strategies, if not to arrive at a
conclusion as to the least ineffective?

> I
>think your desire/hope for a single strategy is a hopeless one. I see no
>evidence from the past nor theoretical reasons to believe that in the
>future everyone everywhere will adopt "the same strategy". "The" working
>class is heterogeneous, divided, hierarchical, often in conflict within
>itself.

OK, let's analyse that point by point.

(a) heterogeneous.

Dunno quite what you intend by that, if you mean composed of different
individuals then there is no point. If you mean composed of people with
different immediate problems and priorities, then so what? There will
always be different issues to deal with, surely you aren't suggesting that
us plebs are incapable of chewing gum and scratching our arse at the same
time?

(b) divided.

Perhaps subjectively, but not fundamentally. The tenet that the working
class fundamentally and objectively has a common interest in ending poverty
and exploitation seems intuitively sound to me.

I can only see one way to end poverty and exploitation. End the system that
not only produces it, but for which poverty is the oil that lubricates it's
machinery and exploitation is the suel that drives it. You *know* what
system I mean!

Such a common interest makes it obvious that division is, objectively,
artificial. But I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, if you have any
persuasive arguments? Perhaps you can think of an easier way to end poverty
and exploitation that doesn't necessitate going to all the bother of ending
capitalism? Perhaps you can see some other possibility other than
socialism?

Believe me, I'd love to think there was an easier way. I'm not a masochist,
I have no illusions that the solution as I see it (socialism) is the
quickest or easiest solution. I just don't see any other alternative that
could achieve the same ends. If you *do*, then I'm eager to listen, I'm
always eager to find an *easier* solution.

(c) hierarchical.

If we accept that this is part of fundamental human nature, then obviously
a socialist society is materially impossible without re-wiring the brains
of homo sapiens. If all you are saying is that the way society is organised
at present is hierarchical, then you're saying nothing useful. I already
know that. Though actually, my own crude analysis of "class composition"
leads me to suspect that capitalism itself levels out hierarchy, in a
histroical context. But there's no denying that hierarchy still exists. And
I don't deny it, but I don't believe it is wired into our brain. I believe
it is simply a form of social organisation (or "class composition" if you
prefer) that has arisen out of material conditions.

(d) often in conflict within itself.

You mean divided? We've been over that already.


> Its factions/sectors or whatever you want to call the sub-units
>that make up the whole develop an array of strategies --sometimes to cope
>with an array of particular issues, sometimes to deal with capital as a
>whole.

Yes, yes. [impatient gesture] We're not talking about strategies for every
issue here, we're talking about strategies for achieving an end to
capitalism. I should have though that was obvious, please don't drag red
herrings into the discussion.

Of *course* we can have (and need) different strategies to achieve
different ends. [patronising tone] I made it clear, crystal clear, that
what I was rejecting was your notion that we can all use different
strategies to achieve the *same* end. Jesus you can be obtuse sometimes
Harry!

> THEREFORE, it seems to me, the best we can do is to quit looking
>for "the" magical banner underwhich all will gather and instead take up
>the much harder task of understanding the class composition in all of its
>complexity, with all of the diverse strategies and tactics currently being
>employed and try to find ways to make them more complementary, to minimize
>antagonisms where possible, to seek collaboration when possible, in short
>to seek an array of complementary strategies which will accelerate the
>circulation of struggle and strengthen us all vis a vis capital. That is
>as close, and close enough, to "all working together" as we are likely to
>get.

I dopn't recall advocating recourse to the supernatural? Sure you aren't
projecting...?

As for the rest, it sounds like waffle. Your basic premise is that we can't
work together, perhaps you're right. I think you're wrong, history is
replete with examples of human being working together to achieve interests
in common. Your premise is weak and poorly argued.
>
>As for your desire to "arrive at the same destination", I think the
>formulation that evokes a common "destination" is not only a hopeless
>desire but an undesireable one as well, regardless of what you call that
>singular "destination," e.g., socialism, commmunism.

Well, I'm a socialist. You might believe a socialist society is
undesirable, but I don't. No wonder we can't agree on strategies, we
disagree on objectives.

[Not to those who came in late: this is just a ritual part of the argument
between me and Harry, he pretends that "socialism" means something other
than the dictionary definition, so we should throw away the term as too
vague. Meanwhile, I pretend to interpret that as Harry rejecting socialism
itself. Please take no notice of either of us here. Harry knows what
socialism is as much as I do and I don't really think Harry is
pro-capitalist. ;-)]

> What I want, and what
>I think most people want, is a world where many worlds can coexist and
>mutually enrich each other,

Uh-oh, there you go again, "a world where many worlds can coexist...". How
many times do I have to ask you to refrain from gobbledegook? I'm not
impressed by it. (Well maybe a bit, but I'll never admit it.)

> NOT one world where everyone is constrained to
>live according to the same rules --that is a world of domination, like
>capitalism. Marx's metaphor of revolution as explosion in the Grundrisse
>is more to the point than "building socialism" or any other singular
>social form.

Oh, of course, how silly of me! If i'm disagreeing with you then I must be
an advocate for some kind of authoritarianism. After all, solidarity and
co-operation are the first steps on the slippery slope to dictatorship
right?

Well mate, [sarcastic tone] last time I counted there was (objectively at
least) only the one little planet available for us all to live on. If you
imagine there's plenty of others, why don't you try living on another one?
In fact you can have *all* the imaginary ones to yourself if you like.

Come to think of it, maybe you've already taken that trip, take a look out
the window and tell me what colour your sky is will you? ;-)

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas




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