Re: AUT: strategy/ies

[billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Bartlett)]

Gerald Levy wrote:

>> > "The" working
>> >class is heterogeneous, divided, hierarchical, often in conflict within
>> >itself.
>
>Did you ever notice that the ones who don't appreciate this point and
>instead clamour over and over for "unity" (as if it were some sort of
>magical formula) are often the biggest opponents in practice to unity?

Sometimes. But not always, as you seem to agree. So what's your point?

>Also: did you notice that the same people for whom "unity" is all
>important often abstain from or SELL-OUT other struggles by the WORKING
>CLASS because what is needed is ... "unity"?

Perhaps you can give us some examples? I'm not sure I follow your thread,
if you aren't implying that because some people cry unity while selling out
their mates, that it necessarily follows that *everyone* who calls for
unity can be assumed to be a traitor, then do you have a particular case in
mind?

>How does none build unity *in practice* by indifference to the struggles
>of the working class?

You don't Gerry, you don't. How is this relevant to the subject at hand.

But by the same token, honest disagreements are not a betrayal of the
working class either. For example, my having a friendly disagreement with
Harry does not make me a class traitor. It probably disqualifies me for
membership of the Harry Cleaver Fan Club, but that isn't the same thing.

>If that's what "unity" is, then I say screw it! With
>that kind of "unity" there will never be a revolution.

Unity doesn't mean we necessarily have to agree on everything all the time
Gerry. Unity is a deeper thing.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas




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