Re: AUT: strategy/ies

[billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Bartlett)]

Alain Kessi wrote:

[...]

>But I also never heard anyone (except for those turned hard-core
>Leninists) suggest that the antagonism between the working class and
>capital is the only one, or that other antagonisms/contradictions could
>be derived from it.

You didn't hear me suggest it either.

>Didn't patriarchy preexist capitalism, as did racism?

I believe so.

> Seems to me both need to be analysed as systems of power and
>privilege in their own right, and in their relation to the
>working-class/capital contradiction.

My analysis of that is that these are anachronistic attitudes in the
context of capitalist economic relations.

> The struggle can therefore not be
>towards abolishing capitalism and holding on to patriarchy and racism,
>but has to be aimed at abolishing capitalism, patriarchy and racism all
>at once. At least, it would seem to me that anything else might stem
>from male and/or racist phantasies about holding on to one's privileges
>in those sectors once one has gotten rid of the disadvantages one had in
>the capitalist power system.

I'd agree that patriarchal attitudes and racism can be eliminated before we
herald in a socialist society. Given that, I believe entirely different
strategies are called for to eliminate patriarchy and racism. But defeating
these evils, righteous as that may be, shouldn't be confused with a
strategy to defeat capitalism, anymore than defeating capitalism is the way
to end patriarchy and racism.

That is my point here. It is folly to believe that the different strategies
are all for the same purpose. Racism is not something that is vital to
capitalism, the strategies best suited to that task will thus be entirely
different to the strategies best suited to ending capitalism. The
capitalist class is not necessarily the enemy in the fight against racism
or patriarchy, it *is* necessarily the enemy in the struggle for socialism.

To confuse the two objectives is terribly dangerous.

>Are you suggesting that a working-class woman whose husband never does
>the dishes or washes his own laundry has all the same interests as the
>worker who is her husband?

Hang on a tick, I'll ask the missus. ;-) But seriously, I'd really like to
know how you managed to read *that* into anything I've said?

> If you think that patriarchy/sexism and
>racism will automatically disappear once capitalism is abolished, can
>you suggest by what mechanism they will be led to disappear?

I don't think that. I never for a second suggested any such thing. Where on
earth did you get the impression I was suggesting that?

>A question of language, in passing, since I sometimes translate texts
>but am not familiar with the entire English Marxist and/or autonomist
>vocabulary: What's the English term for the German "Hauptwiderspruch"
>("main contradiction"/"basic antagonism"? - designating the orthodox
>Marxist notion that all other antagonisms are derived from that between
>the working class and capital) and for "Nebenwiderspruch" ("subsidiary
>contradiction"/"secondary antagonism"? - designating patriarchy/sexism
>and racism in the eyes of Leninists)?

Huh???? Buggered if I know. The term "subsidiary contradiction"/"secondary
antagonism" conveys no more meaning to me than "Nebenwiderspruch". Though
the latter at least seems comparatively more elegant and concise. (Those
damn efficient Germans). But its all Greek to me.

Obviously I am now being accused of being a Marxist scholar, on top of all
the other slurs. Again I plead not guilty. The Marxist vocabulary is
something of a mystery to me. I can only understand his little pamphlets,
the deep stuff just gives me a headache. And I didn't even know there *was*
an autonomist vocabulary.

Sorry I couldn't help.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas




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