Re: AUT: strategy/ies

[billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Bartlett)]

rc-am wrote:

>i can't seem to find the various posts in this thread, but i recall some of
>the discussion (people can/should correct me if i'm wrong)...

>harry i think queried whether what andrew was referring to (see below) was
>racism or not.  i'm not sure that it's possible to say that it isn't.  so,
>maybe i can urge harry to restate his argument.  i happen to think this is
>racism -- but then, i think nationalism is racism.

I wouldn't go that far, though the two probably have a lot in common.
Racism is based on race, nationalism is based on nationality.

>but on the issue of whether or not sexism and racism are integral to
>capitalism or not; i find many of the premises of the whole discussion a
>little strange.  i don't find the assumption that class operates in any
>concrete sense without or outside of racism and sexism at all convincing --
>it just looks like a bad version of weber's ideal types to me, where the
>only way one could 'solve' such a problem politically is by way of
>pluralism (the trinity of race, class and gender) -- the kind of 'solution'
>that stems from bad premises, and in the terms of representation, can only
>amount to a kind of corporatism.

As usual Angela, I am having the devil of a job following you. Dumb your
argument down for us simple folks will you? ;-) I wouldn't know "weber's
ideal types" from a bar of soap.

I can discern that you are making some argument to the effect that
race/gender on the one hand, and class on the other, are inextricably
linked. Probably a very convincing argument if I could understand it, but
unfortunately it simply bounced off my thick skull. ;-)

Perhaps you could re-phrase it?

>my question would always be: show me one instance of class composition
>where racism and sexism is concretely distinguishable from those
>processes of class formation?

I think I follow that argument (so I'm probably wide of the mark) but it
sounds like you are arguing that unless a particular "class composition"
already exists, it can never exist. Doesn't sound like a very sophisticated
argument, so that's probably not what you meant at all?

>the distinctions that can be made are analytical; but
>that suggests to me that the analysis is faulty.

So all abstract analysis is faulty by definition. Sounds like a case in point.
>
>moreover, i find arguments about whether racism and sexism pre-dated
>capitalism to be as interesting as debates about whether or not they will
>post-date capitalism.   ie., not very.   they seem to me to suppose a
>rather ahistorical sense of racism and sexism.

You'll have to explain that one to me as well. How can discussion of
historical fact be ahistorical? I suspect that once again I have completely
missed the point. You are making me feel damned inadequate here, be ashamed
of yourself. ;-)

>   the question of whether
>the abolition of class presupposes the abolition of gender and racism is
>not the same as the question of whether the abolition of capitalism signals
>the end of domination.   perhaps it does or doesn't; but not being a
>soothsayer, i wouldn't know, and nor would i run around proclaiming such or
>bothering much about it.   but let's suppose that the end of capitalism is
>not the end of domination.  does anyone seriously think that this will mean
>that what we might call sexism and racism sans capitalism would operate
>in the same ways as it does now?    does anyone seriously think that
>capitalism is not a mode of production but rather a cartoon version of
>hegel's master-slave dialectic consisting of two figures locked in battle?

I can honestly say that this is not a thought that ever entered my head.

Obviously the end of class is tied up with the end of capitalism, the end
of that particular form of economic organisation. I do see what you mean by
asking whether that necessarily implies that all forms of domination will
automatically end with the demise of capitalism.

However, that isn't what I was arguing at all. I wasn't saying that ending
capitalism would magically end racism and sexism, at least that isn't what
I intended. Rather, I believe that racism and sexism will have to be
largely defeated before it is possible to achieve the level of collective
purpose that is necessary to ever defeat capitalism in the first place.

Some people see this as proof that it is in the interests of capitalism to
maintain these forms of discrimination. But of course, as you say,
capitalism is a form of economic organisation, not a conspiracy. The
capitalist system will be an unwilling ally in the struggle against racism
and sexism, because the way the system itself operates is inimical to
abstract considerations of broader long-term interests. Narrow, immediate,
self interest usually prevails, it being a system based on competition
after all. And the narrow self-interests of many individual capitalists,
such as the need for a truly *competitive* labour market, eventually must
prevail.

Shutting millions of potentially highly productive workers out of the
labour market may benefit a few capitalists, but most will squeal like
stuck pigs at the resulting higher labour costs. You can already see this
in Australia, with employers bleating about the damage being done to them
by the restrictive immigration policies.

Anyhow, maybe you could explain those earlier remarks to me?

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas




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