Re: AUT: a rejuvenated communist

["Chris Wright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You know, I was going to lunch today and I thought about eactly what you are
saying.  And we agree.  I am a Marxist, regardless of whether I call myself
an anarchist, communist, or anarcho-communist.  And we do agree on the
fundamental point: the state is a product of class society, but the society
we want, whatever we call it, has no state because it has no classes.  In
that sense, the discussion is not on the end goal (a fruitless argument once
we reach agreement on the destruction of the state and the need to
reorganize all social relations from the bottom up because it will be a
collective act.)

However, I also don't know any Marxist anarchists.  Some liberatarian
communists, like myself, for sure.  But anarchism draws mostly on
non-Marxist traditions, so I do not feel absolutely off in ascribing to most
anarchism a non-Marxist theoretical underpinning.  And agreement that the
state must be smashed is only the tip of the iceberg.  it simply means we
can bypass that one question (a big enough one to allow for a different kind
of dialogue, to be sure.)  It says nothing though about how we understand
capital, the possibilities of different social forces, etc. which leads to
questions of organization and practice.  Therefore, i still feel that even
though you and I agree on some things, our general outlook has some
substantial differences, which I tried to bring out.  Therefore, i look
forward to an ongoing discussion of those questions.

As for fetishizing money, I simply don't think that money is the key to
maintaining armies, unless they are mercemary armies, which is basically
what many armies are in the poorest countries.  But many armies, especially
the ones in the most powerful capitalist countries, are not based on money.
The U.S. army in WWII was largely a volunteer army, but they were still
capital's tools.  it was that aspect i was calling into question.  And that
is a useful space for a discussion that relates to what it takes to
undermine the militarism.

Thanks and good night.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Bowman" <paulbowman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: AUT: a rejuvenated communist


> In reply to Chris,
> Chris you wrote many things I agree with albeit I don't necessarily agree
> that what I originally advanced is in contradiction with those things in
the
> way you appear to think. But I'll spare everyone the line by line bit. On
my
> main point tho' <it is impossible to get rid of value exchange and the
wage
> relation
> without abolishing the state> I wasn't entirely clear where you ended up
in
> relation to that. As for fetishising money, if I was suggesting we abolish
> money and replace it with "labour chits" or some other such scheme then
I'd
> agree, but that's not what I was saying.
>
> I think however, I may have spotted one of the differences in starting
> points which may account for our talking past each other somewhat. You
said
> (in passing):
> > I feel that anarchism (again, not all, but much of what I have read)
tends
> ...
> Here you are using anarchism as an analogue of "marxism". That is a
> collection of texts that can be read and by extension a school of thought
> and analysis. Now it is true that anarchism is used in this way to refer
to
> the past thought/discourses/deeds/whatever of those who called themselves
> anarchists. But the main meaning of anarchism as a term, is as a goal, a
new
> society in contrast to the present, much as socialism or communism. In
this
> way it would be possible to believe that all of the existing corpus of
> self-declaredly anarchist thought to be stuff and nonesense and yet still
be
> an anarchist because that was the goal you were aiming for. It would also
be
> possible to find oneself in agreement with enough of Marx's work and that
of
> some of those who refer to him, to accept being part of some marxist
> tradition and yet still be aiming for an anarchist society. So much for
> labels, why not simply avoid the confusion by declaring onesself simply a
> communist and saying that communism naturally implies a stateless society?
> For the simple reason that there are still many people who call themselves
> communists but are, in fact, not. Further it has been a recurring feature
of
> the state capitalists who self-identify as marxists to label their
communist
> opponents within marxism as anarchists. It is important under these
> circumstances for the recipients, rather than protesting that they've
never
> read Proudhon in their life, to be clear what it is they are actually
being
> accused of. Namely having the revolutionary aim of destroying the state
> organs of coercion and control - and then be happy to accept that that is
> indeed their intention - or if it isn't figure out what it really is that
> they _are_ aiming for.
>
> It's late, I'll finish there. Yours for a stateless, classless society.
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>




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