Re: AUT: Re: empire, multitude & class ...

[Bill Bartlett <billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve Wright wrote:

>b) a use of language that doesn't evoke either classical marxism or populism,
>and all the baggage they bring with them. But that could just be the bad poet
>and failed bible scholar in me - it is, after all, a term more reminiscient of
>the turmoil of the 17th and 18th centuries in England ('the swinish
>multitude')
>than anything else. And as I argued a few months ago, I am definitely not
>convinced by the Negri/Hardt argument that struggles of the past decade or so
>are unable to communicate horizontally (and Harry offered some arguments why
>their particular examples didn't hold), which is also part of the mole/snake
>discussion in Empire . . .
>
>Anyway, I am interested to know what others think of such categories
>in terms of
>the talk in some circles (eg Midnight Notes), since  the Zapatistas (and
>before), of developing a new language that can communicate/resonate
>in ways that
>at least *part* of the traditional revolutionary lexicon (whether marxist or
>anarchist) no longer seems to do. Or I could be wrong about all this: clearly
>it's possible to talk about/against capitalism again without automatically
>drawing strange looks, so maybe dictatorship of the proletariat (or 'the D of
>the P', as it was called in one group I belonged to in the early 1980s) will
>just starting rolling off the tongue in conversations in offices and company
>canteens around the globe . . .


In a perverse way I think the "D of the P" is the key to that whole
problem Steve. It again goes back to the point I was trying to make
sometime ago in relation to the anti-globalisation mobilisations.
*Democracy* is the language that is currently crying out to be the
resonating call of our current times. In particular *economic*
democracy.

What was the underlying theme of these protests, I ask you. It may
have seemed a hodge-podge of different issues, but there was indeed a
common theme, people were rallying against a perception that major
economic, social, cultural and economic decisions were slipping
beyond their control. All sorts of people were demanding democratic
control of such decision-making processes.

Both the traditional Marxists and the traditional anarchists
effectively spurned democracy, in one way or the other. This clearly
didn't "resonate". Today, that is one perhaps one of the things about
the old IWW that does "resonate". It is also the clue to the quashing
of the IWW many years ago. But that's another story.

What I'm saying mate is that the answer to your question is staring
you in the face. Economic democracy is the concept (maybe not the
exact language) that will "resonate". It just needs to be suggested
by someone for Christ's sake! Let's face it, the upholders of the
status quo are quaking in their boots at the idea, the spectre itself
haunts them, even though no-one (except the protestors in Seattle,
Melbourne, etc) has yet thought to suggest it!

"Economic democracy" is, after all, just plain old-fahioned
socialism! Yet it doesn't evoke "classical marxism" of the D of the P
variety. Maybe it evokes "populism", but two out of three isn't bad,
surely? Perhaps we could even learn to live with it, if the idea of
an economy under democratic control  was "popular", if we tried hard?
;-)

As for the "D of the "P", we wouldn't even have any need to invent a
new way of popularising socialism if those loose words had not been
so vilely perverted by a couple of Russian misfits to sink the whole
ship. I propose it be treated as a taboo concept in future, along
with incest and genocide. Like these vile ideas, it does the exact
opposite of "resonate".s

It isn't just the "D" word that is the problem either, even the "P"
word is seriously repulsive! It conveys the impression that a
class-less society would be a society where everyone is brought DOWN
to the lowest possible level.

This is not the sort of vision likely to resonate with anyone but a
dour Calvinist, I'll never forget how appalled I was by the vision
offered in the book 'Brave New World'.

And it certainly is at adds with Marx's vision. The whole point of
which was that socialism was only a material possibility when and if
the the technology of production had been developed to the stage
where it was materially possible to bring everyone UP to a standard
of living comparable with the ruling classes. His idea was that class
society was actually a socially-necessary tool of progress in human
development. So long as the forces of production made it impossible
for all to enjoy the high standards of living, it was necessary for
human progress that at least a minority would have these privileges
to facillitate social development.

So raising all people UP to enjoy the standard of living and
privileges now only enjoyed by the ruling class is not only a theme
that I'm sure will resonate, it is also in fact more consistent with
marx's philosophy.

It's a scarey thought that such incalculable damage may have been
done to human progress by a mere two words. Loose talk does indeed
cost lives.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.


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