Re: AUT: _The Mony-Haded Houdrra't_

["Andromache -" <ostya_ciutat@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ro_wan,

Could you tell us a bit more on this "Seattle/left" movement??
I am interested.
Anybody from List?

Thankss.

Andromache Priam
..at/in the services of Queen of Ostya, Queen Itz'abllya,.


>Hi Jon and all
>Thanks for the great review.
>I loved Linebaugh and Rediker's book. The Hydra metaphor is powerful, with
>an obvious resonance with current ultra-left/Seattle thinking as to
>organisation.
>
>My problem with this book is the romanticism you allude to.
>
>The differences between all the heads of the hydra seem to be wished away.
>In favour of an emphasis on a grand narrative of struggle against
>oppression, slavery and capital, we don't hear how the different groups
>differed. For instance, both the Diggers and the Ranters are invoked, but
>the Diggers wrote a pamphlet attacking the Ranter's libertinism. We don't
>hear the conversations of the taverns and the docks, only some of their
>outcomes, when unified revolt has been decided upon. I would have liked to
>hear the disagreements and have gained an insight in to how these were
>overcome (or not).
>
>Linebaugh and Rediker seem to assert that racial differences only develop
>towards the end of the 18th century/beginning of the 19th century, as a
>discourse of race and nation is constructed (he points to the London
>Corresponding Society moving from talking about the rights of humanity to
>the rights of Englishmen). Was this really the case? Because the book is
>quite polemical the contary evidence (assuming there is any, i don't know)
>isn't weighed up. I would also have been interested to know more about
>first
>meetings between sailors and afro-caribbeans, and, again, how the racisms
>that were generated by the ruling class were negotiated, overcome (or not)
>by the sailors, dock workers, etc.
>
>As Jon says, the multitude has evaded representation, but (to slightly
>twist
>your phrase) the crucial factor is how they avoided generating those
>representations and those representatives themselves? i.e if they didn't
>repress their differences with a representation, how did they deal with
>them? And what went wrong when they did follow a leader or an excluding
>doctrine?
>
>I think this issue is crucial, because the book suggests a revolutionary
>fervour during the 17th century and the 18th century. But if there was such
>a fervour, why didn't the struggles develop into a more substantial attack
>on capitalism? If we don't accept the trot argument that 'the material
>conditions weren't right' then what was limiting it? I don't think we can
>accept the argument that the ruling class were well organised/had lots of
>guns/strong ideology (although these are important factors) because they
>usually will have. The question that needs to be addressed is, perhaps, why
>didn't the proletarians, sailors, slaves, women, etc expand their
>struggles,
>develop their links? What of their own practice inhibited such development?
>
>Anyway, I've rambled enough. But I'd love to know others answers to the
>question that Jon posed at the end of his piece.
>Rowan
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>
>
>     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



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