AUT: Re: unions against the war??

["chris wright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi neil,

> Chris W.--
>
> Communist ideas , platforms, tactics, are no ones private
> property  or should any forces  have 'copyrights'  to
> them. Those workers, etc. who have gone through previous
> experiences in capitalism , in practical life, and  in
> theorizing the wider experience of  the class, historically,
> as a whole should  be happy to share these things with the
> wider sections of the class as a whole . They should
> attempt to merge this undertstanding with the wider class
> in political motion, esp. on the questions of
> fighting capitalist warmaking , austerity drives of capital
> against labor in crisis.
> Do you think communists (and other serious anti-capitalist
> trends) should  just keep these views to
> ourselves , alone? If so, then what should communists be
> doing at this stage in relation to ongoing motions?

Who said anything about keeping our ideas to ourselves?  I said we should
not expect to win people to our ideas until they found that our ideas gave
(and this is a better way of saying it) coherence to what they were already
thinking.  And even without that, many people will adopt what are in effect
communist ideas and modes of action without direct contact with us.  Were
that not the case, I think revolution would be impossible.  I just don't see
the revolution as a party affair, but that does not mean that communists
have no role to play, but I do not think that role is primarily pedagogical
or 'leaderly' in the sense used by Social Democrac and Leninism (there will
be all kinds of leadership in struggle, but it is not likely healthy of it
is the leadership of representation and militantism.)

And you still have not answered my question, so...?

> On your point against using maladroit jargon that may unessesarily
> turn people off ,  Ok , this should be corrected , but better
> in collective discourse too, but  maybe in conjunction  with the more
> substantial  material issues, e.g, the sorting out  of changes in the
> composition of the class as a whole , and relation to other social
> groups, and what forced the  changes,  etc.
> But to make  such a tsimis over one word (masses), i think is to
> cover over what are probably more important differences on  key
> political questions. NO?

Isn't that the discussion we are having here?  Or is aut-op-sy not a forum
for discussing key political differences and issues of class composition?
And is this not a better forum for that discussion than with people who you
do not want to make those kind of experiments on, since politicos, as is
obvious from the fact that anyone still talks to Scott, have far more
tolerance for jabbering and nonsense than most workers?  I mean, sure, let's
have the full-blown discussion.  Its relevant now in relation to concrete
stuff people might want to put out.

cheers.
Chris




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