AUT: RE: antiwar movement

[".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gawd, I often feel like if I don't jump back into
threads immediately they've travelled such a
distance that it's difficult...

Dave, I thought my comments expressed a
frustration at the actual functioning of
exhortations to unity here in Melbourne + Sydney.
Anyways, ok, so you're not proclaiming a need for
unity - this isn't really clear to me however.
That's to say: I'm not sure what the point of a
commentary which draws attention to the diversity
within the antiwar campaigns is.  Either one
concludes that this diversity enables, as Peter
puts it, antiwar work outside the usual rackets
because campaign unity is accepted as neither a
current fact nor future aim.  Or, as it seems to
me you are contending, that this diversity should
be reconciled (at the very least that it ought to
be better represented in its breadth, accomodated
in some fashion).  IE: there is diversity,
therefore 'we' are obliged to represent it more
adequately, accomodate it in some way.

Someone else noted the couplet
singularities/multitudes: is this another way of
reintroducing pluralism as a more sophisticated
form of homogeneity (which is precisely what
pluralism always has been) or does it actually
imply a break with such models for regarding
diversity?

John:

: zapatistas say is "We are quite
: ordinary people, that is to say
: rebels."
[...]
: opening up people's reactionary or
: conservative positions and trying to
: find the utopian kernel and working on
: that.

I can't see the connection between the two.  The
first is a statement which overturns the usual
situating of 'rebels' as transcendent; the second
reasserts this transcendent role in the form of
those who are able to ascertain the "utopian
kernel" lurking behind the 'appearance' of
conservatism.  I don't think hegelese is all that
amenable to an anti-leninism, actually.

Angela
_______________

<end message>





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