Re: AUT: A Reply to Noam Chomsky

[neil <74742.1651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-
	
 Chris says;
The emphasis on abstensionism misses a few things.

First, for most people who do not vote, it is not for the same reasons that
we do not vote.  Nor will we convince many people to not vote.  Our power is
not in our pedagogical or mass consciousness altering ability.  That is
little different from Social Democracy and Leninism.

Neil thinks and questions;

You are not a Leninist or Social Democrat because in
your political work , you are emphatic about defending
class struggle political positions (e.g. anti-parliamentarianism).
And what do you do when the non-communist worker asks you
 about the bourgeois elections?
Won't you tell him/her your analysis, no holds barred?

Chris;
Second, voting is not the worst thing that people do.  Being involved in
active electioneering is a whole different ballgame.  Supporting Nader and
or asking him to lead an abstention campaign we are too tiny to lead is
worse than voting, as it sows more illusions.  Voting does not stop anyone
from going on strike or doing most other activities.

Neil;

Wrong. Nader wants you to vote. A Protest vote for him
and then the 'party line' vote for all congressional Democrats
Further, there  in fact have been very distinct times
here over the years
when election pomp and voting were used to 'cool out the struggles'
and as a  political placebo for not doing work to build mass actions,
demos, rallies, mass  meetings, etc.

Chris;
Third, in a period like this, it is unclear what abstaining means to most
people.  More likely depression and disgust than active refusal or
resistance, judging by the abscence of other actions.

Neil; OK, it means many things to  these 'multitudes'
of differing  abstentionists, but probably more  now the
objective phenomena changing which will play more a role , but ones
that are in motion and chagable into  a number of more open
political directions.
So, even if communists are marginal, it makes little sense
to stand around just  playing pocket pool. You can talk to
a few of these abstainer forces politically,really. Certainly
other political trends won't miss the opportunity !


Chris,

Fourth, why do Leftists have this overbearing need to tell people what to
do?  I know it is more work to show how, even if they are different, Bush
and Kerry  are each in their own way working to defend capital, but it is
more interesting.

Neil again;
HHHhmmmm. Many 'leftists'  in the USA are actually telling people
'all out' to support Kerry and the other Democrats. At the 3/20 antiwar
March /Demo in LA , these forces were selling Red tee-shirts with
 big Nazi swastika insignias  on them and inscribed "Vote Republican"!
Give it to these liberal DP/lefts, they understand emotions and psychology
(petty bourgeois) but you underestimate they also still have plenty of influence
in the social consciousness.

Cheers,
Chris

>From Echanges et Mouvement Presentation Pamphlet:

For similar reasons it is useless to call for the rejection or support of
parliamentarism. The fate of parliamentarism depends exclusively on class
struggle inside the capitalist system. Whatever may be the reason for those
who want to call themselves "revolutionaries" not to participate in
parliamentary work or not to vote in an election workers have other reasons
when they don't go to the polls. If they stay at home on election day, they
don't do so with revolutionary ideas in mind. They abstain because
parliament, parliamentary parties and politicians don't have anything to say
to them, because they have understood none of the poltical parties is
defending their interests and that it does not make much difference if this
party or another is in office. On the other hand workers who go to the polls
and share parliamentary illusions will not refuse to participate in
unofficial strikes or factory occupations if they seem necessary. Both
categories behave in the same way in practice irrespective of their attitude
in elections. They do so without a revolutionary theory about parliament and
without being conscious that they are attacking the order of bourgeois
society.

Neil;

This sounds a bit like applied  'absolute truth' statements
that 'Echanges' usually nails  well when they come form opposing political
trends. But this  here is not very dialectical at all, in fact quite
wooden , even though for sure partially correct.



     - ---


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