From ajsahay@mailbox.syr.edu  Thu Apr 17 20:19:16 1997
From: ajsahay@mailbox.syr.edu (Amrohini J. Sahay)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:19:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: M-TH: PANIC LEFTIST: FRAME TEN
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970417150720.9060A-100000@forbin.syr.edu>



Red Theory Collective (SUNY-Albany)

      in solidarity with

Revolutionary Marxist Collective (SUNY-Buffalo)

*******************************************************


PANIC LEFTIST:  FRAME TEN


Christi-Ann. . . believes that the rigorous debate in the
revolutionary left simply strengthens the capitalists who see
divisions etc. as "weakness."  Discussions and rigorous critiques,
however, are part of serious engagement with issues:  they are not
signs of sectarianism but commitment to social change. Critique (not
anecdotes and abuse and substitution of scatological epithets for
political and theoretical analysis) is the condition of possibility
of vanguard politics.  (Stalinism is, above all, the silencing of
critique that thus provides the conditions of its internal implosion:
 the de-politicization/de-mobilization of the vanguard.)  By
relentless critique the vanguard left marks the space of its
practices and places them in the public space for democratic
interrogation and inquiries.

However, if Christi-Ann is correct and the contesting debate among
the revolutionary left "weakens" it, imagine what damage the trade-
union compromising with the capitalists does to revolutionary
practices. If capitalism, according to Christi-Ann, takes heart from
seeing divisions among the revolutionary left, then capitalism must
be doubly heartened by the dissents and debates among the workers (e.
g., conflicts on contracts, strikes. . . .)

We think it is counter-revolutionary to suppress open critique simply
to provide the "illusion" of unity:  LEFT IS NOT ABOUT CONSENSUS.
CONSENSUS IS A BOURGEOIS WAY OF MANUFACTURING A "CENTER."


LEFT UNITY IS ACHIEVED BY ITS "RUTHLESS CRITIQUE OF EVERYTHING
EXISTING."  Critique is part of class struggle.  The language of
critique must be complex enough, layered enough to be able to analyze
the highly sophisticated, nuanced and elaborate constructs of ruling
class practices and ideas. To demand that critique be "translated"
into a commonsensical language is to systematically reduce its
analytical ability:  to turn it into a "moral" sermon (Uncle Lou),
abuse and scatological shouting (Hugh Rodwell), or simply ranting
(Malecki).  Critique must remain theoretically thick and deploy a
language resourceful enough to engage the most advanced discourses
and practices of the bourgeoisie.  It is only on the net-left that
left is reduced to such a simplistic level as the annotations of
events:  with such a linear understanding of the world, the left not
only is not able to offer a counter-practice, it is the laughing
stock of all thoughtful people.  No one--outside net-left--will take
Uncle Lou's comments as anything but vacuous stories, entertaining
but irrelevant. . .

    
    CRITIQUE. . . for a RED-NET. . . for INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISM!






Ms. Deb P. Kelsh





     --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.village.virginia.edu ---