Re: Revolution(s) In Our Time (Argentina) by Alan Cibils 21 March 2002 14:56 UTC
Lil Joe had written: I looked at the > photo and I could not tell whether those cops were armed > are not. I therefore suggested two different scenarios: > (1) Assuming the cops were unarmed and retreated from > fear of the workers; or, > (2) Assuming that the workers were armed and refused to > fire on the people. What I meant to write was: ... "(2)Assuming that the cops were armed and refused to fire on the people". Sorry bought the f*#k up, comrades. -- Joe ======================================== --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From Buenos Aires: I think it's important to discuss dialectics, but there is > no "good" side to the "bad" side of the Argentinian police. I did not witness > the police withdrawal from Brukman factory. But I talked to several people > who did. They all ascribed the police withdrawal to the mass support that > developed in front of the factory. If the police had started shooting, they > could have easily faced another December 20th. > > As I write, about 20 feet away from my cyber cafe, on a streetcorner in Ave > de Mayo a motorcycle helmet with flowers sits on the ground on the spot where > a motorcycle messenger was killed by the police on December 20. The police > murderers of December 20th are still in their jobs, even though the President > and the chief of police was changed. > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:17:24 -0800 (PST) Li'l Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > 'You can, because you ought' - this > expression, which is supposed to > mean a great deal, is implied in the > notion of ought. For the ought > implies that one is superior to the > limitation; in it the limit is sublated and the > in-itself of the ought is thus an identical > self-relation, and hence the abstraction > of 'can'. But conversely, it is equally > correct that:'you cannot, just because you ought.' > For in the ought, the limitation as > limitationis equally implied; the said > formalism of possibility has, in the limitation, > a reality, a qualitative otherness opposed to > it and the relation of each to the other is > a contradiction, and thus a 'cannot', > or rather an impossibility. > > Hegel: " Science of Logic" > > > ********************************* > > The Marxian analysis is not just a collection of dead > facts, as in the case of positivism and empiricism; but, > to analytically penetrate that which appears, the "things > as the appear" to discover the "things in themselves", > to discover the tendencies, the negative in the positive, > its negation, i.e. negation of negation engendering new > beginnings: being is in a constant becoming, transitions > from the one into its opposite. > > In our analytical questions, from which mutually > exclusive possible hypothesis were formulated, to > which Alan Cibils responded, our purpose was not > to present dead data, facts that could be drawn > from as newspaper. > > The dialectic methodology is the recognition that > the things"are and are not" - as Hericlitus says, > because"all things are in flux", we are concerned > with the tendencies, the becoming, the "'qual of > matter" as Jacob Bohme put it. Lenin said it best > in his summary of dialectics the contradictory > nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the > contradictory forces and tendencies in each > phenomenon -- > > One could perhaps present these > elements in greater detail as follows: > 1) the objectivity of consideration (not > examples, not divergencies, but the > Thing-in-itself). > 2) the entire totality of the manifold > relations of this thing to others. > 3) the development of this thing, ( > phenomenon, respectively), its own > movement, its own life. > 4) the internally contradictory tendencies > (and sides) in this thing. > 5) the thing (phenomenon, etc) as the > sum and unity of opposites. > 6) the struggle, respectively unfolding, > of these opposites, contradictory > strivings, etc. > > Neither Connie White nor her husband, me, merely > study "dialectical materialism" to discuss them > on e-mail discussion lists but have internalized > that method of analysis to make our analysis a > dialectical one. These analysis are premised on > the material were are considering, and its > changes. > > Cops are many other things besides, for instance. > They are children of their parents and parents of > their children; they are sisters and brothers, siblings, > and uncles, cusins, &c., Each individual cop, or > soldier, is a mass of contradictions derivative of > the mode of appropriation, conditions and relations > of production they are hired (or drafted) to > protect. > > The task of the Marxist revolutionary is to recognize > those contradictions and conflicting pressures, > obligations, &c., as ultimately mutually excluding > tendencies. Thus to develop conscious strategies, > and tactics to increase the tendencies that connect > those cops (who can be connected materially and > socially connected) to the working-class -- their > fathers, mothers, spouse, their children &c., who are > the workers and socialists who are doing the striking, > protesting, marching, demonstrating, and occupying > factories! > > Our job is to press the contradictory loyalties in each > cop and soldier, of the rank and file of course, and > compel those cops or/and soldiers to break with the > ruling-classes -- i.e. to turn their guns from pointing at > the striking, protesting, demonstrating workers and > unemployed workers, whom they are sent to suppress, > and to turn those guns at their officers and fire on > them! > > I therefore cannot understand how any (I assume to > be) socialist or/and revolutionary in the US (who > have never led a factory occupation/sit-down strike) > can say that Connie White and I are "reading too > much into the cop reaction" -- i.e. that armed cops > refused to fire on workers and allowed them to > re-occupy a factory". Unlike the Black nationalist > "revolutionaries" in the United States who regard > the Black caucus of the Democratic Party, the > "Congressional Black Caucus" as their " 'Brothas' > and 'Sistas'", the Argentine workers know that the > State is the State, but appeal to their real brothers > and sisters in the military to not shoot them in > defense of capitalist property. > > > Cibils did in fact present more data, e.g. the name of > the police department, & did so demagogic name > calling, but, he made no analysis of his own regarding > that data. Pretty much, Cibils reasoning is based on > what he does not "doubt", "thinks", "suspects", &c. > What he believes and not what he knows. > > > --- michael pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED] f (the other of itself), the > wrote: > > > > >--- Original Message --- > > >From: Alan Cibils <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Date: 3/21/02 7:59:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I think Li'l Joe and Connie White are reading too much into > > the cop > > >reaction, and are probably leaving out some key factors. > > > > > >1) In Argentina all cops are armed with at least a pistol on > > their hips. > > >The cops in this picture are no exception. > > Lil Joe, Response: > Nor did I say that they were an exception as Cibils imply. > I have terrible eyes and don't see so well. I looked at the > photo and I could not tell whether those cops were armed > are not. I therefore suggested two different scenarios: > (1) Assuming the cops were unarmed and retreated from > fear of the workers; or, > (2) Assuming that the workers were armed and refused to > fire on the people. > > How does Cibils deduce from our alternative hypothesis > that I or Connie have in either case implied that the cops > in the photo were somehow an "exception"? > > But, on ther other point, again an innuendo rather than a > clear accusation, Cibils says that Connie and I were > "leaving out some key factors". Other than presenting > some news reported data of the event, Cibils does not > present anything new that was not covered in Connie > and my analysis. > > Cibils continues: > > >2) The attempt to kick the workers out of the Brukman textile > > installation > > >was carried out by the Policia Federal Argentina (PFA), with > > as many > > >plainclothes police (also armed) as uniformed. > > > > Lil Joe, Reply: > The only thing that Cibils "adds" here, supposedly to provide > informational "factors" that Connie and I "left out", is the > NAME of the department of the police that were involve in > the factory altercation. Is Cibls implying that if that were > some other detachment of armed cops that they would have > ===== Li'l Joe
