Opinions on Harry Cleaver?

[barista.marxista]

Hey. Who here is into Harry Cleaver, who wrote Reading 'Capital' Politically? What are your thoughts on it? The introduction alone gives a great amount of history of the Marxist movement in the last century. The idea is autonomy, of the ability of the working class to organize, through self-valisoration, the new society through the old. It's really based on Toni Negri in his later writings, and the general Italian Marxist Autonomia movement. For those not well read in that, check out An Interview with Harry Cleaver, 1993. It's a great overview.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

I've read parts of it. I think it's very good at offering an alternative way to organize the working class compared to Leninism, Maoism, etc. with Marx himself as a base. Also its way more accessible than Negri's writings, I recommend it.

[Scars]

I also endorce Harry Cleaver. He's a good writer and his ideas are most definately worth taking note of.

He's also one of the easiest writers to read fi you want to get a grip on Autonomist Marxism, which is largely dominated by very Dense Italian theorists.

[Floyce White]

"Autonomism" is liberal niche-making. "Autonomists" never apply their own logic to the self-organization of the working class.

There used to be a Spoon message board devoted to it. You can still find it in the archives.

[rebelworker]

I dont have many theoretical critiques of autonomist marxism or council communism, but I do find that they dont really exist outside the internet and intellectual circles.

I have been meaning to pick up "reading capital politically" for some time and finally decided I will pick up a copy at the montreal anarchist bookfair in may and read it over the summer.

Another thing about alot of "autonomus" marxist stuff that is comming out is it is kind of like people who identify with marxism but are trying to fix the problems with it that anarchists picked up on over 100 years ago, again this mixed with the organisational fence sitting thast goes on by most of its proponents makes my wonder why more floating autonomist marxists just dont get involved in anarchist communist groups that are in practice quite open to the kind of theory they are espousing.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by rebelworker
Another thing about a lot of "autonomous" Marxist stuff that is coming out is it is kind of like people who identify with Marxism but are trying to fix the problems with it that anarchists picked up on over 100 years ago, again this mixed with the organisational fence sitting that goes on by most of its proponents makes me wonder why more floating autonomist Marxists just don't get involved in anarchist communist groups that are in practice quite open to the kind of theory they are espousing.

Well, that opens a real "can of worms", to say the least.

Historical inertia has a lot to do with it...on both "sides". The "emotional identification" that people feel with various historical figures persists even in the face of historical irrelevancy...as can frequently be seen on this board.

Then there are practical obstacles; the existing anarcho-communist groups are very small and exist only in a few geographical areas.

For example, if I lived in Montreal and was fluent in the variety of French that is spoken there, I'd really have to seriously consider joining NEFAC...though I'm very uncertain how they'd react to my "rigid" historical materialism.

RAAN shows promise...but isn't really yet an organization and doesn't even have "members". Perhaps it will eventually evolve into a coherent movement but no one knows at this point. Moreover, they seem disinclined to encourage serious discussion among themselves...they want action now!

It doesn't really make much sense to join the IWW at this point unless one has a trade union perspective immediately in mind. Its members apparently don't spend much time talking about revolution or what might follow it...possibly because they're simply not interested in the subject.

Of course, I have no way of knowing what the situation in Europe is like...there may be credible anarcho-communist groups there that are very much worth joining.

One important difference between serious anarchists and autonomous Marxists is that we like to talk...that is, we think "getting the theory right" is really important. Most anarchists, in my limited experience, don't really share that priority.

And that does create a "barrier" to mutual comprehension and cooperation.

I think that "autonomous Marxists" are in a kind of "twilight zone" right now...getting out from under Lenin's shadow but not very clear about "how to proceed".

It's a new situation...and it's probably going to take a while to work out the best way to deal with it. Just "flipping" into the anarchist "camp" doesn't strike us as an appropriate response at this point; though if some form of serious anarchism really "catches on" and "takes off", that could change our opinions a lot!

What impresses me about NEFAC in Montreal is that they have a "movement" of 300-500 people there...and that's a serious number for one city in the present period.

In fact, that may be the "best thing going" anywhere in North America right now.

But the anarchist "milieu" in the U.S. does not inspire confidence...at least not on my part. I respect their willingness to engage in struggle...but there's just far too much "lifestyle-ism" for me to be comfortable in their circles.

Perhaps at some point over the next decade or so, there will be enough "autonomous Marxists" to put together a coherent organization and present our views to the public in such a way as to arouse some serious interest.

We'll see.

[Dyst]

Redstar2k, I think the situation is a little different, organization wise, in most of Europe than in the US. It's probably (obviously) because of the heavy anti-communist propaganda through the history of the US.

For example, in Oslo, the revolutionary 'Red Youth' is perhaps the second or third largest political groups (party) amongst youth. This is considering they only allow "active" members whilst the other youth parties allows anyone to be a member. They are desputably quite leninist though.

[Nachie]

Redstar, NEFAC would probably love to have you. Actually a few years back I almost joined them myself, but what stopped me was 1) I will not belong to any group with mandatory dues and 2) Marxists and the Marxist critique tend to get totally buried within that and other anarchist organizations, and I wanted to be involved in something where we could get half the billing, hence RAAN.

RAAN shows promise...but isn't really yet an organization and doesn't even have "members". Perhaps it will eventually evolve into a coherent movement but no one knows at this point.

I don't share your opinion that we are not "coherent" enough now, but I do agree that we will most likely evolve in the future. Our current structure (or anti-structure) is meant to allow this to happen in as natural a way as possible, slowly and over time, without anybody forcing the network as a whole into something like defined membership roles (though if you look at the Principles of Organization, such options are totally open to the autonomous regional groups whenever they feel it is relevant to their organizing).

Moreover, they seem disinclined to encourage serious discussion among themselves...they want action now!

This is not true, but I do understand (and apologize for the fact) that your only representative sample has been our lighthearted discussions on revleft. I encourage you to e-mail/PM me or better yet, post publicly on the RAAN forums regarding whatever type of "serious discussion" you feel to be lacking, and I promise you'll find us anything but disinclined to encourage it. Quite likely we'll refer you to some past discussions that already dealt with the issue, much like what you do here with the frequent links to articles on your site.

We are about "action now!" but this isn't a run-into-the-wall-until-something-happens-because-at-least-you're-running scenario... Things like our work on the Venezuela issue, prisoner support, and Parkour are serious long-term tactical moves being made by RAAN, and they're all based off the "serious discussion" you imply we're not having.

Perhaps at some point over the next decade or so, there will be enough "autonomous Marxists" to put together a coherent organization and present our views to the public in such a way as to arouse some serious interest.

We're trying, we're trying! (and it seems nobody else is)

PS. On the thread's original topic, Harry Cleaver is totally sweet and rebelworker, I think you would find "Reading Capital Politically" to be an excellent read.

[rebelworker]

Redstar, i understand your hesitation about the anarchists movement in the US.

Me and most people in nefac feel the same way. NEFAC and our sister orgs, the Northwest Anarchist Federation, Ther Capital Terminus Collective(Atlanta) and a few other scattered individuals and groups are the Baine of most of the rest of the anarchist movemnt. The other major anarchist current spend as much time attacking us as closet lenenists as they do attacking just about anything else.

I also dont think that I have every had a conversation with anyone in our tendancy who isnt atlest somewhat firmiliar with a marxist economic or political critique of capitalism and it is one of the foundations of our political analysis.

I would write more but Im late for a friends court date.

Ill check back in tonight.

Dave

[bayano]

i picked this book up years ago, and am thinking about returning to it. but i really dont get the need for sectarianism in the left marxist currents and other such circles. im not sure how many of the anarcho-communists in nefac that i know are that much into autonomist marxism (a lot are staunch platformists, almost to the point of leninism, which is not something i oppose). and i know so few council communists and related ideologists that im not sure how much these things matter as much as unity and action. i mean, as many people can say they are into these things, but the usa presents a sort of opportunity that none of them has successfully touched.

as much as most of this country is baron of unions, wouldnt it be easier to form a syndicalist movement in certain areas like the south east? as many factories have been shuttered in the rust belt over the past two decades (and always more are coming), hasnt there been more than enough opportunity to agitate for an occupation movement?

but instead, people would rather attack leninists and their ilk, or crimethIncers and their ilk, and frankly i think we are all potentially of the same movement, tho a real militant worker movement doesnt exist for us to unite (with)in.

oh yeah, and i like cleaver, tho i wanna go back and read him again.

[barista.marxista]

A lot of us feel that working with Leninists is as dangerous as working with Social-Democrats. Because we feel that we need to begin building the revolution now, which entails building our alternative models or organization. Leninist verticalism is as dangerous to us as Social-Democratic liberalism -- both of these models are not revolutionary, and have even been subsumed into the social-factory, as unions were decades ago. But autonomist horizontalism is not capable of being subsumed, as it is not compatible with capitalism. To admit Leninists as communists is dangerous, and instead we recognize Leninism as being a historical tool for the advancement of the third-world into modern capitalism systems.

While we spend a lot of time here arguing about Leninism, it's because a message board is limited in its capabilities. Our actual actions in real life are very different -- for example, a RAAN collective in Modesto has been focusing on a copwatch program due recent police brutality, while the collective in Philly is working to build a warchest to provide bail money for political activists and revolutionaries, in an effort to build dual-power. But Leninist vanguardism is incompatible with both of these actions, because they require community control and decentralized organization, which is threatening to the Leninist paradigm. Leninists require actions to be supervised by their central committee, and we don't want to be forced to work under any one party. That's not being communal. We need to reject Leninism, as it cannot be communism; but this is not sectarian, because they're not compatible with us. We embrace all other Leftist ideologies, from anarcho-primivism, to council communism, to Autonomism. Rejecting Leninism is only the first step in building actual red & black unity, a step that is not mutually exclusive from other action, but a step that is necessary to preform right now.