Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:00:52 +1000
Subject: Re: AUT: Grundrisse/MBM



>Well ... but the converse could be said as well. I.e. (many) working class
>actions can be understood as responses/reflexes to initiatives undertaken
>by the capitalist class. Don't you agree?

Yes, I do, Jerry. It's the notion of the working class as "prime mover" or
"original cause" (a la Tronti in "Lenin in England") which I have doubts
about, and am hoping to provoke some discussion of. But maybe I'm jumping
the gun, and should wait to see how that arises within a specific
discussion of MBM.

Mind you, I think the particular spin that Werner Bonefeld and John
Holloway put on this question, in terms of "the insubordination of labour"
(I think that's their phrase) is useful . . .

>Indeed, if we are to examine on a case-by-case basis the
>working-class "initiatives" in the last decade, we can see that many of
>those  "initiatives" are "defensive" in nature. E.g. the
>responses to the "concessions movement" of the 1980's and the struggle
>internationally against neo-liberal austerity policies in the 1990's.

Some case-by-case accounts would be more than useful, if anyone cares to
have a stab at it. The Hormel dispute in particular seemed to have many
lessons in it - Peter Rachleff for one wrote a fine book about it, after
having participated in the Twin Cities support group . . .

Steve




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---