On the 'international support' debate: with ATL
Dear ATL,
You could be right about the duality of possible uses of nationalism as an ideology. This is one reason why strictly nationalism or patriotism as ideologies can hardly ever lead to lasting social transformation. I have argued earlier on nationalism itself that without radical 'nationalists' coming to terms with the truism in Malcolm X's assertion that there really are two nations in each 'nation' (that of the masters and that of the enslaved; that of exploiter rich and that of the exploited poor; that of the minority elites and that of the immense majority of dispossessed) strategies they propose would always be deficient. It is in this light for example on a 'black nationalist' note for example that while I am pan-Africanist, I do not stand for an 'I am black and proud' unity of Africa and while I do stand for a new Nigeria, I have no illusion that it would be the same Nigeria an Abacha or Obasanjo had as their visions.
I must also say, with all due respect please, that in my view, your reducing things to what people think they were or are, as defining what they were or are, hardly helps in providing an analytical basis either for our past or in strategizing for the future.If you it were possible to ask Hitler, or Mussolini, or even the devil about what they think they are, their stories would surely be different from how the average right-thinking person would situate them historically.
Personally, I do not see any problem in how people address issues on this serve. I would even think that there is an excellent level of self-moderation in language, to a very good extent. I say this based on my experience in over a dozen other list serves on which I am active, most of these being serves of activists from diverse countries. The extent of self-moderation here would also be quite clear to members of this serve who are also on the talknigeria/ naijapolitics/ naijanet/ etc group of serves where words like 'ngbati bastard', 'oloshi ibo', and curses plus abuses of people's fathers and mothers are part of the daily menu. I got on to this serves in trying to broaden the base of participation at the March 21 meeting subsequent to Carol Ajie enjoining me to after the meeting's notice was circulated here.
In my view as well sir, persons being passionate about their views does not amount to the revealing of any despotism whatsoever. Nor is it peculiar to this serve or activists debates in our country. It is actually and has really been an ingredient of polemics and discourse from the time of Socrates and maybe even before. Nor do I see labeling someone a Trotskyite a curse or an abuse. Besides on that, contrary to the picture you present that: Once someone says something that we do not agree with, we begin to label the person a Troskite as far as I can recollect on this serve the bandying of such 'label' thus was once. This was when T.Agbonkpolor so described Chom Bagu, who clarified issues simply by stating that he is not one and such would have been clear to TA, if he better knew his antecedents. ..and this was quite a while back, in 2007!
When you argue that the dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship and the society I think we seek to build is a democratic one I would say you totally miss the Marxist theoretical framework of that formulation which relates not just to a workers' state. The argument of Marx in that formulation is actually that any and every state including the most democratic of states is a dictatorship of the dominant class in the society that state governs over. I do accept the gross deviation of what was in the USSR (from the regime of Stalin to Gorbachov) from workers' democracy which is as well what was meant by dictatorship of the proletariat. This was argued against even while it existed by a broad array of Marxists, including both Trotskyites and some non-Trotskyites, with the traditions I belong to for example asserting that the then 'actually existing socialism' was actually not socialist, right from the 1940s.
Talking of proletarian dictatorship and credentials and Prof Olukotun, I do not see where proletarian credentials come in with regards to his past as a student leader or his present as lecturer and columnist. Proletarian = working class, none of these is necessarily a component of the working class and thus, proletarian credentials' do not arise! This in itself does not negate his being sincerely radical or genuinely revolutionary, which it is not for me to judge. Some of the fiercest and most consistent revolutionary fighters have been from outside the working class and quite a number never even subscribed to the proletariat' s world view which Marxism is. Everybody in the final analysis is left to his or her own conscience to follow whatever path the conclusions s/he comes to leads her/him. All I call for, for example is that on the issues we agree on, let us fight together, to forge a greater counter-hegemonic strength and thus increase the chances we stand of vanquishing a system, state, or group of elites who have the vast benefit of the means of coercion, large means of mass communication and traditions, values, habits entrenched over time on their side.
That aside, I do wonder at the seeming presentation of my take on the Prof's submission as being one that does in anyway whatsoever impugn on his patriotic credentials or on the correctness (in my opinion) or otherwise of his position. On the contrary, I did argue that I was of the view that he was correct to a great extent stating thus: I also think that while the Prof is correct about if we were to act our age as a country and all that, the missing point being how or which kind of people will lead us in acting out our age? What I did thus was to try expand the gem in his position, being closer to mine than that of Osita, whom it was I was responding to. I also did make it clear that that was my view and not a gospel truth from divine revelation that could not be contradicted, as obvious from my emphasis above.
I am bothered by a trend in your posting which reflects a line of argument that had featured several times earlier on this serve. This is a very curious manner of trying to deny some persons of the right to air their views by claiming that opposition views are slammed down with sledgehammers and that all views are not tolerated. Is it by refusing to air one's own views that one respects others views or conversely by engaging with others' views, and then letting practice or the strength of the logic of all contending views determine what is at a point in time, right or wrong if such could thus and then be determined? Why do you seek to do exactly to me, what you claim I do, without any reference to my doing so...because I never did so?
You say: What I am trying to say is that, please, don't start vilifying people just because they see things differently from the way you see them but could you be kind enough sir, to point at just one example of my vilifying a person or people, as against engaging with their views by exercising my equal right to present my own views as well?
You wonder at if a new society would be built throuh a struggle of ideas instead of people merely patting the back of people they feel have presented banal or retrogressive views. Of course it is not a question of Is this the way we are going to build the new society, history shows precisely that every new order has emerged from such contestations of ideas and the forces they represent, more often than not with the utmost of fierceness and thorough-going stubbornness of every side at crucial turning points, in human progress. The truth thus, if you ask me is not that: We can't build a new society that way, but that it is through the struggle over ideas and the struggles of social forces that every new society has been formed. This does not contradict the fact that Tolerance... that's what we need mostly here in the sense that no one should ascribe an halo to his or her position. Viewpoints should be thus presented as opinions and not in 'whether we like it or not' manners on one hand, nor on the other should people sanctify their sects or groups of sects as the chosen more 'comraded' or 'progressived' vanguard. And this is why I have fought against both dimensions of sectarian currents on this serve and other platforms where I concurrently engage on and also always present my opinions as viewpoints!
On a final note, I was very much amused that There are those, Baba Aye, who would say that you are vociferous because you are far away, ensconced as it were from the stark realities of the system, of course, this was not totally unexpected with the stridency of my voice thus far, insisting that we do what I strongly believe we ought to do, and which we had all verbally pledged ourselves to, because, aye k' oto...I would have just let that slide because really there is no talk in this one, ko s' oro ni nu e. I however remembered that in an earlier debate, my brushing aside response to an obvious metamorphosis of a position to another while claiming to be the same thing (i.e corruption eventually became = subjugation! ), became taken and presented as my accepting such, in my view, an expression of the blandest of inanities.
You do not define what you mean by 'the stark realities of the system'. It could be assumed though I believe, that it would basically be the socio-economic malaise of Nigeria and probably as well, the dangers of state impunity. Anyway, I do not think that your argument holds water, with all due respect. The Nigerian state in its present Republican manifestation might rule with impunity, but it was worse under its military incarceration, that however did not stop people being vociferous. Similarly, people's socio-economic realities were worse then, but we were all more active in action, than we now seem to be.
As for me being ensconced, as you put it, well....First, you might wish to agree that there are several elements of stark realities. I have made sacrifices, here, with regards to juggling my priorities for interventions through this channel, and several others bearing on the present state of our country and a world order, challenged yet still strong, by the present crisis of capitalism. Secondly and more important sir, is that far from being ensconced from the social realities back home, the pursuit of this programme, due to happenstances immediately after I left the country have been at the cost of deprivation, and humiliation for me, here and my family back home. And some of the worst of the blows came while I was on some of the most crucial formulations I have presented here and elsewhere. I have found succour in the truism of Marx Horkheimer's words thus: “a revolutionary career does not lead to banquets and honorary titles, interesting research and professorial wages. It leads to misery, disgrace, ingratitude, prison and a voyage into the unknown, illuminated by only an almost superhuman belief.”
For those who are convinced that I am ensconced though, my prayer is that may they be as ensconced as I have been, amen, amin, ase. But whether people are ensconced or not, whether we choose to stand by March 21 or not, the key issue remains in my view: what are we doing beyond merely online talk?
My regards,
Baba Aye
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: Asaju Tunde Lee
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 11:30 AM
Baba Aye,
Nationalism has a positive and negative coloration doesn't it. Because, if you ask Abacha or Obasanjo, they would both tell you that they are nationalistic in their approach. Abacha refused to leave Nigeria, stashed a lot of money abroad in foreign reserves albeit for himself first and then for the nation. Obasanjo did everything he did because he believed that he was the wisest and everybody else was wrong.
The way we usually carry on on this listserve betrays the despotism in us all. Once someone says something that we do not agree with, we begin to label the person a Troskite. But then, the dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship and the society I think we seek to build is a democratic one. Now, democracy presupposes that we should tolerate other people's viewpoints even when they are not as progressive as we think.
There are those, Baba Aye, who would say that you are vociferous because you are far away, esconced as it were from the stark realities of the system. I think Ayo Olukotun has shown himself as patriotic as anybody else I know either on this listserve or as a person. His proletarian credentials either as a student leader, a lecturer or a columnist is well known. He does not have to follow where the path leads. There is something good in paving a new path and hoping that it is the right road that others have refused to follow.
Is this the way we are going to build the new society - where opposition views are slammed down with sledgehammers or are we going to be tolerant of all views - the progressive, the retrogressive and the banal? Methinks there is sanity in what our elders say, that even a mad man has a viewpoint and in the period of momentary sanity could be more correct than the so-called sane man.
Our arguments are too divisive and too retrogressive to represent democratic ideals. The bottom line, to my mind is Nigeria. We all love this country to bits, even the idiots who are eating it out still love it (for different reasons). What I am trying to say is that, please, don't start villifying people just because they see things differently from the way you see them. We can't build a new society that way. Tolerance... that's what we need mostly here. Let's find it, and then we can amass the power of the masses for a clear revolution.
Tunde Asaju
You could be right about the duality of possible uses of nationalism as an ideology. This is one reason why strictly nationalism or patriotism as ideologies can hardly ever lead to lasting social transformation. I have argued earlier on nationalism itself that without radical 'nationalists' coming to terms with the truism in Malcolm X's assertion that there really are two nations in each 'nation' (that of the masters and that of the enslaved; that of exploiter rich and that of the exploited poor; that of the minority elites and that of the immense majority of dispossessed) strategies they propose would always be deficient. It is in this light for example on a 'black nationalist' note for example that while I am pan-Africanist, I do not stand for an 'I am black and proud' unity of Africa and while I do stand for a new Nigeria, I have no illusion that it would be the same Nigeria an Abacha or Obasanjo had as their visions.
I must also say, with all due respect please, that in my view, your reducing things to what people think they were or are, as defining what they were or are, hardly helps in providing an analytical basis either for our past or in strategizing for the future.If you it were possible to ask Hitler, or Mussolini, or even the devil about what they think they are, their stories would surely be different from how the average right-thinking person would situate them historically.
Personally, I do not see any problem in how people address issues on this serve. I would even think that there is an excellent level of self-moderation in language, to a very good extent. I say this based on my experience in over a dozen other list serves on which I am active, most of these being serves of activists from diverse countries. The extent of self-moderation here would also be quite clear to members of this serve who are also on the talknigeria/ naijapolitics/ naijanet/ etc group of serves where words like 'ngbati bastard', 'oloshi ibo', and curses plus abuses of people's fathers and mothers are part of the daily menu. I got on to this serves in trying to broaden the base of participation at the March 21 meeting subsequent to Carol Ajie enjoining me to after the meeting's notice was circulated here.
In my view as well sir, persons being passionate about their views does not amount to the revealing of any despotism whatsoever. Nor is it peculiar to this serve or activists debates in our country. It is actually and has really been an ingredient of polemics and discourse from the time of Socrates and maybe even before. Nor do I see labeling someone a Trotskyite a curse or an abuse. Besides on that, contrary to the picture you present that: Once someone says something that we do not agree with, we begin to label the person a Troskite as far as I can recollect on this serve the bandying of such 'label' thus was once. This was when T.Agbonkpolor so described Chom Bagu, who clarified issues simply by stating that he is not one and such would have been clear to TA, if he better knew his antecedents. ..and this was quite a while back, in 2007!
When you argue that the dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship and the society I think we seek to build is a democratic one I would say you totally miss the Marxist theoretical framework of that formulation which relates not just to a workers' state. The argument of Marx in that formulation is actually that any and every state including the most democratic of states is a dictatorship of the dominant class in the society that state governs over. I do accept the gross deviation of what was in the USSR (from the regime of Stalin to Gorbachov) from workers' democracy which is as well what was meant by dictatorship of the proletariat. This was argued against even while it existed by a broad array of Marxists, including both Trotskyites and some non-Trotskyites, with the traditions I belong to for example asserting that the then 'actually existing socialism' was actually not socialist, right from the 1940s.
Talking of proletarian dictatorship and credentials and Prof Olukotun, I do not see where proletarian credentials come in with regards to his past as a student leader or his present as lecturer and columnist. Proletarian = working class, none of these is necessarily a component of the working class and thus, proletarian credentials' do not arise! This in itself does not negate his being sincerely radical or genuinely revolutionary, which it is not for me to judge. Some of the fiercest and most consistent revolutionary fighters have been from outside the working class and quite a number never even subscribed to the proletariat' s world view which Marxism is. Everybody in the final analysis is left to his or her own conscience to follow whatever path the conclusions s/he comes to leads her/him. All I call for, for example is that on the issues we agree on, let us fight together, to forge a greater counter-hegemonic strength and thus increase the chances we stand of vanquishing a system, state, or group of elites who have the vast benefit of the means of coercion, large means of mass communication and traditions, values, habits entrenched over time on their side.
That aside, I do wonder at the seeming presentation of my take on the Prof's submission as being one that does in anyway whatsoever impugn on his patriotic credentials or on the correctness (in my opinion) or otherwise of his position. On the contrary, I did argue that I was of the view that he was correct to a great extent stating thus: I also think that while the Prof is correct about if we were to act our age as a country and all that, the missing point being how or which kind of people will lead us in acting out our age? What I did thus was to try expand the gem in his position, being closer to mine than that of Osita, whom it was I was responding to. I also did make it clear that that was my view and not a gospel truth from divine revelation that could not be contradicted, as obvious from my emphasis above.
I am bothered by a trend in your posting which reflects a line of argument that had featured several times earlier on this serve. This is a very curious manner of trying to deny some persons of the right to air their views by claiming that opposition views are slammed down with sledgehammers and that all views are not tolerated. Is it by refusing to air one's own views that one respects others views or conversely by engaging with others' views, and then letting practice or the strength of the logic of all contending views determine what is at a point in time, right or wrong if such could thus and then be determined? Why do you seek to do exactly to me, what you claim I do, without any reference to my doing so...because I never did so?
You say: What I am trying to say is that, please, don't start vilifying people just because they see things differently from the way you see them but could you be kind enough sir, to point at just one example of my vilifying a person or people, as against engaging with their views by exercising my equal right to present my own views as well?
You wonder at if a new society would be built throuh a struggle of ideas instead of people merely patting the back of people they feel have presented banal or retrogressive views. Of course it is not a question of Is this the way we are going to build the new society, history shows precisely that every new order has emerged from such contestations of ideas and the forces they represent, more often than not with the utmost of fierceness and thorough-going stubbornness of every side at crucial turning points, in human progress. The truth thus, if you ask me is not that: We can't build a new society that way, but that it is through the struggle over ideas and the struggles of social forces that every new society has been formed. This does not contradict the fact that Tolerance... that's what we need mostly here in the sense that no one should ascribe an halo to his or her position. Viewpoints should be thus presented as opinions and not in 'whether we like it or not' manners on one hand, nor on the other should people sanctify their sects or groups of sects as the chosen more 'comraded' or 'progressived' vanguard. And this is why I have fought against both dimensions of sectarian currents on this serve and other platforms where I concurrently engage on and also always present my opinions as viewpoints!
On a final note, I was very much amused that There are those, Baba Aye, who would say that you are vociferous because you are far away, ensconced as it were from the stark realities of the system, of course, this was not totally unexpected with the stridency of my voice thus far, insisting that we do what I strongly believe we ought to do, and which we had all verbally pledged ourselves to, because, aye k' oto...I would have just let that slide because really there is no talk in this one, ko s' oro ni nu e. I however remembered that in an earlier debate, my brushing aside response to an obvious metamorphosis of a position to another while claiming to be the same thing (i.e corruption eventually became = subjugation! ), became taken and presented as my accepting such, in my view, an expression of the blandest of inanities.
You do not define what you mean by 'the stark realities of the system'. It could be assumed though I believe, that it would basically be the socio-economic malaise of Nigeria and probably as well, the dangers of state impunity. Anyway, I do not think that your argument holds water, with all due respect. The Nigerian state in its present Republican manifestation might rule with impunity, but it was worse under its military incarceration, that however did not stop people being vociferous. Similarly, people's socio-economic realities were worse then, but we were all more active in action, than we now seem to be.
As for me being ensconced, as you put it, well....First, you might wish to agree that there are several elements of stark realities. I have made sacrifices, here, with regards to juggling my priorities for interventions through this channel, and several others bearing on the present state of our country and a world order, challenged yet still strong, by the present crisis of capitalism. Secondly and more important sir, is that far from being ensconced from the social realities back home, the pursuit of this programme, due to happenstances immediately after I left the country have been at the cost of deprivation, and humiliation for me, here and my family back home. And some of the worst of the blows came while I was on some of the most crucial formulations I have presented here and elsewhere. I have found succour in the truism of Marx Horkheimer's words thus: “a revolutionary career does not lead to banquets and honorary titles, interesting research and professorial wages. It leads to misery, disgrace, ingratitude, prison and a voyage into the unknown, illuminated by only an almost superhuman belief.”
For those who are convinced that I am ensconced though, my prayer is that may they be as ensconced as I have been, amen, amin, ase. But whether people are ensconced or not, whether we choose to stand by March 21 or not, the key issue remains in my view: what are we doing beyond merely online talk?
My regards,
Baba Aye
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: Asaju Tunde Lee
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 11:30 AM
Baba Aye,
Nationalism has a positive and negative coloration doesn't it. Because, if you ask Abacha or Obasanjo, they would both tell you that they are nationalistic in their approach. Abacha refused to leave Nigeria, stashed a lot of money abroad in foreign reserves albeit for himself first and then for the nation. Obasanjo did everything he did because he believed that he was the wisest and everybody else was wrong.
The way we usually carry on on this listserve betrays the despotism in us all. Once someone says something that we do not agree with, we begin to label the person a Troskite. But then, the dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship and the society I think we seek to build is a democratic one. Now, democracy presupposes that we should tolerate other people's viewpoints even when they are not as progressive as we think.
There are those, Baba Aye, who would say that you are vociferous because you are far away, esconced as it were from the stark realities of the system. I think Ayo Olukotun has shown himself as patriotic as anybody else I know either on this listserve or as a person. His proletarian credentials either as a student leader, a lecturer or a columnist is well known. He does not have to follow where the path leads. There is something good in paving a new path and hoping that it is the right road that others have refused to follow.
Is this the way we are going to build the new society - where opposition views are slammed down with sledgehammers or are we going to be tolerant of all views - the progressive, the retrogressive and the banal? Methinks there is sanity in what our elders say, that even a mad man has a viewpoint and in the period of momentary sanity could be more correct than the so-called sane man.
Our arguments are too divisive and too retrogressive to represent democratic ideals. The bottom line, to my mind is Nigeria. We all love this country to bits, even the idiots who are eating it out still love it (for different reasons). What I am trying to say is that, please, don't start villifying people just because they see things differently from the way you see them. We can't build a new society that way. Tolerance... that's what we need mostly here. Let's find it, and then we can amass the power of the masses for a clear revolution.
Tunde Asaju
Comments