partial struggles discussion

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
jaycee
partial struggles discussion
Printer-friendly version

Thought I might go over some of the points raised yesterday in the discussion on partial struggles. 

In terms of the points I made I think I tried to go through too many ideas in one go so I'll try and be clearer here.

With regard to my point about 'whiteness' I think I was misunderstood a little bit; the idea of inequalities within the class is nothing new. Marx spoke about the way 'foreign' labour was used to undermine solidarity and drive down wages and conditions. The point I was getting at was that 'race' is an important aspect of this.

The whole notion of a white 'identity/community' has always been a version of this divide and rule. My point was that the way this effects workers on a psychological level needs to be analysed. It is ultimately no different to any other 'privilege' (the notion of privilege is a dangerous illusion for the class but also has real effects and a certain reality for and on the class). This point links also to the idea of the the 'intergration' of the class in bourgeois society/legalism. The idea of identifying with our masters is one important aspect of this tendency and in order to overcome this we need to study and discuss it with a depth that goes beyond bourgeois notions. 

My wider point was that the obsession with 'identity' is not only an expression  of decomposition/individualism taken to its logical extreme but needs to be understood in terms of the relationship between 'matter'  and ideology more generally.

Identity itself can be seen as inherently conservative as it tends to solidify,  naturalise and mystify social relations but this is only part of the story. Humanity cannot live without identity and we as Marxists have to have a dialectical approach to this question. The proletarian 'identity' is not like other identities:

Firstly in the positive sense that it represents a solution to all partial struggles and in the sense that proletarian identity is one of overcoming its limited sense of self because the real proletarian identity is an identity that aims at its own destruction/overcoming. But the proletarian identity also poses difficulties due to its 'negative' character. It is an identity of lack, of the loss of community and in a deep sense of the lack of real identity/alienation inherent in  capitalist relations. This is part of why such meaningless and arbitrary identities such as black or white can have such a hold on people and why the search for identity is so fervant in capitalist society (particularly in its most 'developed' forms i.e the West in the era of decomposition)..

Another idea I wanted to get across but don't think I did properly was that there is a question to answer regarding the motivational power of identity/ideology/myth. As Marxists we see that ideology is often a cloak for material factors but it is equally true that people throughout history have tended to NEED this cloak and I don't think this can be entirely explained by the need to obscure class relations. It seems to go deeper than this. Material factors alone do not consciously motivate people without such 'myths'. Why this tends to be the case is an important question in understanding the current state of class struggle and consciousness but also 'human nature' itself.

Forumteam
class identity is the key issue

The ICC has been discussing the question of “partial” struggles/identity politics with a number of contacts, and jaycee’s post arises from one of these discussions. We think it’s a valid concern to want to deepen the problem of identity in human history, even going back to before the rise of class society, but we also think the key issue posed in the post is that of the class identity of the proletariat, which expresses its nature as the first exploited  class in history to be also a revolutionary class, and which is the theoretical basis for our critique of identity politics and single issue movements around race and gender, of inter-classist protests, etc.  Comrades who want to develop this discussion can refer to the text presented to the 23rd ICC Congress: Report on the class struggle : Formation, loss and re-conquest of proletarian class identity | International Communist Current (internationalism.org)

joan
partial struggles & identity politcs

I think both the contribution of jaycee and of the forum team are valuable contributions to the discussion.

Jaycee :

1) It is an attitude to be appreciated and encouraged to try to clarify points of view that one has put forward and which one feels (fears) one has not been clear enough about, that there may be misunderstandings about.
"In terms of the points I made I think I tried to go through too many ideas in one go so I'll try and be clearer here.With regard to my point about 'whiteness' I think I was misunderstood a little bit..."
Such clarifications (or attempts at them) are far too few (and I, too, admit guilt in my relation to the ICC).

2) On a very first, very cursory reading, I thought: again about the partial struggle, again about "identity", again someone who thinks that these issues are "forgotten" by the ICC and other Marxists, who swear only by the working class and its class struggle, who are only interested in the "base" (the economy) and not enough in the "superstructure" (the ideological, the cultural, etc.),who , does not take into account other aspects of society and of life, all kinds of other specific forms of oppression and exploitation.
In other words, the discourse that is so often seen and heard among anti-racist activists, feminists, LGBT+ activists, environmental and climate activists, etc., whereby in the "best case" (?) the workers' struggle becomes one of the many struggles (against sexual oppression, against the war, against "right-wing", against indifference and hatred towards refugees, etc., etc.).
But fortunately nothing of the sort.
A closer reading revealed that it mainly advocates a deeper study of the aspects of "race" and "identity" in the working class struggle, without in any way diminishing the primordial role of the working class and its class struggle.
At least that is how I understand this contribution.

The forum team says :
"
We think it's a valid concern to want to deepen the problem of identity in human history, even going back to before the rise of class society, but we also think the key issue posed in the post is that of the class identity of the proletariat, which expresses its nature as the first exploited class in history to be also a revolutionary class, and which is the theoretical basis for our critique of identity politics and single issue movements around race and gender, of inter-classist protests, etc."  A

I myself have at the moment nothing to add to the subject.

I only refer to the very interesting articles on the history of the working class in the USA (and even before the founding of the USA) and on the "race question" in the USA. (Note 1)
It is clearly stated that the division into black and white in particular was from the outset a
conscious, Machiavellian policy of the bourgeoisie to divide and thus weaken the working class.

In this context, see also the testimony of the ICC militant Jerry Grevin, who demonstrates once again how "weird" and complicated the "race" question often is.

"As a militant of ICC, his political arguments would often be illustrated by vivid images, drawn from his own experience.

One such described an incident in the American South, where his gang of New York telephone workers had been sent on a job. A black worker in the group was victimized by management for some alleged misdemeanor; the New Yorkers sprang to his defense, to the surprise of their Southern co-workers: "Why bother?" they asked, "he's only a nigger". To which one of the New Yorkers vigorously replied that color didn't matter, that workers were all workers together, and that they had to defend each other against the bosses. "Now the remarkable thing", Jerry would conclude, "is that this guy who was strongest in defense of the black worker, was known in the group as a racist who himself had moved to Long Island to avoid living in a black neighborhood. And that shows how class struggle and solidarity is the only real antidote to racism".”(Note 2)

 

Note 1 

–  ‘Notes on the early class struggle in America - Part I: The birth of the Americanproletariat’,

 https://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/201303/6529/notes-early-

 ICConline – 2013  » March 2013

–  ‘The birth of American democracy: “Tyranny is tyranny”’, 

https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201402/9461/birth-american-dem

ICConline – 2014  » February 2014

Notes on the early class struggle in America: Part 3 - The birth of the US workers’ movement and the difficult struggle for class unity

 https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201402/9461/birth-american-dem...   ICConline – 2019  » April 2019

The American Civil War and the struggle for working class unity

https://en.internationalism.org/content/16709/american-civil-war-and-str... - 

ICConline – 2019  » July 2019

USA: the struggle of the workers’ movement against slavery and racism (Part 1)

https://en.internationalism.org/content/16962/usa-struggle-workers-movem...

  World Revolution 388 - Winter 2021 Submitted by ICConline on 29 January, 2021 -

 

USA: the struggle of the workers’ movement against slavery and racism (Part 2)

https://en.internationalism.org/content/17017/usa-struggle-workers-movem...

World Revolution 389 - Summer 2021

 

USA: the struggle of the workers’ movement against slavery and racism (Part 3)

https://en.internationalism.org/content/17078/usa-struggle-workers-movem...

World Revolution 390 - Autumn 2021

 

Note 2

The ICC's tribute to our comrade Jerry Grevin

  https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/03/jerry-grevin ICConline – 2010  » March 2010

d-man
a sin to err

jaycee wrote:
Identity itself can be seen as inherently conservative as it tends to solidify,  naturalise and mystify social relations but this is only part of the story. Humanity cannot live without identity ..

Leaving aside the ICC's choice of the term 'identity' (which already in 1827 was criticised, for its vacuity), the Nietzschean response to your claim about the alleged need for a mental crutch, would be, that a prime candidate for this crutch can be located in the comforting feeling of righteous indignation and outrage, expressed also during fights for social justice, against oppression of certain groups, in a revolt of the herd animal within existing mass society, against the privileged (which can mean liberal elites/the PMC, just as well as the hegemonic "conservative/backward" working class). This feeling of comfort includes hatred and resentment. It is a revolt that destroys and tears down, but, given that everyone revolts, it also is responsible for building and maintaining what exists. The identity of a pyromaniac, in a cold winter (aka the conformist rebel). The fire of revolt is heroic, beautiful, intense, but so too construction (or preservation) can be not only boring, traditional, difficult, but rather likewise a heroic, beautiful challenge of keeping the true authentic flame (of civilisation) alive, protecting it against the omnipresent dark ugliness and shallowness of barbarians who wish to extinguish it, ie to destroy (burn down) fire itself. But what is the precise error in holding this comfortable feeling of revolt, hatred, justice and righteousness?

A person without a leg is perfectly in their right to use a crutch – that's what crutches are made for, to cope with walking. If a person with functioning legs used a crutch, the crutch could cause their legs to atrophy, but then a crutch would acquire its right to be used, given that the person indeed now has become too weak to walk without it. The use of a mental crutch thus can be an inherent need, even though this need was first caused by use of the mental crutch. The answer apparently is, that the error lies in the holding of the mental feeling(/identity), because holding it, causes the need for holding it. And yet, crutches have their use, why would they have been made otherwise!, – one could reason, like a drug addict with a headache from bumping their head against a wall. If the error were like an addiction, it would not be easy to correct it. Can it be avoided in the first place? How do you recognise or judge it, if you haven't tried and experienced its taste? Or is it perhaps insulting, reductive and misleading to compare the noblest, 100% sincerest, deepest, urgent feelings of outrage, comfort, etc., to the simple effects of a mere chemical (and besides, if the brain is capable of producing dopamine, there must be a right use to it, so the error in itself cannot lie in experiencing the chemical effect)? In any case, such analogy does not seem to clarify what the mistake or error exactly is. "Haters gonna hate" (to paraphrase Nietzsche), is not an explanation. It is not even a condemnation (of sin) either, but supposedly a cool indifference (why then talk about it at all though?). No thanks will be given for such wisdom, so don't expect them. Expect more hatred from the haters, for saying such a stupid thing.

 

d-man
more on mental crutch

As I wrote above, the mental crutch that is "identity", which people rely on in order to cope "with reality", can be regarded (just on a Nietzschean level) as a mistake, but it is difficult to specify what this mistake exactly is, and avoid seeing it just as a sinful fault (requiring mere self-denunciation), so let me try again.

As noted, one method of psychologically coping "with reality" is a retreat to the comforting world-weary feeling of moral righteousness, which can involve resentment and hatred (against the privileged). This is not just external signalling of one's virtue, but a deep-felt need, a crutch.

Another psychological way to cope with reality is that of narcissistic pride in (dealing with) suffering, eg the bragging of hard men parodied in the Four Yorkshiremen sketch (so btw this is a general method, used not only by people coming from marginal groups). This focus on the ability (or self-condemning lack thereof) to cope with reality is perhaps what in online lingo is praised as "being based" or "red-pilled", and is perhaps equivalent to the conept of Being-in-the-World (Heidegger), while in Nietzschean terms, I don't know, it is perhaps called acknowledgement of the death of God and the overcoming of man. Often those who use the word "cope" as a negative (in the sense of "excuse"), pride thelmselves most of the ability to cope with reality. That is, it is grit, it is embracing depression (the world is not a happy place, not a safe space). It's not clear if this way of coping still can be classified as the signalling of a specific virtue (unlike the allleged good niceness with the first method), because the person wishes to focus just on their individual method of self-growth (their own talent, intellectual wisdom, original insight into people, etc.). If there is any virtue to be found here, it is perhaps the virtue of the survivor, of being and staying alive, of steadfast resistance (against haters or phobes). Yet despite the lack of moralistic posturing (with its hypocrisy, etc.) in this method, we have here likewise still a mental crutch, a source of pride deeply inside, a desire for self-respect, a vital and unique (special snowflake) identity or independent authentic lifestyle. To be deprived of the (illusory) ideal of oneself, would be experienced as a loss of respect, a mental breakdown, an erasure of one's very existence. But is "letting go" of this method of coping even possible? Is this method of coping even an error that could be avoided?

I write about the mental crutch of pride in (or desire for) coping with reality. A mental crutch (cope) can, it seems to me, thus also consist in having (or wanting) a crutch (mental ability to cope) in the abstract (unlike with the at least somewhat more concrete method of righteousness). It's a desire of having the right attitude/mindset, having a spirit of coping. The mental crutch is the wish itself to have a mental crutch. "Fake it until you make it" (to paraphrase Pascal, or Butler's concept of performativity). In my previous post I speculated, among others things, how the use itself of a crutch could cause the need (and so desire) for its use to arise (which would indicate the problem lies mostly in its use). Now I add, that the act of wishing for (or pretending to have) a mental crutch (ability to cope with reality), is the crutch in its pure form, which would indicate the problem lies not in its use (actually practising an identity), but in the wish for/pretense of using(/having) an identity.

If a person, whose legs function, avoids the use of a crutch (and so avoids atrophy of their legs, as in the example I gave in my previous post), it thus I think still is possible in other way for this person to become unable to walk (without a crutch), namely by having so strong a desire for a crutch (not a desire for walking, but a desire for the crutch), that, in order to obtain a crutch, they would be willing to neglect/refuse walking (ie they would refuse to get up from their knees).

 

joan
partial struggles & identity politcs

d-man,

what do you mean by the abbreviation  PMC (  #4 line 10 )?

 

d-man
I don't know what the exact

I don't know what the exact conceptual content of PMC is worth (also, I do reject the use of the concept "gender", used by the Forumteam earlier); the letters stand for professional-managerial class.

Criticism of "identity" is not just about the choice for this particular term, but refers to the whole concept of "person".

Bordiga wrote:
... it is sought to reduce the problems of social struggle and historical development ... to development, conquests or the liberation of the “human person”. ... propaganda from all sides keep calling her (ie the person) to the stage, even though she is the dumbest of all the misses or queens who “circulate” for today’s foolish and highly successful publications.

https://libriincogniti.wordpress.com/2019/10/24/on-the-thread-of-time-marxism-and-the-human-person/

But criticism of identity (/ego, self-representation, etc) should avoid falling into mere denunciation of it. The following quote, from a book's section entitled "Demeaning oneself as service: The happiness of the Christian individual", reminds me simply of Nietzsche again:

Quote:

... the method of taking one’s own weaknesses as the badge of a sort of person to be unconditionally respected, of awarding oneself a unique advantage with all one’s self-denunciation, can score a success in bourgeois society ... The Christian mania of being deeply steeped in sin, with its hypocritical humility that undauntedly claims to be fighting materialism in oneself and especially in others, is ... considered ... as a realization of the human spirit per se. ... the deepest expression of gratitude for undeserved benefit. ... neither the eating nor the knowing redounds to the individual’s finding his real humanity, and morality always appears as supreme happiness. (And there is really no more to the idea of happiness!) The demonstration of religious simpleness is not one of righteousness, but always one of happiness, which befalls mankind with Pope, liturgy, joyful renunciation, and the declaration of powerlessness.

https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/books/chapter-11-madness-and-normality

Criticism of religion (the most famous mental crutch), I think should avoid sounding like an ex-Christian, who renounces their former Christianity, as a sin. The common criticism of the Church apropos its belief in a geocentric conception of the universe, and now even human-centric bias (there might be ET life), seems to have as its drive a moral condemnation of man's narcissism, that is lack of humility.

joan
 PMC (...) the letters stand

 PMC (...) the letters stand for professional-managerial class.

Many thanks for the explantion

joan
correction

 PMC (...) the letters stand for professional-managerial class.

Many thanks for the explanation 

jaycee
Thanks gor the support Joan.

Thanks gor the support Joan. I'm glad it's clear I'm not supporting identity politics.

D-man: I appreciate the attempt to clarify your points and to go deeper into the question of identity itself. I think that that there's an important difference between the concept of a cloak and a crutch though. 

Identity itself can certainly be seen as a crutch; a way to impose order and 'safety' on a chaotic and 'dangerous' reality but the idea of a cloak is a little wider I think. I'll come back to this distinction in a bit though.

With regards to Nietzche I think he in many ways represents highest and lowest points of bourgeois thought. On the one hand he had great insights into the hypocrisy and emptiness of contemporary ideology but could not replace these with anything of substance. Like the bourgeoisie itself he could destroy all values but couldn't replace them with anything other than those of the lone individual facing an indifferent or hostile universe. Unfortunately beliefs and values held by one person alone is ultimately just madness. 

Only a true community can develop true identity and a truly human worldview. This brings us back to the idea of cloaks; a cloak can be seen simply as a means to hide and decieve but it can also be a vital piece of clothing. Humans exist in community and hence in a world of ideas and shared values. 

In this sense the 'cloak' of mythology and identity is intimately linked to the nature of culture itself. It also seems true that these ideas are often as great and at times greater influences than 'material reality' alone. However as you have I think alluded to this attachment to these cloaks can also be a way of avoiding reality as they can be to create a new reality.

In terms of identity politics alot of the attachment has to do with avoiding the truth of responsibility; we as a species and the proletariat in particular do not want to see the true state of the world and the need for action. The scale is simply too overwhelming; risking our lives in what looks like an impossible fight leads people to chose other 'partial struggles' especially when we can still get by in our chains and material reality is still relatively comfortable.

This is where the idea of 'privilege' comes in to play; we are all part of a system that is at the root of all the oppression, environmental destruction and crimes around the world. We (in the west in particular) have been taught to a greater and greater extent to identify with our masters and this has a dual effect of increasing feelings of guilt and therefore of projection onto others while also increasing the sense of powerlessness outside of the structures of the system.

Again I'm not sure I expressed myself as clearly as I wanted but there are also important questions with regard to the nature of proletarian identity; it is revolutionary or it is nothing. This is a serious problem because revolutions are very rare. The faith it takes to make a revolution is more and more something people do not have and find increasingly difficult to even conceive of. Part of the problem is to achieve an identity which is not simply a crutch; identity which does not want to hold onto itself but to abolish itself.

This is a question which has been developed most gully and systematically in Buddhist philosophy and other mystical traditions. At least they went further than Nietzche but I will stop there before adding too many questions.

 

 

 

d-man
The notion of bliss/happiness

The notion of bliss/happiness perhaps coincides with the notion of ego-death/oceanic-feeling/Nirvanna. I insist however, that a critique of identity/personality/ego, should not be a mere denunciation of it, not be a mere call for humility, self-effacement (which is present in religion already), but should explain the precise logical error of this mental crutch, which I claim includes the attachment to the pursuit of happiness/identity/self-realisation. A self-effacing religious person would hold, that the material pursuit of (or the mere wish for) happiness is what prevents the attainment of happiness (one should strive instead for spiritual enlightenment etc.), without doubting, though, the value of bliss/knowledge of god (which exists already in everyday life or in meditation). The problem with identity/bliss cannot be reduced to its mere biological (chemical/brain-waves) manifestations, as these seem quite natural (the inducement of trance in primitive peoples, and perhaps one might find examples of such behavioural paths to ecstasy even in other species, including spiders who sense musical vibrations).

The critique of identity/the ego includes the critique of blissful self-effacement, as just another mental crutch (besides righteousness and character). In my analogy of righteousness (and other methods of coping with reality, ie conformism) to a mental crutch I specified, that a crutch in itself isn't a bad thing (how would you even try to criticise a crutch?). It's obvious that participants in (ultimately conformist) struggles feel themselves to be righteous, steadfast or humble (their opponents evil, lucky or arrogant), and that such framing keeps them busy/coping (engaged in struggle). It's another thing, to explain where their error lies and so how to avoid it.

jaycee wrote:
a cloak can be seen simply as a means to hide and decieve but it can also be a vital piece of clothing.

I try to avoid condemning the use of a crutch (identity as a way of coping, ie conforming with the world), as morally bad. Let's call it just a "non-vital" use, ie in my example by a person with functioning legs. In your analogy of a cloak, a non-vital use could be during beautiful weather. In my example, the non-vital use of the crutch causes a negative effect, namely atrophy of leg muscles, which prevents (naturally) walking. The non-vital use of a cloak (during a heat wave) causes a heat stroke. In my example, the answer to the negative effect leads to more use of the crutch, ie continued use, like an addictive drug. If I think about your example of the cloak, the negative effect (of heat stroke) could perhaps be answered by waiving the cloak (for cool breeze). Such non-vital use of the cloak has then become vital, for cooling a person with heat stroke.

To criticise conformist beliefs/identity (ie which help cope with reality), by comparing them simply to an object like a crutch (or even a cloak) would be nonsensical. I picked a crutch, which has an uncontroverted reputation as a beneficial object (unlike eg opium). My analogy was (and I should expand on it maybe further) just an attempt to locate the error of psychological coping mechanisms like identity.

Quote:
... the attachment has to do with avoiding the truth of responsibility; we as a species and the proletariat in particular do not want to see the true state of the world and the need for action. The scale is simply too overwhelming; ...  The faith it takes to make a revolution is more and more something people do not have and find increasingly difficult to even conceive of. Part of the problem is to achieve an identity which is not simply a crutch; identity which does not want to hold onto itself but to abolish itself.

I tend to hold, that the use of crutches leads people as a consequence to avoid understanding and changing the reality (ie instead they merely cope with reality), whereas you seem to hold the reverse, that people first avoid reality and thereby as a consequence they settle on the use of crutches, and this seems to diminish the importance of criticising identity/coping-mechanisms.

When we say the proleratiat needs to abolish itself, it refers to a social relation, not an identity. Why would there be a need to abolish the great "faith"/confidence (identity, a term which the ICC seems to prefer over the old-fashioned proletarian conscioussness), that is, on what grounds is there a need to abolish the understanding of the total picture of capitalism and ability to overthrow it? How could it even be erased from its memory, maybe by burning the ICC's pamphlets?

jaycee
Sorry but I don't understand

Sorry but I don't understand this: " Why would there be a need to abolish the great "faith"/confidence (identity, a term which the ICC seems to prefer over the old-fashioned proletarian conscioussness), that is, on what grounds is there a need to abolish the understanding of the total picture of capitalism and ability to overthrow it?" 

Also you seem to be separating the social relation from the identity which I don't quite understand either. Proletarian identity (knowing our social rekation/reality) is an essential step in overcoming that reality,  no?

jaycee
Sorry but I don't understand

Sorry but I don't understand this: " Why would there be a need to abolish the great "faith"/confidence (identity, a term which the ICC seems to prefer over the old-fashioned proletarian conscioussness), that is, on what grounds is there a need to abolish the understanding of the total picture of capitalism and ability to overthrow it?" 

Also you seem to be separating the social relation from the identity which I don't quite understand either. Proletarian identity (knowing our social rekation/reality) is an essential step in overcoming that reality,  no?

d-man
I quote your statement again:

I quote your statement again:

jaycee wrote:
Part of the problem is to achieve an identity which is not simply a crutch; identity which does not want to hold onto itself but to abolish itself.

^ Here, in the first part of the sentence, you speak of a proletarian identity, as something that needs to be "achieved", as something that we should build or foster. The meaning of 'proletarian identity' you use here, thus, cannot be that of the social relation of the proletariat, since the proletariat is a reality we already have "achieved", that is, it is the just existing reality. I understood you thus here to separate the existing social relation (that is the proletariat) from the (still to be achieved) identity.

Since I took your term 'proletarian identity' as meaning the ability (or wish) of the proletariat to overthrow the reality (that is the social relation of capital), my objection (or question) to you, I repeat, was: why is there a need for you to search for an identity that doesnt't want to hold onto itself, but wants to 'abolish itself'? Is there even a possiblity for a proletarian identity (= defined as the wish to overthrow the social relation of capitalism) to exist, that would not wish to abolish its identity (=defined as the social relation of capitalism)? It seemed you were worried about his possibility, and considered it as a big problem.

Now you imply that you merely hold, that since there won't be a proletariat in existence any longer (in the post-revolutionary situation), there automatically won't be a subject to practice (or uphold) this identity, and that was the only meaning of your claim, that the 'proletarian identity' will be abolished. If that was your sole (trivial) point, the problem of abolishing 'proletarian identity' would be non-existent; since once you abolish the social relation, then there is no subject to uphold the identity. You would have simply stated, that the "problem" is abolishing the reality of the social relations of the capitalist mode of production. But I don't believe that your point was simply to recall what the task of the proletariat consists of; I think rather, you wished to find or achieve a crutch, that the proletariat would need as something essential to complete its task (and you also assume that it is already conscious of the task, and of the task's great scope).

My question thus remains: if 'identity' is a tool (and not the existing social relation) that is needed to help the proletariat fulfil its task, then what grounds is there, what meaning if any can there be, in your search for the need for a desire to abolish that tool?