Re: 'long and painful process'...

At 17:00 +0000 19/12/00, Richard K. Moore wrote:
>
>
>Dear Paul,
>
>On what basis do you claim that this is 'clear'?  Do you
>have an argument why things are likely to, or must, proceed
>in a 'long and painful' manner?

If you have been to any anti-globalisation / capitalism protests in 
the last couple of years (you probably have) then you'll know that 
while much was achieved, many  groups of people found it a difficult 
process, e.g. state socialists, communists, and anarco-syndicalists 
don't see eye-to-eye on many things. Although they managed to pull 
together in the main, a lot of soul-searching was done (for example 
at May Day in London), and I would think in Prague, Seattle and Nice, 
to name but a few. Putting ideological differences aside is not an 
easy option for many - go ask a state socialist why he/she should 
forgo state ownership of say, a bus factory in order to fit in with 
anarchic idealisms? I'm not saying people won't accommodate each 
other -  I'm saying I hope they do - just that it would be 
unrealistic to suppose for a moment that everyone will suddenly 
convert to a new singular ideology. Come to that Richard, I don't 
even think I would want people to do that!!

It is one thing to be in opposition, quite another to take power, as 
the old English electoral saying goes...

>Or do you simply find a
>lack of arguments for a quicker path, and hence make the
>default assumption that none exist?    Or is it simply that
>the statement agrees with everyday consensus assumptions,
>and hence no evidence is required?

I think that if there were a quicker path we would have seen it by 
now. I would certainly like to be made aware of the arguments for a 
quicker path as someone should make all those involved in public 
disobedience and risking personal liberty aware of it. I'm sure they 
would appreciate it as well (no sarcasm intended).

>   What about the
>fact that grandiose projects and idealism have been central
>to many past regime shifts?  And does gradual simmering
>accurately characterize the dynamics of previous revolutions?

Hindsight is a useful thing, and history can teach us much. But we 
live in the present and while being mindful of the past, we need to 
move forward - by looking to the past for answers we run a danger of 
entrenching the past in the future. I'm not sure I'd call the present 
situation simmering - I think the present situation is difficult to 
quantify as is it is still in its infancy. One thing is for sure - we 
are long way from a revolution if there is even going to be one 
(which I personally doubt). Does simmering characterise the dynamics 
of previous revolutions? Depends what you mean. If you mean did 
public disquiet simmer then boil over into revolution, then yes in 
some cases - depending on which revolution we are talking about of 
course.

Cheers, Paul.

>
>yours,
>rkm