Re: r.biel@ucl.ac.uk

In a message dated 9/5/2002 3:39:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lnp3@panix.com writes:


> Most of the dependency theorists, including Frank, have long 
> since mutated into world systems theorists. This is a very high level, 
> almost Olympian, understanding of world history that posits rise and falls 
> of hegemonic powers in almost a Viconian sense. Attempts to get off the 
> merry-go-round of history, such as the Cuban revolution, are derided as 
> exercises in futility.


I find all these theories as useless as those practical Lenists who have exploited theories as usefully useless to stage agendas of their own. And theorists should beware. At the moment of truth they are only instruments of murder, if history is any guide. 
What to do?   An old question, who answer is a collosal century. Surely Mr. Proyect, notwithstanding a find analysis and challenge to the weak kneed and the tired, can suggest some new approach, something better than Fidel's claim to exit history. 
I think the wishywashy part of Negri/Hardt's Empire is understandably vague, but I think they at least realize there is no going back. 

Why have not coheren theories from any source here. I have wasted a lot of time trying to apply an historical model to the mess, but I see that's hopeless. 
All the flaws in Marxist theory were in print in the 1890's and yet the persistence of dogma like a runaway freightrain persisted through the entire revolutionary phase without a glimmer of a perception there was no theory at all. 
We need a complete overhaul.  But that is just the thing that is impossible, because any new theory enters the same round of the usefully useless grounds for the tough guys at their ruthless moment, etc...
I think there should be a strike by theorists. 
 

So maybe there is some value to an honest consideration of the Lenist facts, minus the theories. The practical perception of the facts of the case are not theoretical.

In general, the problem is only that theories as propaganda confuses the troops and leads to the loss of the moment of possibility. 
That was the tragedy of Marxist theory. The 'theory' that assisted the revolution turned out to cause misleading execution of that moment. 

We are to choose between Empire and a renewed critique of imperialism. I am all ears for the latter, but even if the system collapsed tommorrow and a Proyectian Red Terror were on the table, where would we go? We have tried both cases from Bernstein to Lenin.  

 As to Empire, who cares? I hold no brief here. But the great Evil Empire of America started and became stable because the founders created a republic in the classic sense (setting aside the question of democracy)  Now it is said this republic is a global empire. 
I see the Bolshivik attempts bypassed the republican phase, and simply murdered its way into its own Empire. So what are we talking about? 
There are still elements of the 'republic' in the original 'empire'. 
So if anyone has a plan, it should be to create a model that leads to the possiblity of change, and the creation of a republic at the moment of change. 
If that is impossible, then we are done, there is nothing to do. 

Otherwise the yankee doodle repulic-to-empire is sufficient. Which is not a patriotic statement. 

John Landon
Website on the eonic effect
http://eonix.8m.com
nemonemini@eonix.8m.com