On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 ba05105@binghamton.edu wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Aug 1996 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Christian,
> >
> > Yes, that is exactly the question. How? And yes, there is no
> > hint in 1996 of anything like a World Party forming anywhere. But you
> > can't leap from this observation to the conclusion that "it ain't gonna
> > happen." The more people who believe that the best way to confront the
> > challenge of a proliferating globalizing capitalism aided and abetted by
> > the nation-state system is to build a global political formation to oppose
> > that system, the more likely it is that a nucleus of activists here or
> > there will begin to build one--or several. We have to start with some
> > kind of rough consensus about what must be done. Never mind the odds.
> > They're pretty low. So what? We don't have the option of moving to Mars.
> > You play with the hand you've been dealt. What comes first is a climate
> > of expectation for authentically antisystemic global political action.
> > The more people who share that expectation, the more likelihood it can
> > provoke serious attempts to move from theory to praxis. In short, you
> > gotta believe!
> >
> > Warren
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes--but what do you 'gotta believe' in? that the same old 'strategy'
> (use parties (or party) to take over states will produce different result
> than last time (i.e. the third international). Sorry, that's too much of
> a leap of faith for my taste.
>
> S Sherman
> Binghamton >
>
>
Dear Mr. Sherman,
I often feel like a fish out of water when discussing issues and
prospects with sociologists. Immanuel Wallerstein's brave efforts to
integrate the social sciences (including history) notwithstanding, there
are still vast differences in world-view and methodology between the
average sociologist and the average historian. I happen to be, in this
sense, an average historian. Although I certainly concur with
world-systems theorists that there are trends and cycles in human affairs,
I do not believe they are unevadable, and I do not believe that the same
things ever literally happen more than once. Circumstances are always
somewhat different, leading to somewhat different outcomes. Simple-minded
example: the Roman Empire (in the West) "fell," the Roman Empire (in the
East) "fell" but only a millennium later, and the Chinese Empire survived
many "falls" to live again, until early in the 20th century, and maybe not
even then if you want to equate Chiang, Mao, and Deng with the emperors of
yore. So I am not in the least deterred by the apparent similarities
between the fate of the Third International (or the Second) and the
prospects for a world socialist party. The World Party I have in mind
would be quite different in many respects from the Third International, it
would do battle in a rather different world, and it would surely have a
different impact on world history--better or worse, who can say? In any
event, the notion that the World Party is doomed to repeat the history of
the Third International, or the CPSU, that the "next" time will be little
different from the first, just flies in the face of everything that
historians think they know about the cussedness of history. To me,
history is full of surprises, nasty, pleasant, or whatever. The earth is
not an anthill, and human beings have choices. So, yes, "you gotta
believe." What's the alternative?
Best,
Warren