On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote:
> Thank you, Austin, for responding in such dialog-encouraging terms.
I don't know how to read this. Is this sarcasm, or are you serious?
> I cannot envision your "world socialist revolution". Where would it start?
> If it starts in the periphery, why wouldn't it be successfully suppressed
> through standard neocolonial measures? If it starts in the core, why
> would it not exhibit itself first as the "enlightened national governments"
> I argue for?
With the transnationalization of capitalism a new mode of resistance and
struggle has become necessary. This involves, in addition to national and
local struggles, the trans-boundary organization of the revolutionary
classes produced by world capitalism. Perhaps one should not launch a
revolution in the "periphery" because it could be snuffed out. This has
been the outcome of such struggles so far (except in Russia, China, Cuba,
Korea, Vietnam--like 1/3 to almost 1/2 of the population of the planet).
Perhaps one should not try to launch a revolution in the "core" nations
where polyarchic domination is so locked into the logic of capital that
such attempts (especially disconnected from a global strategy and with the
a priori desire to only go as far as "enlightened national states" in
"mutual global cooperation," as Richard Moore has suggested) can only
result in compromise and capitulation. Don't read any sarcasm into that
last sentence.
I would not have thought that I needed to clarify this, but a world
socialist revolution means this: WORLD socialist revolution. If it is a
world revolution then it is not a revolution in the "periphery" or in the
"core."
> And why would "enlightened national governments" necessarily involve
> "compromise and capitulation"? Why can that be avoided on a world scale
> but not on a national scale?
Who said it can be avoided on a world scale? Compromise and capitulation,
just like corruption, etc., are always dangers in any revolutionary
struggle. What I was saying was that the logic of the interstate system
guarantees compromise and capitulation. It is the struggle for a world
order based on socialist principles that can get around the negating power
of nation-states.
> It seems obvious to me (and I invite rebuttal) that if the core is opposed
> to socialist revolution then it won't happen. Similarly, if the core is
> reformed along revolutionary socialist lines (including the cessation of
> capitalist-driven neocolonialism), then the periphery would inevitably
> follow.
What is the "core"? You mean the people who live in the areas you
arbitrarily call the "core"? Or do you mean the capitalists and their
states who rule over the worker and the peasant? The world is ruled by a
global capitalist class. They oppose socialist revolution, granted. And I
assume they would also oppose "enlightened national states," if by
"enlightened" one means socialism (which is what I think was agreed upon
somewhere in this discussion). Indeed--it is not socialist REVOLUTION per
se that capitalists are opposed to, but SOCIALISM itself (violence is not
a problem for the ruling class).
> In fact I also favor "world socialist revolution", but I think it can only
> be achieved by starting with socialist democratic revolution in core
> states.
But you just said that if the "core" (which I take to me the powers that
be) doesn't want it it ain't gonna happen. So how is it gonna happen in
any scheme? That socialist revolutions have occurred in the "periphery" but
not the "core" is pretty good evidence that revolution in the core,
without a transnational organization guiding revolution on a global
strategic level, would be a remote possibility. Compromise and
capitulation is really the only avenue left open to the workers and the
farmers in a strategy of national reform.
> Once achieved, the question is then what administrative form is most stable
> over time. I've argued that a single centralized administration would
> suffer from intrinsic instabilities and suspectibiity to subversion - and I
> believe no one has tried to rebut this.
I think you have been clearly rebutted by those who have responded to you
and in the works of many I have read. The logic of the interstate system
functions to maintain the capitalist world order. An important requirement
to move onto world socialism is to transcend the interstate system that
works to maintain capitalist relations. Once the logic of capital has been
transcended--that is, once the infrastructure upon which the modern
world-system rests dissolves--then the political-juridical forms will also
be dramatically transformed. Change is asymmetrical, and the interstate
system in some form may persist, but this doesn't mean that our priority
should not be to finish the job. It is entirely antithetical to this
course of action to assert that an interstate system, born from the same
logic that spawned capitalism, is superior to global democracy. It seems
obvious to me that until we abolish this system in its totality we cannot
move onto world communism, and the way through to a stateless/classless
world order is to bring the material discourse of the global population in
line through the ordering of a world democratic government. Thus,
capitalism is replaced by a working socialism, and the interstate system
is replaced by a world democratic government. The destruction of
capitalist logic will be most complete and will result in the most
rational achievement if this project is carried out on a global scale. And
we should build the revolutionary and post-revolutionary organs of the
future in the present, not only political organs, but cultural, ethical,
legal, etc organs as well. Does this mean that struggle should not
continue anywhere and everywhere? Of course not. Through trans-boundary
organizing we must harness the revolutionary impetus and expand its
implications. Does this mean that reform should not be pursued? Of course
not. Everywhere workers and farmers, minorities and women, children and
the elderly, should work to weaken the hold capital has over our lives by
any means necessary; reform is one of those means and should be used.
But we should be clear about what our goals are (maybe a stateless,
classless global order is not a worthy goal for you, Richard). What we
definitely do not need is to state a priori that our goal is to live in a
world of international relations where "enlightened states" exist in
"mutual cooperation." If a state becomes enlightened through struggle and
reform, then good on those people who achieved that. But that should only
be regarded as a step in the march towards a global world order based on
democratic socialist principles. The ultimate goal should be communism.
Andy