10/11/97, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
>rkm had written
>> I cannot envision your "world socialist revolution". Where would it start?
>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.
This makes sense as stated, depending on the full meaning of "new mode of
resistance".
>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).
You offer useful examples.
The snuffing of the Soviet rebellion took quite a while, but has finally
been achieved; the destablization has been so thorough that I don't
envision much useful coming from that quarter in the near future. We might
see apocalyptic scenarios due to residual nuclear weapons, but without any
ideological import, other than the final destruction of the once bastion of
socialism.
Vietnam is struggling to get into the global economy and seems also
unlikely to be a center of periphery revolution.
Cuba and Korea (along with Iraq, Libya, and Iran) are in fact examples of
"periphery rebels" (with varying motivations and ideological orientations).
By looking at how these nations are being dealt with by the globalist
system we can see exactly what is in store for periphery-originated
rebellions....
* Each is regularly demonized in the media and favorable stories never
appear.
* Major "indictments" are formulated against each (Iran: terrorism and
dangerous weapons; Korea: nuclear fuel; Cuba: dictatorship; etc.);
these are kept at the low boil in the media - to justify intervention
whenever desired.
* Thus each is isolated from the world community; each is subjected to
capricious sanctions and abuses; and each serves as a chilling example
to other nations that might consider rebelling against the NWO
regime.
Cuba is an example of a periphery rebel-state which is sincerly motivated
by democratic socialism, and in which solidarity between people and
government has been largely maintained. Clearly this view can be debated,
but I suggest that it is precisely the "democratic socialist" SUCCESS of
Cuba that motivates US emnity toward it. Policy makers (eg, Kissinger?)
have actually said on the record that it is the example of Cuba's socialist
path which is considered threatening to "US interests". I'd say Cuba's
treatment is a microcosm of what would happen with any enlightened
periphery revolutionary center that arises in future. With Iraq sanctions
we see how the blockade-tactic can be successfully generalized outside
Uncle Sam's "back yard".
China is a unique case. Containment/isolation was employed for a time, and
then Nixon initiated the still-current policy of constructive engagement.
As long as China is militarily stalemated by US Pacific forces, and as long
as China doesn't pursue provocative policies, this quid-pro-quo can
continue indefinitely. Under these circumstance China is not functioning
as a revolutionary center: it is being voluntarily "contained via
engagement" - independent of its internal ideology. China is not
"enlightened" in our sense - it lacks the necessary democratic component.
China is also compromising its socialist principles in order to become a
bigger player globally - further moving it away from ever being an
enlightened periphery center. If China ever does try to "take on" the
globalist regime, it will do so in traditional nationalist terms, with the
objective of Asian hegemony. Structurally China is a geopolitical problem,
a leftover from the pre-globalist days of competitive nationalism - the
last untamed nation state of world-class magnitude.
In summary, it would be inaccurate to characterize "1/3 to almost 1/2 of
the population of the planet" as being examples of "unsnuffed periphery
enlightened revolutions" - in case that's what you (Andrew) were implying.
>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 ... can only result in compromise and capitulation.
You did agree, did you not, that "enlightened national governments" are
"very difficult - not impossible" to achieve? "Compromise and
capitulation" MIGHT occur, but we can try and hope instead for success - or
have you changed your assessment?
Elipses from previous quote:
>...(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)...
You are not describing my position - you're not even close. All of this
discussion is about seeking a GLOBAL STRATEGY to achieve democratic
socialism - we are discussing different architectures for that strategy.
>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."
Ok, fine. This is one end of the spectrum of revolutionary focus, and I'd
be happy to discuss it along with others. You suggest focusing on an
all-at-once global movement; I suggest focusing on many national
transformations in parallel; some others suggest local groups starting
self-suffiencient communes; there are many points on the
revolutionary-center spectrum.
Instead of trying to rule out particular tactics in advance, why don't we
objectively chart out the relative risks, advantages, and feasibilities of
various points on the spectrum and make a rational choice?
>What I was saying was that the logic of the interstate system
>guarantees compromise and capitulation.
Would this imply, for example, that the US has not the wherewithall to
assert itself as a democratic socialist state if it chooses to do so? In
any case could you clarify what you mean and explain briefly what it is
about the interstate system that "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.
Could you sketch a step-by-step scenario of how this might unfold?
>> 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?
I use "core" in the same sense as most others on wsn: the "core nations"
include the US, Japan(?), and the major EU powers, and one could debate the
inclusion of a few others. These core nations are mostly capitalist
controlled at present, and collaboratively and systematically suppress
peripheral uprisings, as discussed earlier above. The enlightened "reform"
of the core would come about when "the people who live in the areas"
organize themselves and assert themselves politically and electorally -
taking over national control from captitalist-puppet politicians.
>> 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?
What I said is that as long as core states oppose peripheral revolution,
such revolution will be suppressed. But I believe capitalist rule can be
overthrown in core states - again: we both agreed this was not impossible.
>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.
As you have said, a "new mode of resistance and struggle has become
necessary". In the past, local revolution has sometimes succeeded, at
least temporarily. Under globalization, a UN-sanctioned systematic
suppression system has been deployed, as discussed above, and as seen in
Iraq, Bosnia, Albania, etc. Periphery success is now the most remote
possibility.
>Compromise and capitulation is really the only avenue left open to the workers
>and the farmers in a strategy of national reform.
You have not established this, but have simply stated it repeatedly as an
assumption.
>> 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.
I'm sorry but I most vehemently disagree. Everyone has simply stated that
"world revolution and government is necessary" and have listed advantages
to that approach, but no one has responded substantively with relative
considerations of stability. (Except Adam Webb - see my other posting of
today.)
>The logic of the interstate system
>functions to maintain the capitalist world order.
On the contrary, the nation-state system has become an impediment to the
"capitalist world order" and destabilization of the nation state system is
the primary objective of capitalist-driven globalization.
rkm