On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote:
> 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.
My point was that peripheral revolutions have occurred, and that these
revolutions swept up 1/3 to 1/2 of the world's population at one point or
another. This is a rather incontrovertible factual statement. It is
significant that these revolutions produced social formations representing
real improvements over their pre-revolutionary conditions. That these
social formations ultimately submitted to global capitalist logic is
pretty good evidence for my argument that either we all do this at once
(and by "at once" I do not mean with a snap of our fingers) or we face the
sort of degeneracy and ultimate fate that is befalling the socialist world
system (it cannot be said to be such a system anymore). I suppose I am
disagreeing with Stalin's "socialism in one country." That's okay; I have
disgreed with Stalin a time or two.
> 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?
There is little within the realm of social action that is impossible. It
is probably impossible that we will be able to cheat ecological limits
forever, and there may be some other things that seem rather impossible.
But that there may one day emerge an interstate system of enlightened
national states is within the realm of the imaginable. Only I do not see
this as very probable.
BTW, I should say that in my little 2X6 I meant to say imply that if
states get to enlightenment it won't be through the revolutionary path,
which is to say that is will be very difficult - not impossible.
> 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.
National struggle is not a global strategy. If the people everywhere work
to overthrow their governments for the purpose of developing a world
socialist order, then we are talking about a global strategy. You bring
this up in a moment. You see the parallel coordination of socialist
revolutions. This is possible, I suppose, but extremely improbable.
> 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"?
How long would the US last as a democratic socialist state in the context
of a capitalist world order? I can't find the place in my imagination
where the US is a democratic socialist state.
> Could you sketch a step-by-step scenario of how this might unfold?
I unflinchingly punt on this question. This is not a strategy for one
person to dream up. It wouldn't be very democratic of me to decide how the
world should go about making a global socialist order. I am simply arguing
that of the roads to socialism out of a transnational capitalist system a
global socialist movement strikes me as a far more likely course than an
attempt to co-ordinate the democratization of hundreds of capitalist
nation-states.
About the "core," I was only making more obvious the anthropomorphic way
you were using the term. I was just trying to back away from extreme
reification. Your argument had the form that "the core won't like this or
that." I accept the short hand, I just feel more comfortable with shaking
out the lingo every once and a while.
> 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.
I agree, it is not impossible. But don't exploit my unwillingness to make
absolutist statements. I am trying to be reasonable.
> You have not established this, but have simply stated it repeatedly as an
> assumption.
Within the context of a global capitalist order it seems axiomatic that
the route to democratization of individual nation states and of any degree
must come through compromise and capitulation. I cannot substantiate this
other that basing it on the logic of the interstate system as I see it.
> 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.
I disagree. And this is a point which I have changed my mind on over time.
Social welfare systems and too much democracy are impediments to the
capital accumulation. But nation-states are an integral part of
maintaining the structure of global capitalism. Nation-states serve to
bound labor, to break up the potential of industry-wide unionization and
its potentially radicalizing effect on workers throughout the world, and a
host of other things. States have militaries, states have gulag systems,
and states have legitimating ideologies. That structural adjustment and
austerity has become a feature of the transforming of the nation-state
apparatus does not mean that the nation-state has been diminished as a
tool of domination. Indeed, it may be more effective in its streamlined
form. It is being transformed, not dissolved.
Andy