On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote:
>
> Capitalism is organized on a global scale. Hence resistance to capitalist
> domination must also involve a global strategy and global action. This
> much everyone here seems to agree with.
>
> Beyond this many of our "core" posters seem possessed by a semi-religious
> fixation on antique marxist analysis - dangerously out of touch with
> current reality. Also we see a messianic fixation on a global
> revolutionary movement - pinning hopes for salvation on an event which has
> as much likelihood - and over which we have as much control - as the second
> coming of Christ.
If you look only at the present day, nothing progressive seems to
have much likelihood of coming to pass. For all the reasons all of us
keep citing.
>
> This quasi-religious detachment from rational analysis is further evidenced
The secularly religious aspect of Marx's faith and the faith of
many others in a coming democratic world commonwealth is nothing for which
any of us owes you the slightest apology. Nor is it detached from
rational analysis: on the contrary it is based on, and attached to,
rational analysis of the dynamics of global capitalism.
> by the fact that there seems to be no interest on the list in the actual
> architecture of today's globalist system. My many postings on this topic
> are generally received as disturbances from the "periphery" of thought -
> either ignored or dismissed. Most ironic on a list dubbed "world systems".
We dwell on actual architecture and current situations almost
obsessively.
>
> Our experts evidently want to steer our world-system vehicle by peering in
> the rear-view mirror, with occasional reference to a fantasy map of a
> utopian future. Actually looking around at current reality seems to be
> off-topic. Perhaps this is simply the general "academic condition" - since
> reality is messy, it easier to deal with fossilized analytical systems or
> imaginary utopian futures.
I see. We can perform much more adequately if we don't have a
clue where we want to wind up.
> I suggest that in a battle situation the mentality of a general is more
> useful than the mentality of an historian. A good general looks at
World-system theory is grounded, just like Marxism, in a careful
and detailed analysis of the trends, patterns, and cycles of world
history. Perhaps this is just being "academic" and "useless" on our part,
but I disagree.
> reality, at the balance of forces, at the available resources, and at the
> full spectrum of strategic options. A bad general is fixated by what he's
> learned about past battles and is always re-fighting yesterday's wars.
A bad revolutionary is fixated on the present and knows nothing of
history or social science.
> The fixation on an all-at-once global revolution, and the downplaying of a
> more nation-centered approach, only serves to distract us from deploying
> the resources available to us and to delay revolutionary action while the
> globalist regime consolidates its unprecedented level of control over our
> lives and our options.
>
> It is not only analytically wrong, but extremely dangerous. I accuse our
> experts of being counter-revolutionary dupes, playing into the hands or our
> oppressors.
Warning! Testosterone levels exceed optimum for clear thinking.
I have not detected the presence of ANY counter-revolutionary dupes on
this network. Even Richard K. Moore is NOT a counter-revolutionary dupe.
The only things we suffer from are an excess of zeal and a deficit, indeed
an almost total absence, of world-historical influence. But I'm glad
you're back on line anyway.
Cheers,
Warren [Failed Messiah, Self-Deluded Utopist, etc.]