RE: World party

On Sunday, November 14, 1999 11:01 PM, g kohler 
[SMTP:gkohler@accglobal.net] wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Rosenthal <smrose@mailhub.exis.net>
> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Date: November 13, 1999 10:41 AM
> Subject: World party
>
> ....>snip
>
> An example of an organization that is attempting to organize an
> international party along these lines is the Progressive Labor Party,
> which was formed in the early 1960s.  They are actively involved in
> the UNAM strike in Mexico City, in workers' struggles in Central
> America, the Caribbean, and South America, and among workers and
> students in the U.S.  They reject all forms of nationalism and are
> trying to build one international party, not separate national
> parties in each country.  Their website is at www.plp.org
>
>
> COMMENT:
> I would like to point out that supporting and organizing strikes is not
> "revolutionary violence". In Canada it is a legal ("systemic" if you 
wish)
> activity supported by the constitution. I see a discrepancy between
> revolutionary rhetoric and de facto nonviolent behaviour of this party.
>
> Gert Kohler

I see two sets of questions worth discussing:

1.  Since we may presume that for a global anti-systemic struggle 
"revolutionary" does not mean seizing state power or UN power, then what 
does mean, if anything?  And is revolutionary action necessarily violent? 
 Should not a World Party in principle oppose violence?  Has it anything to 
lose now by doing so?

2.  One strategy, currently being pursued by a number of progressive/left 
groups, is the creation of alternative international networks of trade and 
mutual support -- a strategy of not fighting against the system, but 
creating another.   Is this not viable?