questions re praxeology of world-system change

Hi, Gert and other friends,
Here, some opinions:
1) On praxeology question
a. I also see a positive and valuable group of well intentioned, equiped 
and 
trained "avant gard" persons, already leading this renewal process in some 
way.
b. Good leaders are always welcome, and they emerge according to the 
moment, 
to their work, and to the people around them.
c. (Older theories of the avant-garde would have to be modernized 
accordingly.) Yes, with a systemic alternate vision, imagination, and with 
a 
simple language for communicating with grass-root groups. This may require 
a 
nice inter/intra disciplinary effort, and an effort  at all possible levels 
to develop effective proposals and actions.
d. There are some complicated terms in this text, like systemic, 
avant-garde, praxeology, inter/intra disciplinary, and others that may be 
fine at this level of chat, but that must be changed into simpler ones, 
when 
communicating with other groups.
2) On non-violence
a) There seems to be also agreement in non-violent methods in most of 
contributions read. This is related to point 1).
b) But given that the line that separates violence from non-violence is so 
slim, and given that active people will face situations of tight decision 
in 
whatever field they volunteer, and in order to avoid the building of a 
self-justified tautology, my proposal is:
Let's deposit the ultimate moral judgement in an exterior, morally superior 
group, conformed by persons beyond suspicion. I am speaking of people of 
the 
level of Albert Schwitzer, mother Theresa, Luther King, Ghandi, ... Of 
course they must be alive, and accesible. But perhaps some religious 
leaders, scientifics, budist masters, zen masters, shaman masters,  great 
women,  and others that you suggest, might accept to act as a superior 
consulting instance in cases where we have no clarity.
This consulting group will not replace our personal responsibility of 
course. But as a guidance of personal behaviour let's try to act in such a 
way that if there is a chance of making a serious mistake, we will do the 
best to assure that if it happends, our mistake will be in favour of the 
weakest and less protected persons /communities /ecosystems of the world.
Thanks,
Emilio
Pasto, Colombia, S.A.

----Original Message Follows----
From: "g kohler" <gkohler@accglobal.net>
Reply-To: gkohler@accglobal.net
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: questions re praxeology of world-system change
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:54:04 -0500

How do others think about the following two observations? I find them
interesting in the context of a praxeology of world-system change. (1) On
the subject of avant-garde of change -- there seems to be a stratum (I
hesitate to say "class" for obvious reasons) which is highly aware, highly
articulate, highly active, and highly motivated to bring about world-system
change -- they have computer access, most are in core countries and are
activist and/or academic types. Could this be "the" avant-garde of
world-system change? (Older theories of the avant-garde would have to be
modernized accordingly.) (2) On the subject of nonviolence -- the Communist
party of Italy has de facto only engaged in nonviolent activities for the
last half century or so, the same holds for other leftist parties of red or
green complexion in core countries. A major exception were the raf groups in
western Europe in the seventies who were violent (and mostly wiped out).
This suggests that the overwhelming majority of leftists of many stripes in
the core countries have "voted with their de facto behaviour" in favour of
nonviolence as a strategic principle for world-system change. (3) These
observations  say nothing about the semi-periphery or periphery countries
and are very limited. Nevertheless, what could be said about these items?

Gert Kohler
Oakville, Canada

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com