In regards to the World Party discussion

As regards the entire discussion that has unfolded over the question of a
"World Party," and in particular the recent exchange over a)the nature of
revolution and b)the prospects for reform of global capitalism, I would
like to point out that these debates have been at the center of political
history since the beginning of the 20th century and before. Many of the
arguments that have arisen in this discussion were at the heart of the
theoretical and historical breaks inside the 2nd International, the
founding of the 3rd International, and the struggles waged by the Left
Opposition in the Soviet Union. 

I would like to specifically point out the Web Site of the International
Committee of the Fourth International, the World Socialist Web Site, at
http://www.wsws.org 

The site publishes daily analysis of contemporary events,
reviews in the arts and culture, as well as an extensive array of
speeches, writings, books, and political commentary addressing the very
issues being debated on this list serve. Most recently, the WSWS has
written a series of articles, as well as published several interviews, on
the political significance of the conviction of Nathaniel Abraham that
have drawn widespread attention.  

On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

> 
> You would think from recent posts that the list has been transformed into
> a revolutionary organization debating strategy.  As if a loose circle of
> core academics is going to to launch a revolution, violent or otherwise...
> 
> The real issue for this list to discuss is what is likely to happen, given
> the structural conditions we have identified.  We are not going to make
> the revolution, it is going to happen, and then the question is how do we
> relate to it.
> 
> Unless we truly have entered a New Age, there will be violent revolution,
> mainly in the periphery and semi-periphery, whether we like it or not.  In
> the core, there is not likely to be, unless and until the next core war.
> At that point, a pledge of pacifism may just insure your irrelevance.  But
> for now, the sort of movements coalescing in Seattle are the name of the
> game in the core, not some sort of storming of the winter palace.  The
> action is in the periphery (Amin's terminology), or semi-periphery
> (Chase-Dunn's terminology).  The lofty moral pronouncements of a few core 
> academics are not going to affect that one way or another.  What can we do
> to facilitate the countermovement from below?  It seems to me our time
> would be much better spent building networks of awareness and support for
> the movements on the ground than this far-fetched notion that we are going
> to be the world vanguard.
> 
> Richard Hutchinson
> 
> 
> 
>