praxis, not world party

Before entering the fray again, let me make clear at the outset that I
reject the premise that this list should be creating a "world party."
My comments (from the beginning) have been directed toward the issue of
what *is* appropriate for the list, and praxis in general.

*** *** *** *** ***

Does anyone else remember the line from the "Internationale" about
condescending saviors?  I think it would be well to keep it in mind.

The contribution that this list can make is to bring theory and analysis
to bear to identify structural conditions facing anti-systemic movements,
and to identify and spread awareness of the anti-systemic movements.
We are not going to become the leadership of those movements.  If that is
your goal, you should immediately exit this discussion and go get busy
organizing.

The best this list can be is the "Handful of Core Intellectuals" Party.
(Unless it was serious about facilitating a discussion among serious
organizations in the periphery, in which case it could play a facilitating
role.)  Why would movements in the periphery (Amin's definition) listen to
us? Think about the recent post hinging the entire global strategy on the
ostensibly successful examples of the ANC and the Zapatistas.  Personally,
I can easily imagine movements in Africa and Latin America drawing a
diametrically opposed conclusion:  that the limitations of those movements
and their lack of accomplishments are so severe that they become negative,
not positive examples.  For core intellectuals to *glibly* assess such
movements, and all the thought and sacrifice they entail is embarassing.

The appropriate activity, again, is to analyze the situation facing such
movements.  Based on the best analysis we have to offer, those movements
are going to make decisions which we may or may not like.  They are sure
as hell not going to look to us for practical guidance -- they better not! 
What does a core intellectual know about revolutionary praxis?

Prejudging a question such as violence/non-violence is absurd.  It would
be absurd to say *only* violence, and absurd to say *only* non-violence.
That good old Russian sage Vladimir cogently analyzed the vacillation of
the petit bourgeoisie -- if the shoe fits wear it.  Warren, as of two
years ago, dismissed all existing movements as not truly anti-systemic.
Now he seems to be on the same wavelength as those extolling the ANC and
Zapatistas as paragons of praxis.  Back and forth between utopian dreams
and the cul de sac of the currently possible.

*** *** *** *** ***

My proposal for WSN praxis is as follows:

If we were to pool our resources and embark on a concerted project of
analyzing the obstacles and openings for revolutionary movements in the
periphery/semi-periphery in the coming period (including the role of
solidarity networks in the core), we would be accomplishing much more than
in the current discussion.

RH