RE: FW: a violent revolution?

> Elson, you're not paying attention.
>
> You're the one who said "violent *socialist* revolution," not me.
>
> My point was about the inevitability of violence, not the content of the
> violence.  You changed the subject.
>
> Core intellectuals cannot stop the use of armed force in the periphery
> through moral exhortation, that's the point.
>
> RH

Not paying attention?  Really?  In fact, you did NOT write about "the
inevitability of violence."  You wrote: "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."

You used "revolution" twice.   Unless the dictionary has changed since the
last time I looked, "revolution" is not quite the same thing as "violence."
Indeed, there can be revolutions without violence.  We have the example of
the Glorious English [bourgeois] Revolution of 1688-89.  (But again, is
seizing state power really part of "revolutionary" change?  I don't think
so, nor do many Marxists these days.)

In the context of discussing the possible position of the hypothetical WP on
the use of violence in transforming our world-system via a presumably
cataclysmic "revolution," I don't know how anyone could interpret your
comment, "Unless we truly have entered a New Age, there will be violent
revolution," as anything other than a revolution by progressive forces.
Otherwise the comment doesn't make much sense.   If not a revolution by
progressive forces, then revolution by who?   A second bourgeois revolution?
Hence, I could only logically conclude you took a position of economic
determinism regarding the coming "revolution."

Having become involved in the debate, however, I must admit I make a lousy
mediator.