Re: praxis, not world party

        Marx and Engels were also core intellectuals, much more successful
at theorizing than at organizing.  They made at least a dent in world
history, and their work was certainly consulted by the Lenins and Maos of
the 20th century.

        Of course the few hundred members of this list are not likely to
lead any sort of revolution, much less any sort of World Party.  But we
can make a dent in the future by publicizing as widely as possible the
ultimate objective of political action in the 21st century:  the
replacement of the capitalist world-system with a democratic and socialist
world commonwealth.  How this will happen, where it will begin, who will
emerge to assume leading roles, no one can say.  But the so-called
anti-systemic or counter-hegemonic forces in the peripheral and
semiperipheral world of 1999/2000 do not, by and large, have time or
occasion or luxury to think in the broadest terms about what kind of world
they want to help construct.  

        As I said two years ago, and repeat today, the chief antisystemic
forces in our world are focused on achieving their own place in the sun,
on getting justice for themselves.  Obviously they have every right to
struggle for this, but they are seldom if ever rigorously anti-systemic.
They are not so much against the system as against their exclusion from
it;  or, if you prefer, they're against the system insofar as, and as long
as, it excludes them.  Are Kurds and Basques and Iranian ayatollahs and
Mexican rebels and Brazilian peasant organizers consciously and devotedly
working to build a democratic and socialist world commonwealth?  Not yet.
Some are dead-set against such an outcome, in fact.  In any event, they
have more pressing concerns.  But core intellectuals might help lift
aspirations in selected strategic struggles in the periphery and
semiperiphery--and also persuade other core intellectuals and core
progressives to join the fray, in whatever capacity they can.

        Warren

On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
>