RE: violence, revolution & clairvoyance

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu]On
>Behalf Of Richard N Hutchinson
>Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 1:36 PM
>To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
>Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
>Subject: violence, revolution & clairvoyance
SNIP
>I have but one brief response to Elson's last post --  where does he
>possibly get the idea that "noone will rally around the idea of violent
>revolution anymore"?
>
>Does he read the newspaper?  Did he hear about the Congo?  About Colombia?
>Peru?  Nepal?  Afghanistan?  Sri Lanka?  Of course just recently, in the
>overall scheme of things, was the Nicararaguan revolution and the Iranian
>revolution, the FMLN of El Salvador, then of course there's the PLO, IRA
>and ETA, etc, etc, etc.
>
>I think he is pulling our leg when he said he hasn't joined the Starlife
>Central Command.
>
>RH

Ok, I wasn't clear.  So let me be more precise:

It must be recalled that the Marxists of the core -- the Social Democrats --
did reject the violent overthrow of the state as the means to power.
Following Lenin, the Marxist-Leninist struggles (to seize the state)
collapsed or failed, or are in the final throws of doing so in the 1990s.
The two most important of these failed Leninist movements have been the USSR
and China, for I don't think it would be accurate to describe the CCP today
as Marxist regardless of what it says.  Since 1978 its policies have been
characterized by privatization and the dismantling of state industry -- the
destruction of "actually existing socialism."   Largely as a result of this
general collapse, other Leninist struggles are negotiating to become legal
"reformist" political parties -- such as what occurred in Nicaragua, El
Salvador, and is occurring in the Philippines, etc.

The Leninist paradigm is not attracting peasants, college students,
intellectuals, etc. among others, as it did at one time.  Many recognize
that gaining state power through elections (the SDP route) or seizing state
power by force has not proved to be an efficacious mode of social change IF
taken as the goal of creating "socialism in one country."  The Trots were
largely correct in this respect.   The peripheral states that pursued this
strategy (and frequently did so primarily to mobilize for national
liberation from core colonization -- the two at least became inseparable)
did not, and could not, catch up to the core, try as they may.  One cannot
change the world-economy from within one state.   And that was a key part of
the problem for Leninism.   Let me finally add that this is not an
anti-Marxist argument, as it is based on the critique of the Leninist
paradigm by Marxists such as Corrigan, Sayer, Deutcher, Arrighi, etc which I
find a convincing interpretation of history.

Following the 1960s, we've also learned that movements cannot be based
simply on the "workers' struggle."   For this vision has (to the rightful
complaints of, from the get go, socialist-feminists like Klara Zetkin and
Alexandra Kollentai for example) neglected the various gender, race, ethnic,
environmental, etc. dimensions of class, and vice-versa.  Marxists
(revolutionary or reformist) who continue down this path are out of step and
are not taken seriously by international progressive organizations which
also recognize that capitalism is a lousy system and must be changed.

To be sure, seizing state power might be a useful tactic depending on the
circumstances, but it is not a viable strategy or goal, especially for a WP.
In fact, the very reason we are discussing a WP is precisely because the
"seize the state" goal is defunct and many speak of a "loss of paradigm"  in
particular, the veteran activists of Marxist movements.  I maintain that it
certainly should not be raised to the level of a principle of a WP.