RE: violence, revolution & clairvoyance

Elson-

OK, if you want to talk about Leninist "seize the state" strategy, that's
another story, (different from "will there be violent struggles in the
periphery" for those checking in as the event is in progress).

A very important point is that "leninist" is quite narrow.  Some may be
attached, for ideological reasons, to a purist conception.  Not me.  Amin
talks about the Congress-I party that led the struggle in India in the
same light as the Russian and Chinese parties.  This is because he has
done just what you suggest, carry out an in-depth analysis of the class
basis for national liberation struggles rather than impose a rigid
preconception (a la the trotskyists).

True, one wave of such struggles has been vanquished and/or turned into
its opposite.  I don't know why you therefore assume that no such
struggles a) will happen anymore, or b) should happen anymore.  

If you, or we, or someone could come up with a great alternative, that
would be one thing.  Needless to say, I don't hear one yet.

I don't think the networking of the cyberelites or the comfy 
peregrinations of the NGOs are really doing much good for the wretched of
the earth.  And I don't think they a) will or b) should ask us when they
decide to organize a concerted assault on the system where they can -- at
the level of the local state, which they could seize and make some
dramatic improvements.

I remind you of the accomodation of the ANC to South African capital, of
the inability of the Zapatistas to succeed with their eclectic strategy,
and of the fate of Allende in Chile.

Don't take my word for it -- see all the voluminous writings of Samir Amin
over the past 4 decades.

Remember, I'm not arguing what the platform of a World Party ought to be.
I think that is irrelevant.  My argument is about what is structurally
likely to happen, whether we like it or not, and what we should do about
it.

In anti-systemic solidarity,
RH