RE: violence, revolution & clairvoyance

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard N Hutchinson [mailto:rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU]
>Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 7:19 PM
>To: Elson
>Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
>Subject: 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 accommodation 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

I agree with everything you write as well as Amin's work, which I admire --
and Amin himself who is a very personable person.

Your last paragraph underscores that we've been talking past each other,
because I've not been focusing on what is likely to happen or what we should
do about it (which was somewhat irrelevant to my concern: the principles of
a WP).

I've consistently argued that violence should not be made a PRINCIPLE of a
WP.  (I argued how a WP ought to respond to a difficult situation -- such as
when violent wars or violence erupts -- would have to be collectively
decided, and thus should not be a pre-determined violent reaction set fourth
in the WP's principles.

The reason for this position is simple:  I think a WP should try to get
everyone on board who believes capitalism is a lousy system -- including a
number of people who are attracted to Amnesty I, Greenpeace, NGOs sponsored
by progressive Churches (like those I've worked with in Asia which are
pro-choice and working to aid worker), as well as Leninists.   But a WP will
end up being a group of only the latter if one espouses violence as a
principle.

Violent overthrow of some states may be useful in some situations.  But it
shouldn't be a principle of a WP.  In relation to forming a potentially
large coalition, espousing violence will put off a very large number of
organizations and individuals who agree that capitalism should be
transformed into a more equitable system.

Long live the egalitarian anti-systemic movements