From Periphery to Richard Hutchinson (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 23:31:34 EST
From: md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu
To: wsn@colorado.edu
Subject: From Periphery to Richard Hutchinson (fwd)


dear elio: it is very nice to hear perspectives from the periphery here. i
have a couple of comments to make in light of your post.
 
>2. We do not want to make the same mistake of creating a system based on 
>exclusion and marginalization.

who do you think is responsible for this exlusion and marginalization? can
you be more specific? i personally think that the burden should not be
put on the shoulders of communist states in the periphery. these states
had no other choice but to protect themselves from the imperialist
expansion of core states. as we know that the states in Latin America were
largely colonized and imperialized. their economies were extensively
dependent on core countries as providers of raw material and agricultural
products. this dependence was galvanized in the later stages of their
history through the establishment of national bourgeois regimes and
military dictatorhips that invited multinationals to the country. their
lives were determined by US hegemonic strategies and their allies at
national level. given uneven capitalist development already existing,
class inequalities sharpened, poverty increased, unions wiped out,
and peasents trashed by the increasing market opportunities for
landowning classes. as a result, population was oppresed and depressed.
whatever happened in Nicaragua and Cuba was a legitimate reaction to build
their economies along socialist lines and to create an egalitarian system
based on fair distribution of wealth. these regimes had national,
world-wide and anti-systemic effects. the reason i am saying
"anti-systemic" is bacause core countries, particulary US, treated them as
enemies and outsiders, and did their best to prevent the 
internationalization
of revolutions. Pinochet came to power and ousted the socialist party by
the support of the US. smilar developmets took place in other parts of
Latin America.Castro supporters in Argentina and Chile were killed and
systematically eliminated. after the revolutionary regimes came to power
in few countries, they provided free education, welfare opportunities,
health care and basic necessities of life to its citizens. in my view,
they did their best given the limits of their resources, US imperialist
strategies (ambargo to Cuba) and pressures coming from the world-sytemic
forces (propoganda techniques, stigmatization of their systems,
ideological marginalization by the press and academics here)

i want make another comment, which is not directly related to
your post: honestly, none of those revolutionary regimes were nation-wide.
i have been amazingly following some commentators in the list who argue
that national socialist regimes were failure because they aimed at
socialism in one country and not socialism world-wide. this is logically
and historically wrong (with the only exception of Stalin who had no other
choice but to rebuild the russian economy). first of all, revolutions can
not pre-determined, they are done. nobody strategically calculated "let's
folks have a national revolution and prevent revolutions world-wide". this
is an idealist reading of history.  Lenin, castro, che and others had
always supported revolutionaries outside their system. lenin believed in
the internationalization of revolutions (see his imperialism: the highest
stage of capitalism) and expected revolutions elsewhere. even  before the
rise of fashism in Germany the communists in Reichtag were stalinists (see
Neumann's book:Behemoth, The Practice of National Socialism), and wanted
to spread communism to Europe. furthermore, during the working class
demonstrations in Europe in the 60s, left was divided between
reformists and revolutionaries in the leninist and maoist front. the
second groups had significant ties with Russia and China. what i am trying
to say is that what ever happened in Russsia, china, Cuba and other
countries can not be thought in isolation from other developments
elsewhere. developments in Russia had always snow-balling effect
world-wide (inevitable) whatever the revolutionaries themselves thought.we
are not dealing with personalities here, but systemic changes and
structural forces. china emulated the exprience of Russia, cuba the
experience of both and nicaragua the experience of three. socialists
revolitions were already international despite their different strategies
at home. to argue that they were simply national is to underestimate their
systemic effects world-wide. 

  
>US independence searched support in
>France, 
>Bolivar in England, Castro in the Soviet Union,... It was needed because 
>they seeked freedom from a powerful oppresor.

that is true. castro example is a perfect one that supports my thesis
above.castro emulated the exprience of Russia. the target was to spread
communism to Latin America. however, his supporters were prevented, killed
and eliminated by military dictatorships in the region. given the US
support to anti-communist regimes, these guys failed (or at least tried
their best). it is not because the strategies of revolutionaries were
outmoded that they failed, but it is because they were prevented by
systemic forces from coming power or continuing their livelihood. the
whole cold-war strategy was a deliberate attempt to block the
internalization of revolutions.

>4. In periphery past we have been aided many times, even by occidental 
>pro-system people, to rediscover and conserve our best values and
>cultural 
>treasures, as to reconstruct our sometimes mistreated egos and bodies.

i agree

>It may be good to change the word anti-systemic for something different
>like 
>pro-new-system. Our task is not only to dennounce the present system 
>perversion, but to proppose, perfection and work some other one, with the 
>hope it will be better.

elio, i believe in your sincerity. you put your words very nicely here.
however, whether or not "hope" will bring change is disputable for me. i
do not think that we can change the system by peceful or pro-systemic
means bacause the system is already transfroming itself from
within, if nothing is static. we can not wait for hundred years to let
the system change itself into some form of egalitarian system. it seems
unlikely so if we do not do something more serious. the thing is that
capitalism is becoming more and more overwhelming, more and more oppresive
and more and more agressive.left has been weekened, revolutionary
expectations stigmatized as outmoded and unions wiped out. left has become
right. we have the hegemony of neo-liberalism with all of its
ideological apparatuses in action(media, universities, governments, UN,
World bank, IMF). we have to undestand the inner-workings of capitalism in
order to be able to criticize and change the system. 

given this, i do see the revolutionary transformation from the periphery
because they are more exploited than the people in the core. we need a
proggesive coalition of working classes, women and students there.this 
coalition is already taking place in many countries. in latin america,
marxist-feminist allience (activism) played a significant role in
weakening military regimes.moreover, women syndicalists in Nicaragua
played a great role in transforming gender relations in unions and raised
democratic voices. real democratic forces are emerging in the periphery.
unfortunately, i am hopelesss for the core because their intellectuals
are totally co-apted and pro-systemic. moreover, their social movements
are very isolated from each other, and are single issue oriented. Given
the ideological hegemony of liberalism, pluralism and post-modernism, each
group wants to get their share from the pie individually, which is
exactly the opposite of anti-systemic and radical struggle. i am hopeful
for the periphery if right strategies are applied. core can join, of
course,if they still have any radicals left.

thanks,


Mine Doyran
Phd, politics
SUNY/Albany