From periphery to .....

Hi Mine, and list-friends,
It is good to know that we do not differ too much about peripheric history 
interpretation. I wish I knew that history in the way you do. Some comments 
on some of your remarks:
1. *** burden should not be put on the shoulders of communist states in the 
periphery. these states had no other choice but to protect themselves***
I wish for latinoamericans most of the conquers obtained by the cuban 
people 
under such a criminal pressure from the empire and its allies. They have 
given us a lesson of dignity, moral strength and hope. Why have they 
advanced so much -so far- and others have not?
2) ***** revolutions can not (be) pre-determined, they are done. nobody 
strategically calculated "let's folks have a national revolution...". this
is an idealist reading of history.****
Revolutions, or deep-social evolutions are human projects socially 
constructed. They are historically situated, have their theorics, their 
strategies, and if they succeed in taking power, they may not in building 
the goal, the utopy, for many different reasons -like oppresors reply, or  
new mistakes introduced by theirselves, ...- They are unfinished tasks that 
require constant self-revision and peoples participation. Am I wright if I 
understood that you accept that determinism is not possible, but 
worked-utopies are needed? Don't you think that any project has always an 
ideal component  -besides others-?
3)**** what ever happened in Russsia, china, Cuba and other countries can 
not be thought in isolation from other developments elsewhere..... to argue 
that they were simply national is to underestimate their systemic effects 
world-wide ******
Complete agreement. Systemic approach is therefore always relevant. The 
same 
happends with environment, economy, women-movement, minorities-rights, 
modes 
..
4)**** 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.*****
It seems it does not match with what you say in number 2) about strategy. 
Stalin, Coecescu and Pol Pot made terrible unexpected things, which can not 
be charged to imperial systemic forces. Pinochet, Franco, Salazar, Videla, 
Somoza, Amin, Stroessner, Trujillo, Marcos, Sukarno, Suharto, Mobutu Zeze, 
the Sha, Duvalier, .. made terrible things with the support and approval of 
imperial systemic forces. All they are crimes against humanity.
If the soviet block collapsed, it was due more to internal big mistakes, 
than to systemic forces, and both of them acted at the time. That fact does 
not make capitalism a decent system. The defects of the adversary do not 
make me a virtuous person, but I may take advantage of them.
5)***** 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 ******
In any project that you undertake there is an inherent hope that you will 
get your goal. We speak of hope as an inner active conviction, not as a 
passive waiting. Peaceful methods does not imply pro-systemic means/goals. 
Look at Ghandi, Mandela, Plaza Mayo mothers, or liberation theology. We 
know 
that present systemic-forces love bloody-methods (Kosovo, Chechenia, Timor, 
Chile, Colombia,..), and also that violence has been a reality in history, 
few times for good. The fact that main systemic-forces are irrational and 
violent does not mean that we must behave like them, neither accept their 
provocations, but I agree that in cases like Nazi's madness there is no 
other choice. Pacific methods are preferable and they are becoming more 
frequent lately, but clearly not always effective. Their advantage is that 
when they are wrong, the mistake is on the side of life, not against it.
5)*** we have to undestand the inner-workings of capitalism in order to be 
able to criticize and change the system.****
Agreement. That was Marx task, not completed by him, not yet finished by us.
6)*** i am hopelesss for the core because their intellectuals
are totally co-apted and pro-systemic.*****
This chat-line is a proof of another point of view. As far as they are 
alive 
and acting, there is hope in the core, and reafirmation in the periphery.
7)***moreover, their social movements are very isolated from each other, 
and 
are single issue oriented.***
That may be the present reality to work with. New systemic mission is to 
face it in the core and in the periphery. It may take several generations, 
but that is not a problem. If the main goal is clear, why do we have such a 
difficulty to handle minor differences?
8)*** capitalism is becoming more and more overwhelming, more and more
oppresive and more and more agressive*****
Agreement. Their trend is toward a market-techno-fascism or neo-fascism as 
some people already call them. Theirs is a dangerous, indignant and quite 
boring propposal for colective life. They think they are mentally sane 
because they dominate the planet.
9)*** i am hopeful for the periphery if right strategies are applied.**
Your hopes for the perifery are as important as ours for the core. About 
the 
right strategies (?), ...  we are not so sure, but we know that each people 
will develop new ones and learn from others, in a permanent renovating 
process. Look at Seattle-WTO movilization, Pinochet's trial, Green Peace 
actions, Concerned Scientists, Medicine for Peace, Human Rights NGOs, 
vacilant position of Woytila requesting perdon for church past record, ... 
there are several signals to think that it is coming a reversal of the 
tide, 
if we are not yet in it.
The more that mainstream think-tanks decrete Marx death, the more he 
reappears, perhaps we are learning to read and interpret him with more 
freedom and creativeness, without fears of being excluded by the owners of 
dogma. Marx wrote for 1850 realities, under a different cultural 
environment, with simpler tools, and less information than today, and 
produced one of the best known systemic explanations. His relevance, in 
spite of his flaws, is the best proof of the failure of XX century 
mainstream economics schools, so eager to criticize him, and so poor in 
results and convincing explanations and forecasts. They demand him what 
they 
do not demand to theirselves, neither to any scientist of those times, and 
seem more dedicated to make apologetics of the system than good science: 
Class bias, lack of ethics, lack of imagination, career ambitions, 
self-programmed alienation, sheep spirit? Hard to say.
The problem is that stalinist beaurocracies showed similar symptoms. (Erich 
Fromm is excellent explaining it).
Power has toxic effects even in small dosis, and it becomes harder to 
handle 
under imperial-systemic-pressure. But anyone of us has his/her bit of power 
to handle. That is the reason why we request human greatness and ethical 
controls for an eventual pro-new-world-system project, and their eventual 
leaders. Are we asking too much from them, from ourselves and from world 
people?

Thanks Mine, and cordial regards from Emilio.

Emilio José Chaves
Pasto, Colombia, S.A.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com