Re: local state power vs. a global strategy

See below:

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, christopher chase-dunn wrote:

> Recognizing that socialism in one country is impossible does not require
> the further assumption that gaining say within states is necessarily
> meaningless. I see no reason not to pursue both a global and a
> capture-state-power strategy. In an interstate system coming to elected
> office in a single state is not sufficient for  constructing socialism,
> but this is not a reason to pursue only a global strategy. A democratic
> socialist world party should do both.
> 
> As i have said before i think it will be a new wave of semiperipheral
> movements that come to power in semiperipheral states that provide the
> main basis of support for the world party.  The party  should thus
> pursue a global strategy that includes transnational cooperative
> institutions as well as efforts to come into office by means of
> electoral campaigns. If  the U.S. economy "goes south" (as Donald Trump
> says),  a progressive electoral coalition might eventually make
> political gains even  here.
> 
> Chris Chase-Dunn

Chris-

This all sounds reasonable, but it doesn't sound like the unified
strategy of a single organization.  It sounds more like parties in various
states doing their best to seize those states (preferably nonviolently,
or course), and perhaps coordinating their actions in a mutually
supportive way, while a network of NGOs, and maybe those (nation)/state
parties as well, work at the inter or transnational level to promote
progressive issues.  I don't see that all this multi-level activity is
very likely to be carried out by one unified organization.  Perhaps using
the term "party" is the problem.  If the same activities were carried out,
but the organization responsible was called an alliance, or even a
network, it would sound quite different.  It's the old leninist imagery
that creates problems.  But a world party in that sense doesn't have a
raison d'etre until there is a world state.

RH