> Seems to me that it would
> take more democracy to reverse the above reversals, to fuind some "third"
> or alternative way, etc.-- i.e., more direct participation by the majority
> of men and women in the creation of socialized markets, of co-op.'s and of
> "society."
You are obviously correct, but you also ( as shown in the lack of a clear grammatical subject for "to find") finesse the actual question. Your argument depends on the presence of an organized force in China that can mobilize the people in a vast second Cultural Revolution (this time with the army against it) to reinstitute direct participation et cetera. Unless you can identify such a force, and explain how we in the First World are to offer it material support, you are thrown back on the question: From our perspective in the First World, is it best that US, EU and Japanese imperialism be confronted with strong or with weak states in the remainder of the capitalist world (that is the third world)?
Abstractly, is it best for the future of socialism in the world that these core imperialist powers be confronted by strong or weak states in third world nations? Concretely, does it make a damn bit of difference what we think on that question? Also concretely, does our opinion on that question have a material relevance to the task of building revolutionary parties at home?
Angela apparently believes a correct view on this abstract question is central to building communist movements in the first world. Tentatively, I don't think it is. It may or may not be a reflection of *other*differences which would come out in concrete political activity and which would be barriers, unless resolved, to political unity. But if so I don't know what those other differences are, and I don't know whether or not they can be discovered, abstractly, in maillist debate.
Carrol