No comrade. It's called exile. Refer to Yoshie's post.
> > You're with us on that distinction
> >(made eloquently by JMK in the Yale Review, 1933), eh Doug?
> He said finance, not capital, didn't he?
Well, he said trade and finance. "Let things be homespun whenever possible and above all let finance be national." (from memory so maybe I've missed a word)
> I'm not so sure you can separate out the "technical questions" so
> easily.
I've just been reading the Paco Ignacio Taibo biography of Che and more so than Jon Lee Anderson's, it really does show the need for an understanding of technical tools at the disposal of radical Third World state management. That's the only point, here. Ok, I can't convince you to take on board this question, given your psychopathic anti-statism, so I'll drop it... along with that Nazi Keynes, you've convinced me...
> You pointed out on the Debate list that when Aristide took office, he
> faced the "constraints faced by Third World progressives once they
> take the state... and find that's not where the power lies!" And
> hasn't something gone badly wrong since the ANC
Correct
> - surely one of the
> most admirable revolutionary forces ever, no? - took power in SA?
Incorrect. (See Dale Mckinley's 1997 Pluto book, The ANC: A Political Biography.)
> Isn't this a serious problem with a state-centered strategy?
No, it's a problem mainly with the balance of forces. See Yoshie again (and keep those good thoughts about Seattle, WB Bonds Boycott and the like bubbling, Doug!).
> Should
> we be trying to think beyond all these inherited structures of the
> nation-state?
Sure, that's the withering away stage. Let's smash it first, ok? Then do some socialism. Then the withering part. Or have I got that order wrong? :-)