In a lot of places in the world, establishment of a functioning government, basic everyday survival, etc. come first, and arms can be often a matter of self defense. First you have to live before you do anything else.
> They may very well conclude that taking up arms to achieve that
> improvement may work. But to argue that it won't work as a solution
> to the class war against the capitalist economic dictatorship in no
> way contradicts the notion that taking up arms may be an effective
> strategy in other situations.
Recognition that reproduction of capitalism ultimately depends on force doesn't mean, though, that "taking up arms," in the fashion, for instance, Fidel Castro, et al. once did, is an effective strategy even in very poor parts of the world -- in fact, that is very rarely the case. It does mean keeping in mind that, even if you come to power through electoral means, the other side often will not let you govern peacefully when they decide you've gone too far, as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende, etc. realized, and, but for the support of loyal soldiers and civilian masses, Chavez might have ended up sharing their fate.
As far as the West is concerned, very few workers are thinking right now of establishing a concrete alternative to "capitalist economic dictatorship." Hence relative peace at home. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>