nonviolence and world party

It has been suggested by one contributor to this discussion about a world
party that such a party should be "more revolutionary than that", in the
sense of more revolutionary than "liberal" or more revolutionary than
"social democratic" or more revolutionary than "green" (if I understood the
comment correctly).

The problem with such a comment is that "revolutionary" is a rubber-like
concept and does not mean a lot, unless it is further specified. My car
engine has a certain number of RPMs (revolutions per minute).  Various
academics have been writing about and/or dreaming about "scientific
revolutions" (e.g., Kuhn). Buddhists and various ecologists and peaceniks
have been advocating various "revolutions of consciousness". Lenin was
shipped from Switzerland to Russia by the German military command to foment
"revolution", which he did. My present provincial prime minister in the
Canadian province of Ontario is of the conservative party and was voted into
office a few years ago on a platform of a "common sense revolution" (speak:
neo-conservatism).  Hitler's Nazi Party came to power with the slogan of a
"national revolution". I am mentioning all these examples in order to point
out that the concept of "revolution" by itself is totally meaningless. There
is even an orchestra in Paris, France by the name of "Romantic and
Revolutionary Orchestra". (This would be a good name for some present-day
fellow-intellectuals.)

I grant that many of the powers-in-power (insert your favourite enemy name
here: ........) have a tendency to use violence of various kinds against
their opponents. An important question for a potential world party is,
therefore,  how it stands on the issue of nonviolence versus violence,
rather than whether it wants to be revolutionary or not revolutionary.

As a critique of the Leninist position on violence, I would argue that (a)
it is too bloodthirsty, (b) it contains a betrayal of socialism insofar as
it operates with the doublespeak OPPRESSION = FREEDOM and FREEDOM =
DICTATORSHIP. That is a betrayal of socialism. (c) It commits a major
logical fallacy in terms of dialectical historical materialist philosophy,
as follows: In that philosophy history is seen as a never-ending movement in
which political-real-material forces struggle with each other. This is
thought of as a perpetual struggle which leads to ever-changing outcomes.
(In a less convoluted American style, Rosenau called this the
"action-reaction phenomenon in politics", domestic or international). The
logical fallacy in the Leninist position is the hidden assumption that this
perpetual movement of contradictory forces would come to an end once
Leninists are in power. (Fukuyama and Lenin are making the same mistake
here.) The Leninist idea that revolution is the bloodbath which will end all
bloodbaths is totally mistaken therefore, both in
historical-materialist-dialectical terms and in simple human terms. I grant,
on the other hand, that people as indiviudals or collectivities have a right
to self-defense, which can be argued in both liberal and socialist terms.

Canadian "Greens" are not known for advocating armed violence. Canadian
workers are not known for advocating armed violence, even with high chronic
unemployment. A world party which wants to be successful in Canada would
have to adhere to the principle of nonviolence in order to get any
significant public support. The situation may be different in other parts of
the world.

Have a good, unpolluted, nonviolent, free and socially just day,
yours truly

Gert Kohler
Oakville, Canada