Re: nonviolence and world party

I agree with the non-violence quality to the world Party philosophy.

It is inherent in the definition of world citizen.

I know many people ascribe to the concept of a "just" war.  I do not.  It is
outside of any model to achieve peace.

The messages I would like to bring to the discussion table are simple.

1) application of the golden rule
2) an awareness of the effect of feeding the warriors (on the physical
mental emotional levels.
3) the importance of breath - learning one new breathing technique.
4) honouring the sacred in everything

I suggest that the World Party ought to consider the importance of those
ideas.

I would also hope that the World Party would endorse the concept that "All
educators are educators for World Peace"  a proclamation that is to be made
in order to bring life to the "Culture of Peace" initiative of both UNESCO
and the UN.

That would be "revolutionary" and more important - it would be evolutionary!

Peace

Mitchell Gold
-----Original Message-----
From: g kohler <gkohler@accglobal.net>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: November 11, 1999 12:09 PM
Subject: 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 favorite 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 individuals 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