elson wrote:
>Regarding the above, I did not write "something like violent behavioryou did not exactly say this, but you implied. why don't you check the archives of the list for what you wrote exactly? it may be better for you to consider the sixth principle.
>(meaning revolution, i guess) is much worse than
>non-violent resistance because it leads to dictatorship." I wrote nothing
>remotely close to this.
you wrote on Sat Nov 13 11:57:07 1999 about the basic principles of the World Party.
>Basic principles
> While we are aware there are various ways to build
such
>institutions, we nevertheless agree on the following
set of
>basic design principles:
>1. Innate sovereignty of individuals
>2. Sovereignty of the people expressed through direct
or
>representative democracy
>3. Rule of law
>4. Solving problems at the most local level practicable
(Subsidiarity Principle)
>5. Institutional and procedural transparency to create
and
>maintain trust
>6. Use of peaceful means to build such institutions
>7. Non-discrimination (article 2 of Universal Declaration
of
>Human Rights)
then, you continued on Mon Nov 15 10:11:17 1999 in your response to Gert Kohler:
>>Gert Kohler
>I see two sets of questions worth discussing:
>1. Since we may presume that for a global anti-systemic
>struggle
">revolutionary" does not mean seizing state power or
UN power, >then what
>does mean, if anything? And is revolutionary action
necessarily >violent?
>Should not a World Party in principle oppose violence?
Has it >anything to
>lose now by doing so?
you wrote on Thu Nov 18 15:39:49 1999:
>Hans also writes as if there is a Marxist WP .
Much of this discussion is
>implicitly a critique of the outmoded "socialism in
one country" paradigm,
>especially the one that takes the forcible seizure of
state power as its
>goal.
--
Mine Aysen Doyran
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222