RE: The New Panglossianism and Baby's bathwater (fwd)

Due to the complexity of this exchange, I must reply section by section.
This will be my last reply as the exchange is purely pedantic and of poor
quality.

>>elson wrote:
>>Regarding the above, I did not write "something like violent behavior
>>(meaning revolution, i guess) is much worse than
>>non-violent resistance because it leads to dictatorship."   I wrote
nothing
>>remotely close to this.

>[Mine]
>you 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.

For the second time, I did not write "something like violent behavior
(meaning revolution, i guess) is much worse than
non-violent resistance because it leads to dictatorship."
Nor did I imply this.   The record (the correct parts) of what I wrote which
you have cited below confirms precisely this: that I did not write anything
or imply anything about revolutions leading to dictatorships.

What I have stated is that violent seizure of the state as "revolution" to
create socialism in one country is an outmoded paradigm.  It failed.  It is
defunct.  With the exception of a few orthodox Marxists with blinders on,
people will not rally around any organization that takes violence or
revolution, or violent revolution, as a guiding principle.

Again, I never stated or implied that it leads to dictatorship.  This may be
historically true, but is unrelated to my statements and arguments.
Therefore, you must be much more precise and literal when reading arguments.
You are putting words in my mouth and wrongly attributing ideas to me. (more
below)

>[Mine]
>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)

Wrong again!  I did not write the above basic principles of the World Party,
nor did I write ABOUT them.

>then, you [elson] 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 [elson] 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.

Yes, the above is what I wrote, and as you can see, the word dictatorship
does not appear eveb once, nor is it implied.
Where you get  idea from the above that I wrote or impled "something like
violent behavior (meaning revolution, i guess) is much worse than
non-violent resistance because it leads to dictatorship" is a mystery to me.