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

Final note:

MGold

Good luck to those involved with the discussion.   It serves no useful
purpsoe for me.  I trust it helps you

Peace

In Peace

Mitchell Gold

IAEWP
IPC 2000
Proclamation 2000
----- Original Message -----
From: Elson <facbolese@usao.edu>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: November 22, 1999 12:03 PM
Subject: 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.