Dishonest?

Now that I'm being accused of being dishonest, I must reply.  Sorry ya'll
for this flame.  I'll be brief.

Regarding Mine's comment "NO, it  is NOT wrong. what you said is in the WSN
archives. [snip] if there is a problem with the list-serv, then contact the
list serv's archives, NOT ME"  :

But again, Mine is wrong.  If anyone looks carefully through the archive,
and carefully reads what I wrote, you will see

(a) that the STATEMENT included in my message of Nov. 13 was copied from
Troy Davis' message of the same day entitled, "Sorry here are the missing
files,"

and (b) that preceding my re-posting of his principles in my message, I
asked,  "Regarding both, any comments on STATEMENT ON GLOBAL AND DEMOCRATIC
SOVEREIGN INSTITUTIONS?"

Mine is not reading the record accurately.  Now, if Mine takes this
criticism personally, or as derogatory, I can't help it.    The facts are
that Mine attributed ideas and statements to me that I did not write or
imply.  I am justified in pointing this out.  So there is absolutely nothing
dishonest in my message.

What could be debated, and all that we've done in this exchange is skirted
around the issue, is whether seizing state power is a viable principle (as
opposed to possibly useful tactic) for meaningful social change on a
systemic scale.

elson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu]On
Behalf Of Mine Aysen Doyran
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 12:59 PM
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
Subject: Re: The New Panglossianism and Baby's bathwater (fwd)


this is my last response to elson's personal affronts. i should admit that
his/her remarks are intellectually dishonest, academically poor,
unprofessionally rude, and full of lies and deceptions. i can not continue
this exchange like this. if elson is hostile to socialism in other
countries, i can not correct his/her eurocentric beliefs. i am asking you
list members, how can a person use such a derogatory language in a
multi-cultural forum like list?
>>[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.
NO, it  is NOT wrong. what you said is in the WSN achives. you wrote the
"basic text of the  global coalition/campaign". if you did not believe in
this, then why did  you feel the necessity to post it on the list serv as
part of your  discussion on WP? if there is a problem with the list-serv,
then contact the list serv's archives, NOT ME:
                                         >by Elson E. Boles
                                    >13 November 1999 18:57 UTC
>It seems there are two key items on the table:
>1.  minimum core principles of a World Party
>2.  the question of tactics: a necessary dichotomy between >peaceful or
>violent, reformist or revolutionary?  Is this something that has to >be
>sorted out at this point?  Is this a false dilemma?
>Regarding both, any comments on STATEMENT ON GLOBAL AND >DEMOCRATIC
>SOVEREIGN INSTITUTIONS?
       > Basic text of the global coalition/global campaign "World
>Democracy 2010" launched on Friday 14 May 1999 at the Hague
>Appeal for Peace Conference.
>Goal: the creation of global and democratic sovereign >institutions,
>Whereas global problems demand global solutions,
>whereas to be implemented successfully, these global
>solutions will need to be supported by the people of the world, >and
>whereas such implementation requires the democratic
>expression of the will of the people (art. 21(3) of the Universal
>Declaration of
>Human Rights)
>Therefore we need global and democratic sovereign
>institutions to legislate, implement and adjudicate such >solutions.
        >The people of the world shall decide the extent of the
>powers of these institutions and their inter-relationship
>with other levels of powers.
>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)
       > We appeal to all people of good will to make this goal and
>these basic principles known and to act within their
>possibilities to support them.
< < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > > | Home

elson continued:
>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.

do you have any evidence for this? that is different from  the one-sided
analysis of soviet socialism?
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.
stupid!! I can not take this as an academic comment. it is full of
propaganda and lies. if you do not know marxism enough, you should start
your reading with marx's "communist manifesto" since it is a basic text.
however, your hostility to marx prevents you from doing this!!! that is why
you see revolution as an "outmoded paradigm".  plus, do not think that i am
not aware of your rhetorical game that you always connect with "orthodox
marxism".  what is wrong with "seizure of state power"?  i do not
necessarily see why it is an outmoded paradigm.
you remarks are too derogatory, elson. i guess you are reading main-stream
text books nowadays.
i do not see it worth corresponding with you any longer
--
Mine Aysen Doyran
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222