RE: Rev Int Movement (fwd)

>I believe that there is a  LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO
>REVOLT AGAINST  THOSE WHO OPPRESS YOU WHATEVER THE MEANS AVAILABLE AT THE
>TIME, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO USE VIOLENCE IN ORDER TO PROTECT YOUR
>LIVELIHOOD FROM AN ILLEGITIMATE USE OF VIOLENCE.
>
>it is very much like a woman getting raped or beaten, and has to violence
>to protect her body from an illegitimate use of force (i think ALan has
>mentioned this before)

Mine is absolutely correct.  We all have the right to use violence against 
repressive
regimes, especially because such actions are taken in self-defense.  And 
people
around the world should band together against these regimes.   Also, I 
don't agree
with Ed that Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or the Dalai Lama are role models 
for us.
They were not interested in transforming capitalism, but in mild reforms 
that are
totally consistent with the reigning ideology of capitalism: liberalism.

However, my argument has been that a WP should not make the use of violence 
into a
principle.  Principles and tactics are very different things.  I don't 
think one can
apriori assume that violence is the most efficacious strategy.  Conversely, 
while
using peaceful means should be principle, that doesn't necessarily mean 
that peaceful
means can always be used.  East Timor is a case example.

But more important, there is the yet undiscussed issue of what violence or 
peaceful
means are use for.  To seize state power?  Or to disarm an existing 
repressive regime
and implement a non-repressive regime?  Should a state policy be to 
nationalize
industries, or force private enterprises to work with unions?  Will either 
of these
really work when companies can simply pick up and leave for another state?  
 Are we
to win state-by-state?  Or is there a global strategy to take?