[WSF-Discuss] heads of state in the wsf?

[kolya abramsky]

hi,

i am finding this debate interesting, if a little stifling, and repetitive of old debates...I do not want to wade into the debate, I just want to ask a question about terminology.

In one of the previous emails, Francine wrote:

In general, whatever we think of the means for the
> struggle, even if
> we approve of armed struggle in certain cases, the Forum as
> such cannot
> accept them for obvious reasons of legitimacy.

can i just ask, do you mean legitimacy or legality? it seems they are two fundamentally different words and have been mixed up here. something can be completely legitimate and persecuted by the law, and letting legality define the boundaries of confrontational politics seems to be missing many many lessons of history. I am not saying law should be broken for the hell of it, or that there are not many practical reasons that particular organizations (in this case WSF, but it could be any other) in their  institutional form need to at least visibly play within the law. Of course this may often be the case. However, as i see it, this is a purely practical concern and not a political principle. 

kolya


      __________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html