Marv Gandall wrote: > The implication in each comment is that there are no democratic rights - > freedom to assemble, to speak out, to publish, to organize, to vote - to > defend in a bourgeois democracy dominated by big property owners. Michael and > Jim suggest that the system either fully "negates" these rights or reserves > them only for the rich and powerful.
> The Left, very broadly defined, has historically understood and acted > otherwise. It fought fascism in defence of the majority's hard-won democratic > rights in bourgeois democracies.... < Just because our current system isn't perfectly democratic doesn't mean that we shouldn't defend the democratic rights we have. The only way I can see Marv's interpretation as being based in what I said (not to mention in the comments of others) is via the imposition of either/or logic on it. I never said that the world could only be _either_ utopian democracy _or_ the totally dystopian reality we (seem to) live in. (Actually, given that the US is one of the richest countries in the world, it's hardly a pure dystopia.) The current democratic rights should be seen as seeds that can grow into full-scale democracy. They also represent victories the people have achieved via struggle (suffrage for Blacks, women, etc. etc.) -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
