On 2013-03-09, at 6:11 PM, Jim Devine wrote: > 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.)
Thanks for clarifying. I think your reply to Michael S. expressing agreement with his point was poorly conceived and formulated and needed to be corrected. I saw you as strange bedfellows on this issue. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
