On 2013-03-09, at 6:28 PM, Michael Smith wrote: > On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 17:11:44 -0800 > Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Just because our current system isn't perfectly democratic doesn't >> mean that we shouldn't defend the democratic rights we have. > > I wonder whether it's a good idea for the Left to 'defend' anything. > Shouldn't we be on the attack? > > Then there's the question of just what 'democratic rights' we > currently have. As far as I can see, that's pretty much the null > set, in practice. > > Yes, I have freedom of speech -- until they decide to lock > me up on some flimsy pretext, as they could do any time. The only > reason they haven't is that I'm so ineffectual. > > This applies to all of us, of course.
Well, you consider these rights a nullity in theory. But in practice, you support the rights won in past struggles by workers, blacks, women, and gays and oppose current efforts to roll these back. Most recently, you supported the Chicago teachers and Wisconsin public service employees in their efforts to defend their bargaining rights. You supported Occupy's right to public protest. You oppose stealth attempts to deprive blacks of their voting rights and women of their reproductive rights. You defend the right of whistleblowers like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. And so on. How effective is your/our support for these causes is a separate question. So is whether the Left should be on the "attack", whatever than means. As the poet says, theory is grey but the great tree of life is green. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
