On 11/7/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/7/06, David B. Shemano wrote:
> It seems that you are making a Frederick Douglas type argument -- the
Constitution and its principles are correct, but have been misapplied. I don't think
that is inconsistent with what I am suggesting. Why could not (or why should not) a
socialist society adopt the language of the 1st Amendment as its guiding principle
for treatment of dissent in the society? <
I think that the Bill of Rights was a major popular victory in the US.
Something like it -- with additions of the sort that Mark mentions --
seems necessary. In fact, the B of R might only need a bit of
clarification and the use of more modern language.
A question may be asked: what can the Bill of Rights mean in a
socialist country where the judiciary is not independent, all lawyers
are state employees, and the means of production, including the means
of cultural production such as the media, are all directly or
indirectly owned by the government?
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
