look sir democracy is not some universal to which history ascribes itself. it is pushed down the throat of the 3d world in a matter of convenience. think of chavez and others.
andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I may be too ideolological but i have always ridiculed Sen's notion of
soula avramidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
look sir democracy is not some universal to which history ascribes itself. it is pushed down the throat of the 3d world in a matter of convenience. think of chavez and others.
I have no idea what you mean. I never said democracy was some "to which
soula avramidis wrote:
If sen's argument was formal then one oddity as it is, wouldinvalidate his argument.
how many accepted theories would stand up to this rigourous test,
especially as we move away from the hard sciences?
--ravi
I may be too ideolological but i have always ridiculed Sen's notion of democracy as some form of neo liberal hogwash.
Neoliberalism puts no particular value on democracy.
democracy without working class rule appears in his writing as some abstarct freedom notion devoid of real substance.
Not at
This exchange, together with Jim's remark, remind us that there are different
kinds of democracies. Sen touched on this in comparing Keralla with other
states in India, but he never followed up by showing the antagonism means
neoliberalism and the kind of democracy that Ian and Jim suggest. A
I may be too ideolological but i have always ridiculed Sen's notion of democracy as some form of neo liberal hogwash. democracy without working class rule appears in his writing as some abstarct freedom notion devoid of real substance.in an interview about food secrurity a year ago, ramsey clark
