Catherine Driscoll wrote:
> Carl Remick wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >On the contrary, I would argue that very radical social change *can*
> >flow from the "self-evident" truth of the Declaration of Independence,
> >e.g.: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humankind is
> >created equal<SNIP>
> It is useful to remember how statements about rights and independence and
> equality and so on have been and still can be used very productively to
> change, to serve and to inspire. But this, pragmatic as it is, does not
> mean that criticism of what such ideas have conserved, concealed and
> suppressed and how those kinds of ideas work to exclude possible questions
> and other ideas is not just as important. I do not think these recognitions
> are mutually exclusive.
With all due respect to the agitational possibilities of the Declaration of Independence (Ho made excellent use of it), I think Catherine is kinder to it than she need be. The key point in understanding the Declaration is the recognition that "happiness" was a euphemism for "property," and the inalienable rights that were up front in the minds of the drafters were the inalienable rights of the property owner to his life, his liberty, and the untrammeled use of his property for his own happiness (i.e., for the exploitation of labor). Engels in his preface to the republication of *Poverty of Philosophy* is very good on the dangers of turning agitational language, even extremely effective agitational language, into principle.
Carrol