>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 03/27/00 05:28PM >>>
. . .
If Charles Brown wants to explore the democratic character of socialism,
Marx and Engels themselves are not quite handy. One can probably be true to
the democratic spirit of the extraordinary powerful heritage of critical
Marxism by going beyond Marx himself in some respects. I dare say, that is
probably the best way to show respect to Marx.
Manjur Karim
>>>>>>>
Bravo. All the jazz about popular sovereignty "the working class as the ruling class," "rule of the majority," etc. are utterly meaningless, since they beg all questions of rights and democratic procedures. If we had a vote every 20 years to Lord High Supreme Muckety-Muck, that could be described as rule by majority.
__________
CB: Popular sovereignty is not the whole story , but all any talk about democracy, including yours, is meaningless, unless you derive the answers to the questions about rights and democratic procedures from that first principle. For example, what do you mean by "democratic" procedures ?
So your example of Lord High Muckety is meant be a criticism of U.S. and British "democracy" I take it. Of course, there can be distorted versions of what is democracy , so what ? What are your principles of democracy and why are they meaningful ?
_________
Some people feel obliged to apologize for any affront to democratic norms by the PRC government that anyone points to. It would be more forthright to simply admit that democracy has been sacrificed. Then we could consider whether the outcome of such a cost is worthy of it.
________
CB: Well, we can do that if you are forthright and simply admit that democracy has been sacrificed by the U.S. , then we can compare the PRC and U.S. I mean afterall, the U.S. Constitutional principle of popular sovereignty is meaningless according to you. And surely on the questions of rights and procedures , the U.S. is not democratic. Money rules.
CB