>Bourgeois democracy is not a sham, as Doug suggested
>someone (I don't know who) had claimed -- but it is
>arguable that for sectors of the population is really
>is worse than a sham, by anyone's standards.
What does this mean? What's "worse than a sham"? The adjective "bourgeois" suggests a limit to the "democracy" it modifies; its flaw is more in the incompleteness of its democracy than in the idea of "democracy" itself. So what are you proposing? Giving up on due process, free speech, and the rest of it entirely? Or trying to make it real for everyone instead of often empty promises on paper?
Doug