From: andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
Justin: -clip- I also don't think that Marxist ideology will ever the sort of force ir was once, so the question si in that sense somewhat stale.
CB: Why don't you think Marxist ideology will ever be the sort of force it was once ?
>
>
>
> Justin: Right, though you don't have full blown liberal democracy until the
> 20th century. Be that as it may, I don't think that liberal democracy is a
> cure for all that ails us, just for some of it. I don't attribute the Iraq
> war to liberal democracy -- rather to its failure, since in a proper
> liberal democracy the courts don't appoint the executive! We disagree on a
> lot, yoou and I, but we agree, I think on this, that many if not all of
> these awful things you mention are due to capitalism, not to lib dem.
> Recall taht I define lib dem as" universal suffrage, competritive
> elections, and extensive civil and political liberties. It's hard to see
> hwo any of those, or all in combination, leads to world wars, etc.
CB: I think your definition of "liberal democracy" must add an exclusionary clause: "absence of capitalism". It is the capitalism in liberal democracy that leads to world wars and wars. Further, we see in the actual history of liberal democracy, even in the 20th Century, that capitalism undermines the d emocracy had through universal suffrage, competitive elections , rights. Money rules elections such that they are sham competitions. In the U.S. , employers can deprive workers of their Bill of Rights rights because the private sector rule is not "state action". "Freedom" of the Press is for them that owns the presses, who are the rich. Etc, etc. , etc. Right before our eyes, capitalism is totally corrupting the "full blown" liberal democracy.
>
> > Everybody wants "democracy", but if and when the People really have
> gotten and get Power, it is not clear that their initial rule might not be
> infinitely more angry and harsh and vengeful ( "irrational" even) than we
> of the scribbling class ( and I include myself in that) have in our
> paternalism dared imagined. Perhaps Marx knew this when he formulated the
> "revolutionary _dictatorship_ of the proletariat".
>
> As Hal Draper has documented at tedious length, that is not what Marx
> meant.
>
> CB: I''ve read quite a few of Marx's documents, and I don't know if Draper
> wins the argument. Marx seems to anticipate quite a bit of violence in
> revolution.
And if it were, I'd oppose it. I think it is silly to say that it is
paternalist to oppose a
> vengeful bloodbath in in oneself and one's children may be murdered. If you
> really think that is what we are in for, explain to me why progressive
> intellectuals should support this?
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: For one, we might avoid being murdered by not trying to lead the Party
> of the Revolution, or accepting lesser roles than top leaders. In general,
> the idea would be to learn from the first socialist revolutions and do
> better the next time. The challenge would be to truly become intellectuals
> organic with the working classes.
>
> For another, the bourgeoisie are going to continually perpetrate bloodbaths
> if they aren't overthrown (see my synopsis of liberal history earlier) So,
> we may be between a historical rock and hard place.
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030422/1ae9e2cd/attachment.htm>