> Gar Lipow wrote:
>
>
>>But I disagee with you if you think that our current situation was
>>produced democratically, and that more democracy would make it worse.
>
>
> I don't think it was produced democratically, no. But we've got to
> deal with the world that we inherited, and on many many issues,
> Americans hold fairly barbaric views.
>
>
The question is: Do the majority of Americans hold more barbaric views than are likely to be carried out? For example there is a good chance that Iran is next on the list. No doubt if our government invades Iran and successfuly overthrows it's current governemnt there will be support. But if we could vote NOW on whether or not to invade Iran, an invasion would be resoundingly defeated.
And I can't think of any elite likely to be less barbaric the population of the country they rule.
Yes, people are no damn good. Yes the problem with kittens is that they grow up to be cats; the problem with babies is that they grow up to be people. But elite control makes this worse, not better. On just about any issue you name giving people more control over their lives not less will slow down the forces of reaction. If, for example, you could get a parlimentary system for the NY city council - where the council was elected by proportional representation and then elected the mayor, you might not have ended up with your current reactionary city government in what may be the most progressive population in the country.
The reason I'm pushing this, is that I think supporting more rather than less democracy whenever the opportunity arises is important both tactically and stragegically if we ever want to have an actual left in this country.