[WS:] This statement is too general to my taste. It really depends on the institutional context. The majority rule is generally a good thing only if the Left is united and institutionally strong - otherwise the majority rule becomes a mob rule easily manipulated by reactionary elements, as it the case of the US, for example.
My views on the subject do not differ that much from those of Aristotle http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=ancienthistory&cdn=education&tm=75&f=00&su=p897.6.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/aristotle-politics1.html and, for that matter, Lenin's concept of vanguard party.
Wojtek
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Steven L. Robinson <srobin21 at comcast.net>wrote:
> Wythe - The Swiss vote can be seen as an attack on religious diversity
> during a
> time of relative weakness of the left and not as, your note seems to
> indicate, a necessary result of democracy impinging the rights of
> minorities.
>
> I would not draw such a general conclusion from the Swiss vote. The Swiss
> have historically been backward on social/cultural issues. For instance,
> they only decided a couple of decades ago that women should have the right
> to vote.
>
> By the way, I think most of us agree that majority rule is generally a very
> good thing. For instance, it is a good thing when majority renters outvote
> the minority landlord interests and impose rent control. Similarly, it is
> also a good thing when minority low wage workers can vote themselves a raise
> in the minimum wage against the interests of the minority employers. On a
> bigger scale, and of much more importance, I am very, very much in favor of
> the majority of the workers and farmers of the world displacing the small
> minority of capitalists who control the wealth and the governments of the
> world. I presume you are too, btw.
>
> As to putting the rights of cultural, religious or sexual minorities "to a
> vote," it is generally forces of anti-democratic reaction that stand to
> benefit from such repression (as in the case of the Swiss or in the US with
> regards to gay marriage or immigrants rights). The case is often made that
> the rights of cultural, religious and sexual diversity are, correctly
> understood, really majoritarian demands for freedom. In the US for
> instance, everyone, not just Jews, Mormons or Muslims, has an interest in
> being free from the strictures of fundamentalist Christianity, of whatever
> flavor.
>
> Significantly, the greatest strides in favor of such diversity tend to
> arise during revolutionary times or during periods of radical mass
> mobilization. It is no coincidence that modern feminism, gay liberation, the
> Chicano movement and similar movements arose and obtained gains during the
> late 1960s and early 1970s (went on the defensive, largely, as the
> mobilization waned. Similar trajectories were followed in other areas. In
> Revolutionary Russia, cultural (and religious) minorities obtained political
> and legal equality (as did women) during the revolution as part of the
> larger advance of the working class there, only to be pushed back in the
> reactionary Stalin period.
> SR
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wojtek S
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Sent: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:32:00 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Swiss voters back ban on minarets
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8385069.stm
>
> [WS:] Yet another proof that the only thing that democracy can do
> effectively is to curb civil rights of unpopular minorities.
>
> Wojtek
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>