> And so my original point in response to Claus was
> that we should be 100% in favor of both. Jerry either misunderstood
> what I said, or really meant his absurd comment that “to be 100% in
> favor of bourgeois democracy is to be 100% in favor of capitalism and
> class exploitation”. Or maybe he got confused with the math? Jerry,
> it’s not the same 100%. You may support women’s equality 100% (a
> bourgeois democratic demand) and still support workers’ bargaining
> rights 100%. You’re not meant to add up the percentages and panic when
> the result is >100%.
Hi Paula:
No, I didn't get the math wrong. Socialists historically have supported the
extension of democratic rights but that doesn't mean they were 100% in
favor of bourgeois democracy: rather they supported bourgeois democratic
change and at the same time recognized the limits of that change and called
for those limits to be surpassed. That is not 100% support; it is critical support.
As I noted previously, bourgeois democracy means something more than an
extension of democratic rights; it is a form of class rule in which the rule
of the bourgeoisie is legally recognized. For instance, bourgeois democracy
incorporated rights associated with private property, has legal protections for
the capitalist class as a whole, recognizes the legality of corporate rule and
exploitation, enforces contract law, et al.
> Jerry asked:
> ”Are we really supposed to take seriously a perspective which suggests
> that Chad, Martinique, Honduras, Madagascar, Belize, Saint Lucia,
> Kiribati, and Angola are all imperialist nations?”
>> Your view on this issue coincides with the geopolitical interests of
> Chinese capital, Russian capital, Venezuelan capital, etc.
Whereas your view on this issue coincides - to a great extent - with the
geopolitical interests of the leading imperialist nations including the US,
the UK, and France.
> I’m afraid
> that doesn’t make it right, you still have to prove it. And if you
> really want to prove it, you mustn’t pick the small states as examples,
> you must pick the big guys - the powers that are comparable in
> economic, political and military clout to the European states.
No, Paula I am not attempting to prove a thesis; I am attempting to
point out the implications of *YOUR* thesis. If your thesis is true
then all of these nations are imperialist (indeed, even the Duchy of
Grand Fenwick would have been considered imperialist). Thus, for you
to prove your thesis you have to attempt to explain how even just
about all of the smallest, least economically developed, least powerful,
and poor nations of the world are imperialist.
> Although I haven’t read
> it yet, its concept of ‘imperialist chain’, as I understood it from
> John’s emails, sounds similar to my views.
I sincerely doubt that John considers Chad to be an imperialist nation!
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue Mar 22 08:51:57 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 31 2011 - 00:00:02 EDT