> I think you are rather too quick to dismiss the importance
>of elections. At a minimum, I think you should admit that you
>are not in agreement with Marx, who clearly supported elections
>for the leaders of the Paris Commune.
>Barkley Rosser
sorry but you are not the one to decide whether I am in agreement with
Marx or not. surely, you are not in ageement because you give a liberal
bourgeois reading of MArx . The elections for the leaders of the Paris
were TRULY democratic elections, which is what Marx celebrated. They were
NOT bourgeois elections where a small group of minority (property owners)
controls the majority to win seats for the parliament for the
representation of their class interests. Paris Commune was a genuine
majoritarian democracy, not a liberal minority democracy as you think
what Marx defended..
Mine
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:21 AM Subject:
[PEN-L:19440] Political Constraints,was Re: :Re:Re:MarxandMalleability
(fwd)
elections? I am not quite sure about the meaning. Which elections can you
show that can really allow me to participate in the selection of people
who run the society".I do not elect bankers!.I do not elect
corporations!.I do not elect multinationals!.They are there illegitimately
(even judged from the standpoint of one sided bourgeois democracy)
Mine Doyran
SUNY/Albany
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote > The election of December saw a victory >
by the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Lenin had no good > excuse on
Marxist grounds for denying them power.
