Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Joe M** · 01-15-2012, 09:22 PM

(01-15-2012 03:26 PM)1871 Wrote:
Quote:To this end the bourgeoisie specialised in abstract declarations of rights ranging from the Bill of Rights in England in 1689, through the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 with its statement that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and its subsequent Bill of Rights, the French Revolution with its cry of "liberty, equality and fraternity" and its Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

^ That paragraph alone is so idiotic is beggars belief.

But never mind - the the idea of 'life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness' or 'liberty equality and fraternity' is a lot less important than the rule of a party executive vanguard on behalf of the proleteriat.....

'Trust your leaders comrades, we know what is good for you!'

Perhaps Im just not smart enough to comprehend correctly what the artcile is saying, but your post confuses me.

From the paragraph you quoted, it seems to me that you take it as though it's some kind of criticism against universal rights.

However, if you read the article, you would see two paragraphs down:

In practice, however, the commitment to the "human" or "universal" always turned out to contain major exceptions and multiple get-out clauses and to be far from actually "universal". The cases of Catholics in the 1689 Bill of Rights and black slaves in the American Revolution are classic examples and, of course, the rights of "man" did not include women. Likewise no human or political rights were accorded to native or indigenous peoples (of whatever colour) on the receiving end of colonialism, whereas the "right to property" was always enshrined as one of the most sacred rights of all. Nor did bourgeois enthusiasm for parliamentary rule ever extend to the establishment of universal suffrage."

The author is pointing out the contradictions of exluding people from rights that are obviously made far from universal. And the contradiction is still present today; does a man with no job, no money and no property have as much of a standing/say in society as the the owner of a multi-million dollar corporation?

(01-15-2012 03:26 PM)1871 Wrote: But never mind - the the idea of 'life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness' or 'liberty equality and fraternity' is a lot less important than the rule of a party executive vanguard on behalf of the proleteriat.....

'Trust your leaders comrades, we know what is good for you!'

1871, I think Vegans support of totalitarian and despotic communist regimes still has an effect on you.

(01-15-2012 04:50 PM)Introcluse Wrote: the title don't make sense, your comparing a economic system to a political system

If you had an understanding of both, you would know that one excludes the other.

(01-15-2012 03:26 PM)1871 Wrote: As for the orginial article - its mostly nonsense - typical preudo revleft
based on a dubious reading of history.

Care to go into more detail?

**1871** · (This post was last modified: 01-16-2012 11:25 PM by 1871.)

Id agree with you that some ofthe people who drafted these Declarations were bastards (Jefferson etc} . Franklin seems fairly consistent...

http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/franklin/

but I disagree in principle that the idea that ;

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

in and of itsel,f isnt valid. These werent adhered to - obviously but that doesnt invalidate the truth of the idea that 'all men are created equal' - or that that idea is a 'bourgeois idea' - it isnt. It states all men - not a class of men. The same applies for 'liberty, equality, fraternity.

It was Antoine-François Momoro who - the idea that he was a 'bourgeois' is just stupido and just shows a total lack of knowledge about the French Revolution - (he might have been a maniac though.)

Quote:The right to vote, though often thought of as the hallmark of democracy, only has meaning in the context of reasonably free and "unrigged" elections to a sovereign parliament, not the kind of elections regularly held in Mubarak's Egypt or the kind of parliament, subservient to the Emperor, which existed in Germany until the German Revolution of 1918

then this;

Quote:.Finally, bourgeois democratic elections and electoral systems...

seems really vague to me. Bourgeois democratic elections? Does this imply that 'democratic elections' are, in and of themselves, 'bourgeois' - especially since the article has been stating that the working class have had a long gight to gain voting rights ?

And exactly what changes would they make to the current system that would make it fairer ? What are these 'changes' other than the generality that the current system is .bourgeois' ?

What would we replace 'democratic elections' with? (not that the 'bourgeoisie arent fucking contemptible.)

Quote:JoeM

1871, I think Vegans support of totalitarian and despotic communist regimes still has an effect on you.

True. Never forget son. Listen to a down to earth man like Tom Barry any day.

**shakur420** · 01-16-2012, 09:05 PM

Wow, maybe people should actually read the material before pretending they're criticizing it. lol, few things already pointed out, the obvious things so I'll just say thanks for posting. Some solid points and even though I'm not convinced about all the conclusions (like installing the Greek/Italian guys is a "shift"), it was a good read. "Preudo revleft" stuff that's "mostly nonsense"? HAHA, sure buddy, if you say so.

**Younes** · 03-28-2012, 06:16 PM

(01-15-2012 03:26 PM)1871 Wrote:
(01-15-2012 02:34 PM)Younes Wrote: ^
The Rule of the majority.
That's how jews where shoved in those ovens...

The Third Reich was a rule of a minority over a majority. Thats what fascism is.The Third Reich pretty much 'got rid' of its political opponents through execution and murder. Its fairly well known that the Nazis rounded up Communist Party officials and elected representatives were rounded up, savagely beaten in temporary concentration camps run by the Stormtroopers (SA), and from1933 and moved to consolidate its power by placing its officials in positions of power throughout German institutions.

No Doubt, but in the end he received massive support and got elected, and assumed complete power when Hindenburg died, and kept that power after Reichtag was burned down...

**Mechmeret** · 03-28-2012, 06:39 PM

Now I have not read the entire thread yet, (I am working on it), although I have always meant that liberalism and democracy are opposed to eachother; Liberalism creates a pyramid scheme; Everyone starts out at the bottom as equals, quite a bit will manage to climb to get relatively rich, a few will grow above average rich, and a very very very small elitist group will be founded, and that little group will control the rest of the society.

Now if we are to take a glance at democracy, it is the complete opposite; It is supposed to be the people who represent the country, not the elitist. It is in theory or basically speaking a pyramid scheme flipped on it's head, where the people control the elite who again controls the country. (do not get this mixed up with marxism or communism).