But the concept "democracy" means different things to different
people, and this is the rub. Example: the US ruling class was trying
to spread its concept of "democracy" to Vietnam -- essentially, rule
by private-enterprise capitalists with an electoral component to fool
the population, co-opt some more activist elements within, it, and
provide a way for the contradictions among the capitalists to be
settled with as little disorder as possible. The North Vietnamese
Communists were also fighting for "democracy", but a very different
concept of what "democracy" is -- land and power to the peasantry,
political power to the working population, one working-class-based
political party.
"Conservatives" in the US, as someone pointed out, also want to
seize the concept of "democracy" and fill it with their own elitist,
racist and imperialist -- in other words, thoroughly UNdemocratic --
content. Naturally they attack the protest movements as
"undemocratic", and called the VN communists "dictators". Communists,
as is well known, consider all capitalist countries to be class
dictatorships as well.
I think it would be interesting and useful to have a discussion
of just what "democracy" IS, rather than trying to apply a term which
is one of the most heavily contested terms in the human vocabulary.
What did we learn about what "real democracy" is as a result of the
protests of the 60s?
Grover C. Furr
English Department | Phone: (201) 655-7305
Montclair State University | email:
Upper Montclair, NJ 07043 |
WWW: http://www.shss.montclair.edu/english/furr/homepage.html
** NOTE: new email address 9/1/95: **
furrg@alpha.montclair.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------