I wonder if the self-identified socialists here favor liberal democracy as a form of government? If not, what form of government do you prefer?

As for what liberal democracy is, it's simply the form of government that is common in western (but today much of eastern as well) Europe, North America, Australia and other places (though each one is flawed in its own ways). That is, a democratic form of government, but with constitutional protections for individual rights and freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, and other basic political freedoms. A liberal democracy can be a federation (like Germany) or a unitary state (like Finland).

Would you also prefer if Cuba became a liberal democracy?

Yes, Western democracy with free speech is preferable. Why?

What's the difference for you between a liberal democracy and a social democracy?

Democracy is the bedrock of socialism. You cannot have a socialist state that isn't democratic & which doesn't account for diversity, freedom & human rights. Where states exist that are not democracies, yet make claim to socialism, the socialism is no more socialism than the democracy in the Democratic Republic of Korea is democracy.

I prefer any form of democracy where there are rules on trolling that preferable involve the culprits going down salt mines

chairman bill wrote:Where states exist that are not democracies, yet make claim to socialism, the socialism is no more socialism than the democracy in the Democratic Republic of Korea is democracy.

I've wondered why countries either name themselves or are ruled by parties with names which are the polar opposite of what they represent

The Democratic Republic of Korea
Eritrea is controlled by the People's Front for Democracy and Justice
The Peoples Republic of China

It's called euphemism. People do that.

Yes. Democratic government and institutions are a pre-requisite for Socialism, and I view human and civil rights as a pre-requisite for the humane and fair management of a society. And I would prefer it if Cuba became a Liberal Democracy.

Clip from a Michael Moore documentary, he interviews old socialist Tony Benn, democracy comes up in the discussion. Obviously the healthcare parts are not relevant to this thread so ignore them.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LnY-jy_cE0[/youtube]

Democracy takes power away from capital and spreads it amongst the people, that idea seems incredibly socialist to me.

I detect a slight implication in Hugin's posts that democracy is a capitalist institution, which is of course, absurd. We see even the moderate right-wing oppose education for all, they know that an educated population make democracy much more dangerous too them.


Here's a libertarian explaining why democracy doesn't work (read: takes power away from rich people)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eNrfDFFvME[/youtube]


off-topic: Hugin did you ever read The Demon-Haunted World by Sagan in the end?

Here's a libertarian explaining why democracy doesn't work (read: takes power away from rich people)

Thought it was more democracy doesnt work as he doesnt personally get to determine how the country works.
I do love the way he went through slagging democracy of and I actually agree with most his points but generally think thats why democracy is great

I see socialism as an extension of democracy.....aka democracy applied to the economic sphere as well as political

Yes, with some modifications to the current system, which I can get into if we're actually going to have an honest discussion for once and not just another flamewar.

mrjonno wrote:

Here's a libertarian explaining why democracy doesn't work (read: takes power away from rich people)

Thought it was more democracy doesnt work as he doesnt personally get to determine how the country works.
I do love the way he went through slagging democracy of and I actually agree with most his points but generally think thats why democracy is great

I remember thinking at one point that a few of his problems could be solved with more democracy. Like he mentions that with democracy you have to vote for politicians who have a variety of views, some of which you agree with, some you disagree with. This problem could be reduced massively by having more politicians, but this guy missed it since its likely he only knows american politics.

Democracy gives you the minimum of the vote, this can only give some say in what policies are implemented and thats all you expect if all you do is merely vote.

You also have the option to join a political pressure group, a political party or even stand yourself where you can implement more of your personal views if you can persuad other people

Personally I like democracy as its the best way to guarantee libertarian nutjobs like the guy in video will never get into power, revolution against tin pot dicators like him are so much more messy than simple elections.

Socialism without democracy is a contradiction, if by Socialism you mean workers or peoples control over their own lives and the society they live in.

I'm pleased to see that there are socialists who favor liberal democracy, and at least one who would like Cuba to become a liberal democracy as well. So you agree that censorship is bad, and freedom of expression as well as the free exchange of ideas are good, I suppose.

Jakov wrote:Democracy takes power away from capital and spreads it amongst the people, that idea seems incredibly socialist to me.

I detect a slight implication in Hugin's posts that democracy is a capitalist institution, which is of course, absurd.

(Liberal) democracy is not an economic system, it's a political system. Now I happen to think that capitalism is the only economic system compatible with liberal democracy, but that's beside the point.

You can find dictatorships who have command-economies (like Cuba and North Korea) as well as dictatorships with capitalist systems (like China and Singapore).

It's a funny one, because socialists seem to have no problem saying that they support liberal democracy, but at the same time a lot of them give succour and support to dictatorships like Cuba or regimes that are eroding established democracies, such as that of Hugo Chavez.

This might seem odd, but it's essentially because socialism is all about achieving certain ends; the means you use to achieve those ends are somewhat flexible.

Hugin wrote:Now I happen to think that capitalism is the only economic system compatible with liberal democracy, but that's beside the point.

A socialist economy is easily compatible with democracy, if the majority of the population decide they want an economy centred around cooperatives, mutualisation and shared ownership then they are well within their rights to vote in a government who would achieve those aims within the rule of law (i.e. no theft of property, or any of the other common false accusations people make). The result of which would be a Socialist economy, not a capitalist one.

Strontium Dog wrote:It's a funny one, because socialists seem to have no problem saying that they support liberal democracy, but at the same time a lot of them give succour and support to dictatorships like Cuba or regimes that are eroding established democracies, such as that of Hugo Chavez.

Support, and reasoned criticism are two very different things. I favour Cuba becoming a liberal democracy, and I condemn Castro for his refusal to implement democratic government, but at the same time I will praise his efforts to provide education and healthcare to the Cuban people.

This might seem odd, but it's essentially because socialism is all about achieving certain ends; the means you use to achieve those ends are somewhat flexible.

Which is true for any person, and any political ideology.

Mojzu wrote:Support, and reasoned criticism are two very different things. I favour Cuba becoming a liberal democracy, and I condemn Castro for his refusal to implement democratic government, but at the same time I will praise his efforts to provide education and healthcare to the Cuban people.

And at least Hitler made the trains run on time.

Mojzu wrote:

This might seem odd, but it's essentially because socialism is all about achieving certain ends; the means you use to achieve those ends are somewhat flexible.

Which is true for any person, and any political ideology.

That's nonsense. Liberalism, for instance, is as much about the means used to achieve the ends.

Strontium Dog wrote:And at least Hitler made the trains run on time.

The more common turn of phrase is that Mussolini made the trains run on time, which he didn't.

That's nonsense. Liberalism, for instance, is as much about the means used to achieve the ends.

No it isn't. Liberalism is a political ideology which are pretty much all about final goals. Which in Liberalisms case is liberty, equal rights, free speech, democracy, and so on. But is markedly undemocratic in how it realises some of these goals, take for example human rights, instituted throughout many countries not by referendum or popular vote but imposed top down. Liberalism no more takes into account the means used to achieve the ends then socialism, and it can very easily be argued that Socialism takes into account the means more, as things like democracy and freedom of speech are pretty much requisites of allowing people to have a say (i.e. run) the means of production.