EnMasse

bshmr

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1977485,00.html

Learn from our failures and create a socialist democracy

Eastern Europe remains condemned by its past to neo-liberalism, but Latin America can break free if it pays heed to the lessons

Gyula Hegyi; Friday December 22, 2006; The Guardian

JPG · Pro-choice freedom-monger Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 2569

Isn't it impossible to create a socialist democracy? They only way you can have both is to elect a socialist leader/government in a democratic system. However, for that system to be democratic, you would have to be able to elect a conservative also. So no country can be inherently socialist and democratic. It can be inherently democratic and also socialist though.
_________________
We are the youth, we'll take your fascism away...

bshmr · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject:

It seems to me that you have stated your beliefs, that is, little else but cultural myth.

TS. · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject:

Socialism is inherently democratic, if you follow the text of Marx. First there must be a revolution though. To have a socialist government that is democratic does not necesarily mean that it was initially elected. If the government is overthrown and replaced by a socialist government that is confirmed by elections after the revolution, then that is democratic.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

bshmr · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject:

If the Hungarian author, writing in the Guardian, wasn't lucid enough,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy is a reasonable start on this tangent, it has hotlinks.

Or,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy&x=&y=
and
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism&x=&y=
suggest that the two are compatible, not in the least antagonistic to each other.

unionist · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject:

NWOntarian · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject:

elmateo · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject:

Why is voting seen as the only "democratic" action available?

That's problem#1 in the statement: "However, for that system to be democratic, you would have to be able to elect a conservative also."

People should define what they mean by democracy. If you are just going on procedural elections... I personally think you already have failed in creating any form of democracy.

Jacob Two-Two · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:40 pm Post subject:

Well, if you're going to have elections at all, then it's clearly undemocratic for them to be anything but free and fair, open to all. And as for a democratic nation that does not safeguard it's democracy with elections, I admit I have a hard time picturing it.

I suppose with no laws you wouldn't need legislators, and with no state, you wouldn't need heads of state, but would such a nation really function? All societies have had leaders, as far as we know, so if they aren't elected, who's going to decide who they are? And if we don't have leaders, how will things get done at all?

radiorahim · Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:53 am Post subject:

Rufus Polson · Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:19 am Post subject:

Definitions, definitions.
Currently, (leaving aside certain concerns re:form vs. substance) we live in a capitalist democracy. Socialist parties can run, but it's still capitalist--there are all these markets, much of the means of production is owned by capitalists, there's lots of wage labour, et cetera. Even if a socialist party won an election, it would still be a capitalist democracy unless and until they managed to fundamentally change the system, which would take some doing. Take Venezuela--it remains thus far an essentially capitalist democracy, although things are a little fuzzier than a few years ago.

Seems to me a socialist democracy would be similar--a democracy where, de facto, the economic system was socialist, with some mix of state ownership, worker-owned co-operatives and so on producing the goods and allocation systems largely operating in non-market ways (although markets as such aren't capitalist--there were markets long before capitalism and there will doubtless be markets long after capitalism). Sure, conservatives could potentially be elected, but de facto it would be a socialist democracy. And similarly, even should those conservatives gain office, they might have difficulty fundamentally changing the system. Until they did, it would still be a socialist democracy.

TS. · Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:24 am Post subject:

Excellent point Rufus. A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping the idea that socialism/Communism is an economic system, rather than a political system.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Left Turn · Revolutionary Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 446 Location: BC

A socialist democracy is a democracy in which socialism is guaranteed in the constitution. Where private, for-profit enterprise is banned in the constitution. Where the right to contribute to society to ones fullest, and the right to be equally compensated for ones contributions, is guaranteed in the constitution. Yes, it would be possible to elect a conservative under such a system; but the sytem would still be socialism until such time as they changed the contsitution to make the system capitalism.

Jacob Two-Two · Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:51 am Post subject:

I don't think that's necessary. I agree with Rufus, socialism is just what happens when society controls the economy. It can be enshrined in documents and laws, but it doesn't have to be. If everyone chooses to interact economically in a manner that up holds socialist principles, then poof, socialism.

In fact, I would argue that true socialism depends on a radically free society, regarding socialism as the democratisation of industry. This would seem to discourage restrictive edicts such as the outlawing of private industry.

elmateo · Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:

And you would have a difficult time explaining what was going on in Mexico for a long time as well.

radiorahim · Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:24 am Post subject:

Vundo Draxon · Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject:

Suaros · Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject:

Senor Magoo · He's got a big one Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 8700

bshmr · Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:10 am Post subject:

You know, I regret posting this, as well as another, in this topic area.

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:26 am Post subject:

elmateo · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject:

Not to mention those reds and blues controlling the media too... hmmm.

Having taken a class with a Cuban for the past few months, I have a sense that Magoo doesn't actually know anything about what it is like in Cuba. It is far from perfect, but it is also not the land that the Miami lobby makes it out to be. And shame on Cubans for having a different conception of 'democracy' than Magoo.

JPG · Pro-choice freedom-monger Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 2569

The concentration of media ownership is an unfortunate symptom of the way our media and corporate world is regulated. However, there is alternative media out there, whereas in starting an alternative media source would likely land one in jail.

I am a social democrat, I believe we must use democracy to bring about our progressive ideals. And no, democracy is not limited to elecctions, but they are an inherent part of a democracy.
_________________
We are the youth, we'll take your fascism away...

JPG · Pro-choice freedom-monger Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 2569

elmateo,

You often speak of different conceptions of demcracy, but I'm having a hard time comprehending how one can find any principle of 'democracy' in a place like Cuba.
_________________
We are the youth, we'll take your fascism away...

Senor Magoo · He's got a big one Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 8700

JPG · Pro-choice freedom-monger Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 2569

I agree with almost everything, Magoo. But I would say that the NDP, while not a kook party (and if it is then call me a kook) is overlooked by the MSM. Hence Jack's constant "Look at me, look at me, I'm over here! Hey! Hey"
_________________
We are the youth, we'll take your fascism away...

peterjcassidy · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject:

I would argue that democracy was and is essentially revolutionary, a challenge to the rule of monarchs, aristocrats, dictators and elites. It should mean rule of the people, not rule by the marketplace or by a governing elite that makes decisions contrary to the poplar will.

Countries like the United States should not be called democracies, but rather constitutional republics, defined by Wikipedia as:

thwap · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject:

double post ... site was S-L-0-W ...

thwap · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject:

It is possible to have a democracy where all political-economic stripes can compete, without necessarily threatening socialism.

Provide constitutional guarantees for workplace democracy so that the employer/owner class can't hold the entire country hostage to their selfish demands.

While I sympathize with Michael Albert's critique of markets and his ParEcon alternative:

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject:

Senor Magoo · He's got a big one Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 8700

Carter · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject:

Clearly it's time to make Chomsky required reading in High School. It's too late for our generation, but maybe there's still hope for the next one...

thwap · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject:

Nonsense Carter! We don't want to "politicize" education. Let's give students the "neutral," "objective" view that our society is wonderful and democratic and fair and etc., ... ahem.

Senor Magoo · He's got a big one Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 8700

Does St. Noam have some special wisdom as to why those fringe parties just can't seem to break through the glass ceiling?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

ronb · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject:

Yes, he does. You should read them sometime.

Senor Magoo · He's got a big one Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 8700

Cut to the chase. Is it because most Canadians simply have no interest in far left or far right politics? Or is it going to be some stoopid mumbo-jumbo that uses the word "hegemony" as often as possible, and is built entirely on the premise that we've all been brainwashed into a state of false consciousness by the media?

To tell you the truth, when I hear any "explanation" involving mass hypnosis that affects everyone except the explainer, I kind of mentally check out.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

5 minutes to midnight · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject:

One reason why Canadians don't elect more socialists:

JPG · Pro-choice freedom-monger Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 2569

Well said, WCG. I think we on the left need to stop complaining that the world is against us. In many ways, it's true, but whining gets us nowhere.
_________________
We are the youth, we'll take your fascism away...

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject:

Carter · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject:

Stephen Gordon · Dismal scientist Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 449

No Yards · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:50 pm Post subject:

elmateo · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:11 am Post subject:

'Democracy' in the west is a set of institutions. Magoo pretends that 'anyone can run for election, the kooks will just not win'. A lot of different people can run for election in Cuba as well (do some research) - just institutionally it makes it very unlikely to produce a certain type of individual.

Canadian political institutions are setup in such a manner as to create legitimacy for a certain type of individual to be elected.

More over, the fact that information is controlled by a certain set group of individuals it is not surprising that people believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or that Chretien and Martin were going to protect healthcare.

How can you live in a democratic society if knowledge creation and consumption are not democratic? Capitalist myth that since everyone has access 'under the law' that everyone has access. Structurally there are a lot of various limits to western democracy which should raise question and concern.

Practically: how can a country as wealthy as Canada have child poverty if it is supposedly a 'democracy'? What good is that definition of 'democracy' if families are going without adequate meals in a society of more than plenty? A definition of democracy also entails a mutual responsibility to others - in such a regard I think Cuba has done a better job. And Magoo, by in a class, I mean the teacher is a Cuban, someone who spent a very significant portion of their life growing up in Cuba, and the course has been structured in a way as to discuss the positives and negatives of Cuban society. Cuba is not a democratic utopia, they have significant problems in their country, but at the same time their government functions much better than so-called 'democracies' in Central America which are structurally similar to western systems and definitions.

'Democracy' is a concept taken for granted by many, with many underlying assumptions that go unquestioned. It seems rather important to question what is actually going on in the Canadian system, where less than 60% of the possible population actually votes (watch out for those crazy definitions of 'registered voters') and of that number 40% can give legitimacy to significant, fairly unquestionable power.

elmateo · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:16 am Post subject:

It is almost absurd to think that education doesn't have an ideology behind it.

What is 'liberal democracy' but an ideology which underlies the arguments of people, and where do you learn the principles of that ideology but through education. Education is rife with political decisions that are made to influence people in one way or another. That is a big lie of liberal democracy that no one is ever out to influence you to sway your opinion etc.

We blame those dasterdly authoritarian governments of doing it, but it is inherently built into our education system as well.

You are much better off not claiming "oh my propaganda!" and actually getting to work on justifying what kind of thinking is being taught and why.

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:18 am Post subject:

Stephen Gordon · Dismal scientist Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 449

elmateo · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:50 am Post subject:

Stephen Gordon · Dismal scientist Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 449

Show us how it's done, sport.

Senor Magoo · He's got a big one Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 8700

Raos · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:25 am Post subject:

I can understand opposition to having an agenda in educational curricula for grooming students towards a particular ideology, but I have an honest question. Can you really teach something like politics in a without exposing them to partisan viewpoints? Is there anything inherently wrong with students having to read Noam Chomsky, or is the opposition to Noam Chomsky as required reading in high school over indoctrination?

Learning about our political system requires a lot more than understanding the mechanics of the laws, institutions and traditions of the system. The first election I was old enough to vote in, I had already been out of high school for a year, and I knew nothing of any real value with regards to politics. The most I could have really told you, none of which due to institutional education, was that I didn't favour either the ruling federal Liberals or the ruling provincial PCs.