Socialism: Yes or No?

SkepticOne

omnicorp wrote:

Well, I don't know how a system based on making money is better than a democratic, equal system.

Surely, whatever system you advocate, it has to be within a comprehensive democratic framework.

omnicorp

SkepticOne wrote:

Surely, whatever system you advocate, it has to be within a comprehensive democratic framework.

no need to be sarcastic, i could be wrong, but i could be right

ecksor

I often think that there's a bias towards democracy at all costs in this part of the world that's just accepted as implicit and not correctly argued, it's just accepted as dogma.

And I don't mean for people to come along and say "Well, what do you suggest then?" which is the typical justification for democracy even amongst sceptics of it. All I mean is that things get knocked down because people say "But that's undemocratic" and I keep thinking that they must have forgotten to finish their post until I realise that they're presenting it as a self-evident truth without developing the argument. It probably wouldn't bother me so much if I could figure out what democracy actually means in this day and age and what it is supposed to mean.

ecksor

Actually, perhaps I shouldn't have posted that, dragging up monotonous old threads seems to get dignified if people post responses. I should drag this train of thought to the thread on the philosophy forum ...

SkepticOne

omnicorp wrote:

no need to be sarcastic, i could be wrong, but i could be right

I wasn't being sarcastic. Socialism isn't in itself any more democratic than capitalism. Both can exist with or without democracy.

DadaKopf

Following up on eksor's point, I think much of the problem is that the market is being used to replace public participation and accountability. Extreme examples of socialism replace the market with the state. Both the market and the state has been confused for real democracy, which necessitates unrestricted open dialogue and debate over and above the market. Period.

Whatever you can say about the modern Western democracy, it's not Liberal in any literal sense of the term.

SkepticOne

DadaKopf wrote:

Following up on eksor's point, I think much of the problem is that the market is being used to replace public participation and accountability. Extreme examples of socialism replace the market with the state. Both the market and the state has been confused for real democracy, which necessitates unrestricted open dialogue and debate over and above the market. Period.

This is why, regardless of whether you have socialism or capitalism (both of which require a state), the question of whether that state is under some form of democratic control and the degree to which it is under democratic control is a pertinant one.

eksor wrote:

I often think that there's a bias towards democracy at all costs in this part of the world that's just accepted as implicit and not correctly argued, it's just accepted as dogma.

There have certainly been arguments in favour of non-democratic forms of government on this forum. I think at the end of the day, people like to have some say in how the country is run and this is probably the source of the pro-democratic bias.

ecksor

People like to think that they have some say in how the country is run. Very few actually bother to check if it is actually the case or protest when the government undermines it. Not to mention, how many countries in the world have high levels of voter turnout where it isn't required by law? What are people biased in favour of exactly? Democracy in the sense of participation, accountability and open debate as dadakopf refers to, or is it something else?

I think that people get a warm fuzzy feeling from democracy while the general population is only paying lip service to it. I do realise that the group of people who make a habit of discussing politics on a forum such as this may not be representative of what I'm trying to get at.

SkepticOne

ecksor wrote:

What are people biased in favour of exactly? Democracy in the sense of participation, accountability and open debate as dadakopf refers to, or is it something else?

Well it was you that said "I often think that there's a bias towards democracy at all costs in this part of the world." You must have had some meaning of democracy in mind when you said that.

ecksor

Wasn't that the same post where I said I was trying to figure out what it means and what it is supposed to mean in this day and age? You were the one that prompted the comment, so what exactly do you mean by a democratic framework?

I've probably given more than one meaning to the word on this thread. In the bit you quoted, I would translate as "I often think that there's a bias towards a vague concept, which is often call democracy, at all costs in this part of the world [even though it isn't clear what people are getting at when they use the word or why they're advocating it]."

If we start to argue the value of democracy then the principles behind it can come sharply into focus easily enough. In other contexts I think it's unclear. Trying to debate a concept while also debating that it's poorly defined as most people use it is tricky to word and I'm probably bound to post some unclear things but I'll try to minimise that. I suppose my point is that people seem to take democracy for granted without properly exercising their democratic rights (so why do they support it and what do they mean by it?) and therefore why do we assume the superiority of it if it isn't working as intended. This leads me to be unclear about what people mean or what point they're making when they use the term.

SkepticOne

ecksor wrote:

Wasn't that the same post where I said I was trying to figure out what it means and what it is supposed to mean in this day and age? You were the one that prompted the comment, so what exactly do you mean by a democratic framework?

In this context, a system where the degree to which socialism or capitalism is supported by the state is ultimately down to the will of the people. If people can choose, either directly or through representatives, what way they want the economy to be run, then the system is broadly democratic. This can, of course, be subverted and I'm not saying that Ireland is a model example of this, but we need to contrast this with non-democratic means of achieving a particular ideology in a country of which there have been many examples.

I think most of the debate here presupposes that there is some sort of democratic system in operation. When people argue in favour of, say, socialism, it is with the view this will be achieved through democratic means and only remain while the people want it to.

The only point I was trying to make was that neither capitalism nor socialism depend on democracy (however it is defined). This was in response to "Well, I don't know how a system based on making money is better than a democratic, equal system."

cleareyed

Is this a sort of retro thread? You know, like do you support votes for women, should Columbus sail westward? Socialism died long ago. Its a minority taste like vegetarianism (no silly arguments about all the ppl in China pls.)

omnicorp

em, surprisingly... this thread isn't about democracy.
It's about Socialism.

ecksor

Indeed, I didn't quite mean to drag it off topic. Did you mean to drag it up from the dead?

ecksor

SkepticOne wrote:

The only point I was trying to make was that neither capitalism nor socialism depend on democracy (however it is defined). This was in response to "Well, I don't know how a system based on making money is better than a democratic, equal system."

Yes, I appreciate that. The use of 'has to be' was what stirred me. Anyway, I'm going to drop this until I come up with a more coherent way of raising the point (on a more suitable thread).

omnicorp

well, isn't capitalism about making money?
you know "Capital" - Money...