"Socialism means the government owns everything!"

11617192122

Comments

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Orfeo Correlation is not causation, my friend. Being socialist doesn't cause the death of democracy. Being fanatical does.
    .

    Thanks for pointing that out to me. It was most helpful.

    You are quite right to point out that Democratic Socialism is different from Social Democracy.

    On the wider issue of whether a socialist state can be a democratic state, my intention was to suggest that the the case has not been proven either way because there have been no such states, and that the only model we have of a socialist state, the Soviet Union, questions whether democratic versions can succeed. (I take the wikipedia definition of a Democratic Socialist State: "Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy and workers' self-management within a market socialist economy or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy. Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.)" While this democracy could possibly accommodate a plethora of socialist parties from anarchists to fabian socialists, it doesn't, to my mind, offer a place for those advocating a private sector or mixed economies, and would not be a Democratic Socialist State if it did so. It would be impermissible for the citizens to introduce an element of a market economy even if a majority or even all of them wished to do so without compromising the society's raison d'être. There are all sorts of other questions as to how such a state would operate in practice, especially as there have been no prototypes and none in the offing. A pre-determined goal, in this case socialism, precludes democratic choices that threaten its realisation. My pitch is that because of this inherent contradiction: the potential conflict between process (democracy) and pre-ordained outcome. (socialism), there comes a point where the two have to part company.






  • To echo Orfeo, capitalism, neoliberalism, fascism etc don't much care for democracy either, especially when it gets in the way of profits.

    Democratic socialists believe in a mandate from the demos. That's it. That's where we gain our authority to act from.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Doc Tor: Democratic socialists believe in a mandate from the demos. That's it. That's where we gain our authority to act from.

    So does the Labour Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Democratic Party, Green Party..............You subordinate the claims of socialism to the principles of the liberal democratic state. I think Democratic Socialism is more than that, to judge from the wikipedia definition, at least.
    Doc Tor: To echo Orfeo, capitalism, neoliberalism, fascism etc don't much care for democracy either, especially when it gets in the way of profits.

    Couldn't agree more, which is why liberal democracy IMO is worth defending.
  • You can tell me what democratic socialism should do. I, a democratic socialist, can tell you what it should do.

    We can let the reader decide who's more likely to be right.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Doc Tor:We can let the reader decide who's more likely to be right.

    It could bar that we're both wrong, not to mention 'the reader'!
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    sorry, 'could be'.
  • I'm a democratic socialist. I hold to socialism as my political goal, and democracy as my way of achieving it.

    None of that is difficult, and several of us have now said the same thing.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'm a democratic socialist. I hold to socialism as my political goal, and democracy as my way of achieving it.

    None of that is difficult, and several of us have now said the same thing.

    But but but USSR!
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'm a democratic socialist. I hold to socialism as my political goal, and democracy as my way of achieving it.

    None of that is difficult, and several of us have now said the same thing.

    But but but USSR!

    :lol:

    Can I sell you* this haystack? Unfortunately, the price has doubled recently; for some reason there's been massive demand for straw recently...

    AFZ

    *I know it's not you...
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    edited March 28
    I think the concern centres around what sort of political ideas and/or policies would be deemed not up for debate, or as Arethosemyfeet put it:
    I would tend to envisage a democratic socialist state as one that enshrines certain rights at the constitutional level

    This is basically saying that in the democratic socialist state some policies would be unconstitutional, and could not be implemented regardless of how many people voted for them. Sure, those constitutional limits would be imposed democratically, but all that means is a temporally temporary majority would be able to enforce its will on all who followed it.

    The example given was universal access to healthcare, which is relatively uncontroversial, but what other restrictions on the ability of the people of the future to decide for themselves might also be implemented?

    Or is a Democratic Socialist state exactly the same thing constitutionally as a Democratic Capitalist state, with the only difference being which party won the most recent election?
  • You seem to be assuming that constitutions cannot be amended. I'm simply arguing that certain structures and rights foundational to a state should require more than a one-off election victory by a wafer-thin margin. A more controversial right may be to say that all commercial organisations must be subject to democratic control by all those who work for them. Not just government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" but employment "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

    That constitutional provisions can bind small majorities of future citizens is a normal aspect of constitutional law in most democratic countries that aren't the UK. That a bare plurality of the electorate can select an effective 5-year dictatorship with near absolute power is not a feature, it's a bug.
  • Or is a Democratic Socialist state exactly the same thing constitutionally as a Democratic Capitalist state, with the only difference being which party won the most recent election?

    I think the word you're reaching for is 'democracy'.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited March 29
    Kwesi wrote: »
    On the wider issue of whether a socialist state can be a democratic state, my intention was to suggest that the the case has not been proven either way because there have been no such states, and that the only model we have of a socialist state, the Soviet Union, questions whether democratic versions can succeed.

    You must be kidding me. I know you must be kidding me because you describe the Soviet Union as the only model of a socialist state.

    Let's just put aside the democractic question for the moment, and focus on the fact that there have been PLENTY of "socialist" states if you define the Soviet Union as a socialist state. You have a whole chunk of Eastern Europe at the same time as the Soviet Union, for starters.

    Of course, the whole question of labelling the Soviet Union as "socialist" rather than "communist" has been pointed out to you before, but you continue to run with "socialist" anyway.

    The reason you keep claiming there's never been a state that is both socialist and democratic has far less to do with history than to do with your own particular conception of what "socialist" means and your own insistence that "states" are different from the governments that run them.

    Which was actually my original point that you chimed in so enthusiastically with: this conversation is doomed because people are conversing based on their own previous determination as to what words mean. And you're one of the people doing the most dooming right now.

    In your mind, it's just impossible to accept Norway for example as a social democratic state, no matter how socialist the policies followed in Norway for a long time might be, because you want to see the socialism baked into the constitution in some way and a representative democracy with the sorts of elections and political debates you recognise just doesn't cut it.

    Which makes this conversation pointless. Not because socialist policies and democracy are incompatible, but because your definition of socialism and your definition of a "state" make a socialist state and democracy mutually exclusive.

    I note that you're not completely alone in your conceptions, but quite frankly I've no more time for the socialist leaning person who apparently makes the same argument than I have for you making that argument. There are plenty of people who want to pursue socialist policies within democracy. That's still socialism.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    You seem to be assuming that constitutions cannot be amended. I'm simply arguing that certain structures and rights foundational to a state should require more than a one-off election victory by a wafer-thin margin.

    Should they require more than a one-off election victory by a wafer-thin margin in order to be enshrined constitutionally in the first place?
    A more controversial right may be to say that all commercial organisations must be subject to democratic control by all those who work for them. Not just government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" but employment "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

    Why would anybody spend time, effort and money to create a business under such a system?
    That constitutional provisions can bind small majorities of future citizens is a normal aspect of constitutional law in most democratic countries that aren't the UK. That a bare plurality of the electorate can select an effective 5-year dictatorship with near absolute power is not a feature, it's a bug.

    The biggest problem of constitutions is precisely that they're so hard to change. Cultures and societies move on, and they shouldn't be constrained by what their ancestors thought was the right way to do things.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Or is a Democratic Socialist state exactly the same thing constitutionally as a Democratic Capitalist state, with the only difference being which party won the most recent election?

    I think the word you're reaching for is 'democracy'.

    So what's the difference between a Democratic state and a Democratic Socialist state?
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    edited March 29
    orfeo wrote: »
    Let's just put aside the democractic question for the moment, and focus on the fact that there have been PLENTY of "socialist" states if you define the Soviet Union as a socialist state. You have a whole chunk of Eastern Europe at the same time as the Soviet Union, for starters.

    I'd say that Britain itself was pretty socialist from the late 40s through to about the late 70s, what with all the state ownership of big industries and services, powerful unions and high taxes on higher earners.

    Then (enough of) the people decided they'd like to go a different way*, and it happened. Which is as it should be, in my book. Whether the UK of today is better or worse than that of the late 70s I leave as an exercise for the reader**.

    The question is, would there - should there - be any provisions (constitutional or otherwise) that would prevent the people of a Democratic Socialist (as opposed to merely Democratic) state from making the same sort of decision as the British did in the late 70s?

    .

    *= This is a gross oversimplification that completely overlooks the wider geopolitical and socioeconomic conditions of the time in order to make a point about democracy. So sue me.

    **= Though it's pretty obvious that it's better.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Marvin the Martian So what's the difference between a Democratic state and a Democratic Socialist state?

    That's the point, isn't it? The term confuses the distinction between those for whom a Democratic Socialist State is a Democracy choosing to pursue socialist(ic) policies, and those who support embedded state structures that preclude other approaches. I think it's unnecessarily confusing to describe the former as Democratic Socialist state.
  • Then (enough of) the people decided they'd like to go a different way*, and it happened. Which is as it should be, in my book. Whether the UK of today is better or worse than that of the late 70s I leave as an exercise for the reader**.

    ....

    **= Though it's pretty obvious that it's better.
    The question should be "would the UK of today been better or worse if the Thatcher governments and those that followed hadn't privatised everything in sight?"

    That's a lot harder to answer than the obvious one that it's better today than in 1980. It would be better today if Labour had won the 1979 election, just how much better?
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Or is a Democratic Socialist state exactly the same thing constitutionally as a Democratic Capitalist state, with the only difference being which party won the most recent election?

    I think the word you're reaching for is 'democracy'.

    So what's the difference between a Democratic state and a Democratic Socialist state?

    Oh dear Lord. What part of democracy don't you understand? Is it the demos part or the archy part?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Has the Dollis Hill Loop escaped the Circus MC thread?
  • I'm afraid I can't answer because I'm in huff.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I note that liberal democratic states are still possible, even though in theory and indeed in practice the democracy could choose to restrict and abolish the liberties.
    For that matter, by the no democratic socialist state argument there's no such thing as a democratic state since the democracy can always choose to abolish itself.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Quite. A sovereign parliament can enact anything it likes
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Or is a Democratic Socialist state exactly the same thing constitutionally as a Democratic Capitalist state, with the only difference being which party won the most recent election?

    I think the word you're reaching for is 'democracy'.

    So what's the difference between a Democratic state and a Democratic Socialist state?

    Oh dear Lord. What part of democracy don't you understand? Is it the demos part or the archy part?

    The "democratic" part isn't the part I'm asking about.
  • We're on page 19 of what socialism might mean. Why not review the thread, then come back with any outstanding questions you might have?
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Kwesi wrote: »
    The term confuses the distinction between those for whom a Democratic Socialist State is a Democracy choosing to pursue socialist(ic) policies, and those who support embedded state structures that preclude other approaches.

    Yes, exactly.
    I think it's unnecessarily confusing to describe the former as Democratic Socialist state.

    I agree - it's just Democratic.

    My chief concern is that people may be using this ambiguity to suggest that they want the former, while secretly seeking to implement the latter.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    We're on page 19 of what socialism might mean. Why not review the thread, then come back with any outstanding questions you might have?

    19 pages of ambiguity, confusion and a marked reluctance on the part of the socialists to commit to a definition thereof. 19 pages of "socialism" meaning everything from a liberal mixed economy to full collective ownership of the means of production. Some say full freedom of democratic choice, others say certain policies will be enshrined constitutionally so that they can never be undone.

    It seems that "socialism" means whatever the person advocating it wants it to mean at the time, except of course for the fact that it never means what anyone else says it does. I'm sick of being told "no, not that". Can someone just tell me exactly what they mean by the word so that we can have a meaningful debate about it?

    It's a moving target set on shifting sands. Debating such an issue is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. And I'm starting to think that's a deliberate tactic to prevent effective challenge.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    No-one has said "certain policies will be enshrined constitutionally so that they can never be undone."

    That's your gloss

    The insinuation that I, Doc, Alan or anyone else here are secretly plotting a totalitarian Marxist single-party state would be offensive were it not so utterly ludicrous.

    That we don't all agree on exactly what Socialist policies we'd want from a democratically elected socialist government is hardly news.

    Your latest tack is like me taking my kids' squabble over Tango, Coke or Sprite as evidence they really want Jack Daniels...

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    KarlLB: No-one has said "certain policies will be enshrined constitutionally so that they can never be undone."

    Fair enough. That would mean you support socialist(ic) policies being enacted by a Democratic state, rather than a Democratic Socialist state which precludes non-socialist practices and measures.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    KarlLB: No-one has said "certain policies will be enshrined constitutionally so that they can never be undone."

    Fair enough. That would mean you support socialist(ic) policies being enacted by a Democratic state, rather than a Democratic Socialist state which precludes non-socialist practices and measures.

    The latter thing being what absolutely no-one on here has advocated...

    What is it with you and Marvin constantly trying to suggest that people on this thread "really" want something none of them have suggested? It's starting to boil my fucking piss.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    KarlLB wrote: »
    No-one has said "certain policies will be enshrined constitutionally so that they can never be undone."

    That's your gloss

    Well, constitutionally defined issues can only usually be undone with relative difficulty and a supermajority of the people in support. Arethosemyfeet specifically stated that simply winning an election shouldn’t be enough to enable a party to change them.

    So sure, “never” is a bit of an exaggeration. But surely the whole point of defining things constitutionally is to make sure they’re to all intents and purposes a permanent part of the political DNA of the country, regardless of which party may win any given election.
    The insinuation that I, Doc, Alan or anyone else here are secretly plotting a totalitarian Marxist single-party state would be offensive were it not so utterly ludicrous.

    “Totalitarian Marxist single-party state” is not something I have said. That’s your gloss.
    That we don't all agree on exactly what Socialist policies we'd want from a democratically elected socialist government is hardly news.

    Maybe we need more precise nomenclature then.
    Your latest tack is like me taking my kids' squabble over Tango, Coke or Sprite as evidence they really want Jack Daniels...

    To me it feels more like the kids say they want a can of pop, so I get them a coke and they say “that’s not real pop”, so I get them a tango and they say “that’s not real pop either”. And frankly I’m at the point where I get all frustrated and insist on them being more precise about exactly which drink they want before I go back to the fridge again...
  • I'm waiting for @Marvin the Martian to actually read the thread again.

    My piss levels may have recovered by then from their current dessicated state.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Your problem there is thinking all democratic socialists agree on everything. Clearly we don't
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Your problem there is thinking all democratic socialists agree on everything. Clearly we don't

    Yes we do...
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    That would mean you support socialist(ic) policies being enacted by a Democratic state, rather than a Democratic Socialist state which precludes non-socialist practices and measures.
    Can you give an example of what you mean by a Democratic state?
    If state has to preclude non-socialist practices and measures to be socialist, then presumably to be democratic then it has to preclude non-democratic practices and measures.
    But if it precludes democratic change to non-democratic practices and measures then by your definition it isn't democratic.
    So: by your criteria for a state to be socialist it's impossible for a state to be democratic.
    That suggests that your criteria for a state to be socialist are incoherent, which is a point that a lot of us have been making in other ways for a while now.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    @Dafyd possibly I'm failing to follow your logic properly, but should "So: by your criteria for a state to be socialist it's impossible for a state to be democratic." read "So: by your criteria for a state to be democratic it's impossible for a state to be democratic." - i.e. Kwesi's definition of socialist state, if applied to democratic state, would create a paradox?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited March 29
    Your last sentence is indeed what I meant.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Dafyd, chew on this and get back to me:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited March 29
    Kwesi wrote: »
    chew on this and get back to me.
    This isn't a school; you're not the teacher; you don't get to set homework.
    That is especially true if you are unwilling or unable to explain which bit of the wikipedia article addresses the argument.

    I'm not here to argue with wikipedia. I'm here to discuss things with people on the board. If you can address my argument yourself then do; if you can't admit it.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    KarlLB
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Fair enough. That would mean you support socialist(ic) policies being enacted by a Democratic state, rather than a Democratic Socialist state which precludes non-socialist practices and measures.

    KarlLB:The latter thing being what absolutely no-one on here has advocated...

    What is it with you and Marvin constantly trying to suggest that people on this thread "really" want something none of them have suggested? It's starting to boil my fucking piss.

    Sorry to learn of your urinary problems.

    What I and Martin are pointing out is that the term democratic socialist is used to describe two very different political types: (a) democratic socialists who believe in the democratic process as commonly understood, and argue their case and seek to govern so long as they can win elections; and (b) democratic socialists who seek to establish a socialist state which precludes non-socialist institutions and options but permit different opinions and parties within the socialist camp. Elections would be between competing socialist parties but exclude bourgeois parties etc.. In the first case democratic values trump socialist principles, and in the second the preservation of socialist norms take precedence over democratic considerations. As far as one can tell all the socialist contributors to this post fall into category (a).

    A second issue is whether a type (a) state which has a democratically elected socialist government can be described as a socialist state rather than simply a democratic state with a socialist government, because the state would not fundamentally change if it were to elect a more pro-market administration, as when in the UK a Labour administration is replaced by a Conservative one. Type (b), however, would be a democratic socialist state because its institutional structure exists to enshrine socialism to the exclusion of other interests. Again, it appears that all the socialist contributors to this post prefer option (a).

    To conclude: a democratic socialist is not necessarily a socialist who is also a democrat. It would seem that contributors to this set of posts who are all (seemingly) socialists who are also democrats, have taken umbrage because I've failed to recognise their democratic credentials. I trust this apology assuages their apoplexy.

  • Kwesi wrote: »

    To conclude: a democratic socialist is not necessarily a socialist who is also a democrat. It would seem that contributors to this set of posts who are all (seemingly) socialists who are also democrats, have taken umbrage because I've failed to recognise their democratic credentials. I trust this apology assuages their apoplexy.

    You are gracious. It's not so much apoplexy and eye-rolling. The title of the thread is a classic strawman. So much of the argument around any kind of socialism policy positions is about combating strawmen arguments. Sometimes said arguments are insulting, sometimes they are just funny. Of course, it does inevitably beg the question...

    AFZ
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited March 30
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    We're on page 19 of what socialism might mean. Why not review the thread, then come back with any outstanding questions you might have?

    The question was perfectly fair in context. If you don't want to answer it, leave it to others. Being an eye-rolling jerk about it isn't necessary.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    We're on page 19 of what socialism might mean. Why not review the thread, then come back with any outstanding questions you might have?

    19 pages of ambiguity, confusion and a marked reluctance on the part of the socialists to commit to a definition thereof. 19 pages of "socialism" meaning everything from a liberal mixed economy to full collective ownership of the means of production. Some say full freedom of democratic choice, others say certain policies will be enshrined constitutionally so that they can never be undone.

    It seems that "socialism" means whatever the person advocating it wants it to mean at the time, except of course for the fact that it never means what anyone else says it does. I'm sick of being told "no, not that". Can someone just tell me exactly what they mean by the word so that we can have a meaningful debate about it?

    It's a moving target set on shifting sands. Debating such an issue is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. And I'm starting to think that's a deliberate tactic to prevent effective challenge.

    Most of the shifting sands have been created by Kwesi, NOT by the people advocating socialist policies.

    I find it exasperating that Kwesi complains that the term "demoratic socialist state" shouldn't be used, when Kwesi has been the main person using it.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    The title of the thread is a classic strawman.

    That was the entire point of it. Not for the first time I have to ask whether people actually read the opening post, rather than just the title.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    To conclude: a democratic socialist is not necessarily a socialist who is also a democrat.

    Who says? Apart from you. This is exactly what I've been so irritated about with you for days now.

    Seriously, how the fuck is it that you keep using the term "democratic socialist" and keep deciding that the "democratic" is silent?

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited March 30
    Kwesi wrote: »

    The very. First. Sentence.

    "Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy."

    And at the end of the first paragraph:

    " As a term, democratic socialism was popularised by social democrats and other socialists who were opposed to the authoritarian socialist development in Russia and elsewhere during the 20th century."

    It's always fascinating when people provide links they appear to have no personal understanding of.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    We're on page 19 of what socialism might mean. Why not review the thread, then come back with any outstanding questions you might have?

    The question was perfectly fair in context. If you don't want to answer it, leave it to others. Being an eye-rolling jerk about it isn't necessary.

    Well, in context, I'm as fed up as @KarlLB at constant bad-faith sniping, and apparently, junior hosting.

    I think a bit of eye-rolling is, in context, quite a mild and forgivable reaction.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited March 30
    I personally don't think it's fair to lump Kwesi and Marvin in the same boat on this one. Not least because Marvin's exploration of the constitutional question was a perfectly logical outworking from something said by Arethosemyfeet.

    However, I will make more explicit something I previously hinted at: I think Arethosemyfeet is not really right to buy in to the whole "democratic socialist state" notion and the conception of constitutional rights. Because who is it that decided we need to talk about democratic socialist "states" instead of socialist policies? Kwesi. Again.

    Everything is currently stuck in this notion of the characteristics of a state, which several of us has pointed out is asking for a contradiction in terms.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited March 30
    I mean, let's all just pause for a moment and reflect really hard on the sheer idiocy of Kwesi repeatedly defining a democratic socialist state as: a socialist state that isn't democratic because no-one's allowed to have non-socialist policies.

    If you'll excuse me, it's rather late here and almost time for bed. I've just got time for breakfast and my morning coffee.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Orfeo: The very. First. Sentence.

    "Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy."
    And at the end of the first paragraph:
    " As a term, democratic socialism was popularised by social democrats and other socialists who were opposed to the authoritarian socialist development in Russia and elsewhere during the 20th century."

    Don't you think that in all honesty you should have quoted the whole of the first paragraph? It reads:

    " Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy and workers' self-management within a market socialist economy or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy. Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society. Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism, democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as means to establish socialism. As a term, democratic socialism was popularised by social democrats and other socialists who were opposed to the authoritarian socialist development in Russia and elsewhere during the 20th century."

    ISTM this paragraph recognises the two approaches to Democratic Socialism that I was indicating. If, however, "Democratic Socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the value of freedom", then I find it difficult to see how Democratic Socialists can support conventional liberal democracy. On the other hand, I recognise that the contributors to these posts are socialists who are primarily democrats, whose gradualism has led them to recognise the legitimacy of capitalist-friendly governments.
Sign In or Register to comment.