Socialism or democracy?

Vote, pls.

Does "Neither" count as both, or does it imply that I don't care about either one?

Either way, I voted for Socialism, not because I'm against democracy per se, but because I am against the numerous majoritarian interpretations of it. Also, I consider Socialism almost inherently democratic, since the means of production are shared and, thus, decisions about how to manage them cannot possibly be made by one single person or one single group.

So I vote Socialism, only because I think Socialism can be comfortably considered democratic, and the good kind of democratic at that.

why didnt i have multiple votes?

i voted democracy, while it may become corrupt, it has a better proven track record( once again open to debate) and i belive havint my say expressed is more immportant than everyone trying to achieve equality

also i would have said social democracy as im not against socialism per say, but still it was not an option

enviro wrote:

i voted democracy, while it may become corrupt, it has a better proven track record( once again open to debate) and i belive havint my say expressed is more immportant than everyone trying to achieve equality

Do you see any debate or expression in modern democratic states, like US? especially when it comes to criticizing the model of a parliamentarian democracy itself.

I say US democracy sucks, cause it doesnt have popular vote in the general elections. And the elcotroal state thing is the most shittiest thing.
I prefer a Parliamentary republic or a conctutional monarchy, the king or queen actually does something to bring back money. That's something else.

Anywayz, I believe in the Dutch democracy system, we vote for multi-parties in a Parliament and since we have like 9 parties and 150 seats we always need a cabinet. Point is, that winner takes all isnt here, like England, they have that, and in my opnion that sucks.

And yes, why is there no "both" button for the one's, if your gonna include neither, then do both to :S.

consensus democracy ftw.

see i never said us democracy, which is a load of bullcrap
an acient roman democratic repulic is kinda my vview

Neither, since none of these things exist.

Socialism and Democracy are just two bastardized forms of government, were one rules over the other, manipulating the people into thinking they have power.

enviro wrote:

an acient roman democratic repulic is kinda my vview

It wasn't any better. In Rome there was slavery, sexism and social stratification. Plus it was a very aggressive state.

Liche wrote:

Neither, since none of these things exist.

Socialism and Democracy are just two bastardized forms of government, were one rules over the other, manipulating the people into thinking they have power.

Well, socialism was achieved at some point. Even North Korea has some socialist benefits.

but what is NK gdp
and is there a a real answer to this
becuase every goverment has its flaws

Plus, in that time, slavery, sexism and social stratificationwere normal.

CoolKidX wrote:

Plus, in that time, slavery, sexism and social stratificationwere normal.

Indeed, but with these parameters you can't call it a democracy, as there were no "power to the people". So democracy in theory was never achieved, and will never be, before the whole idea will not be questioned and revised.

Enviro why dose GDP matter?

it is one of the ways to tell how much economic growth a country has
and NK is in the negatives

Democracy, the kind were the rights of the ppl are most important not the money they make.

suo matti

not to be off topic
but hows IMSA GOIN hahahahhah
btw i meat jessica munro, shes a slut

I don't like the question, but i said socialism; Socialism isn't socialism without democracy.

Black_Cross wrote:

Socialism isn't socialism without democracy.

Why not? USSR was quite socialist. But regarding democracy, I don't like the whole concept of a parliament. The answer to it is a slow evolution from autocracy to anarchy.

Riddler wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

Socialism isn't socialism without democracy.

Why not? USSR was quite socialist. But regarding democracy, I don't like the whole concept of a parliament. The answer to it is a slow evolution from autocracy to anarchy.

lol wat?

I can't see how an elected body of ppl, chosen by the ppl is bad
and really autocracy dose just not "evolve" into anarchy becuse autocracy is ruled by one man who's not intrested in loosing power.

Riddler wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

Socialism isn't socialism without democracy.

Why not?

Because centralization is antithetical to socialism.

Quote :

USSR was quite socialist.

According to whose standards?

Quote :

But regarding democracy, I don't like the whole concept of a parliament. The answer to it is a slow evolution from autocracy to anarchy.

Democracy is not parliamentary. Parliament may be one way that the democratic tendencies of people manifest themselves within a statist society, in which democracy is naturally stunted, but paliament is not all that democratic.

And as Matta said, autocracy does not evolve into anarchy. If autocracy were to evolve, it would become more centralized, considering the meaning of 'evolve'.

mattabesta wrote:

I can't see how an elected body of ppl, chosen by the ppl is bad

Because it's an oligarchy (power to the small amount of people). And completely inefficient in strategical sense.

mattabesta wrote:

and really autocracy dose just not "evolve" into anarchy becuse autocracy is ruled by one man who's not intrested in loosing power.

Any form of government is ruled by people. People are not perfect. But if a man's power is controlled by constitution, it will give positive results.

Riddler wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

I can't see how an elected body of ppl, chosen by the ppl is bad

Because it's an oligarchy (power to the small amount of people). And completely inefficient in strategical sense.

That differs from every country with a pairlement, for example Holland got 150 seats, and Denmark like 179, and Canada even over 400 I think. So yeah. Oligarchy is like when only there are 5 people controlling the country. Or just doing shit.

seriously, a terrible question.


it shows a blatant disregard for even the slightest, most rudimentary, knowledge of any radical leftist current.

if you had the slightest idea of how asinine the question you posed was, you would know that democracy is inherent to socialism, and socialism inherent to democracy.

get a fucking clue dude.

[/rant]

Riddler wrote:

Any form of government is ruled by people. People are not perfect. But if a man's power is controlled by constitution, it will give positive results.

I'd like a response to my arguments, as i think they're more to the point, but even this response to matta holds little weight. How does this go to show that an autocracy can 'evolve' into anarchy?