Japan
Liberal democracy is where one party is in power almost uninterrupted for close to 80 years (and counting).
one party in power for decennia
China
Your turn :libs-owned:
China doesn’t claim to be a
liberaldemocracyTankies? Owned :shapiro-gavel:
China
doesn'tclaims to be a liberaldemocracyLib status? :debate-me-debate-me: smashed :libs-owned:
Interestingly enough, one of their parties outside the Communist Party does advocate for liberal democracy and federalism. Looks like China actually does allow dissenting opinion.
Though the other parties have "advisory" roles, you can't vote for their leader to replace Xi.
Europeans also complain about America being a 2 party system.
Being an anti-capitalist in america must be really easy because y'alls shit is so fucked up
Remind me, did the liberal democracies of Europe and the United States have any influence on the governments of China, Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria, and Myanmar or did all that stuff just happen in a vacuum?
You've just described liberal ideology so perfectly in so few words, beautiful
Cuba is the perfect acid test for determining if someone is a brainwashed moron. This guy shouldn’t have been given a teaching degree when a pacifier would’ve been far more appropriate.
Anyone who describes Cuba as an "authoritarian regime" should be liable to the death penalty. :stalin-gun-1::diaz-canel-troll:
How so? By historical materialism, yeah DoP and all that. But going off of freedom of press, political pluralism, and the likes...
Now I'm familiar with the whole defending the revolution shebang, my point is moreso that :liberalism:s have different standards, so you're not going to convince em of that. Or am I missing something?
Ask them to define what "democratic" means. Any defensible definition should include:
- It means the will of the people is reflected in government decisions, and
- It involves some mechanisms (for example, elections) to get the will of the people to the political leadership -- it's not a benevolent dictatorship where the dictator just happens to enact popular policies.
Everything else is essentially a method of "perfecting" those two aspects. Get them to agree on those two big points, emphasize that Cuba is democratic by that very reasonable standard, then play the inevitable game of whack-a-lib with whatever stuff they throw out there (oh, it's effectively one-party control, like most local governments in the U.S.?).
You might shift them a bit and open them up to shifting more later.
What kind of political pluralism is there in the US? Are two neoliberal parties where candidates need 250-2000 million $ to get a seat democratic and pluralistic?
I remember how people scorned at Maduro for being a "lowly" bus driver. That is pluralism of classes I want to see in a party and in parliaments and in presidential offices. What is the pluralism of millionaire heirs who go into elite schools support the business elite for a couple of years and then go on to become the political elite?
The press in the US is not free by a sensible standard either. Nearly all the press in the US does tell exactly what the chiefs of the station want the reporters to say, as they are owned by only a few people. That is no freedom! Freedom is the union being able to criticize their bosses!
Freedom of the press means that there is a diversity of view points and those without a stage get one. Freedom of press means people underlining who can't be trusted and having good information, quality information, instead of so much noise and repetition that the amount what is spoken about determines the importance and framing of a topic. This is why propaganda is needed.
Besides that. Show me the communist, the socialist in Cuba who got into prison, who lost their job, who had repercussions for political speech. I can show you the communists, the socialists in the US and those that got deported from the US who did that. Is it freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of expression and political freedom to talk in the Overton window of an imperialist capitalist state? I don't think so.
What kind of political pluralism is there in the US? Are two neoliberal parties where candidates need 250-2000 million $ to get a seat democratic and pluralistic?
Which they're all critical of on :reddit-logo: , they want it like in western Europe. The rest of your comment is similarly all fun rhetoric, but useless. Fundamentally (most) libs just have vague notions of politics, in a vicious cycle with the dominant ideology. Engaging with them would, IMO, be most lucrative when engaging with them on a philosophical level, questioning why they hold certain things as obvious truths, when they are not as objective as they claim.
Idk, I think getting libs to acknowledge that Cuba is more democratic than the US is a good first step. Besides, you have to start with something that they agree with you on (i.e. that only the rich being able to be elected is a bad thing) to get to the good stuff.
Cuba's definitely a mixed bag and has lots of room for improvement outside what's been caused by the embargo. I'm lucky enough to know Cuban immigrants that aren't batshit insane and love the country but left because of the economic conditions.
Obviously the best form of government is the one that maintains a status quo that I am adapted to and exploited to my own advantage, duh.
honestly them stating it plainly is a good first step. most professors just take it as an axiom and don't even know they're doing it.
I would like to retract my following post, you do not under any circumstances "have to hand it to them":
At least they just straight up say it instead of pretending to be neutral. I don't need people pretending they aren't idealogues. I sure am but the difference is I'm right they're wrong
Once you understand enough theory you should just automatically get a poli sci degree. These profs are worthless.
But, Muh Marxist Indoctrination!!! Why am I paying for university if I am getting the same indoctrination I could get for free from the NYT?
I wonder why the professor felt the need to include this in their syllabus. Did they argue with communist students in previous semesters? lol
Isn't it statiscally more likely that the professor had to argue with a Paleo-Conservative who believed most of the State department atrocity propaganda and was arguing that Putin was a based nationalist, that China was based for killing all the Uighyrs, or that political dissidents in general should be killed on sight for promoting the-d-word.
oy I wish I can be that direct in my syllabus statements on why I assign certain things ...
original Reddit post, the course is called "Democracy and Authoritarianism" lmao
:agony-shivering: good luck, mine were somehow more subtle about it than this
