Andie: I thought the issue was about substance. The critics of liberalism (Carl, Carrol, Doug maybe?, certainly Charles and Yoshiem others) were saying that the political institutions and practices I called liberal were exhausted or inextricably bound up with something bad. I was challenging them to explain what they had that was better. If you want to call it "radical democracy" or "political freedom" or something else, I don't care, just as long as we are clear what we are talking about.
^^^^^ CB: What you have to do is mention the following caveat everytime you proclaim your list of liberal/democratic ideals: History has demonstrated that democratic liberal ideals cannot be achieved under a capitalist mode of production, for the bourgeoisie have become past masters at totally corrupting democratic forms; or in some cases instituting out and out fascism. This is true even though democratic liberal ideals originated in the capitalist mode of production.
I think Mike B articulates (see below) best on this thread the substantive problems: The bourgeoisie and their agents have figured out how to strip the substance from the historically developed forms of bourgeois democracy. We can add to Mike's comment that the U.S. has very much discredited "democracy" by claiming that its imperialist practices around the world are spreading it.
Also, outside the U.S., (and perhaps Europe) , "communism" and "socialism" are not as discredited by the history of the Soviet Union ( which was not at all the complete failure that liberals like to claim) as it is in super anti-Soviet, anti-Communist USA. Cuba is building great credibility for "Communism" and "socialism" around the world. Cuba is an "offspring" of the Soviet Union. Venezuela is emulating Cuba and the other historical socialist countries. Many other countries will do the same, if we can get the U.S. off of their backs. There is significant sentiment for moving to socialism in Mexico (See demonstrations in Zocalo in Mexico City
http://videos.eluniversal.com.mx/paginas/videosdet3419.html
http://www.gobiernolegitimo.org.mx/fotogaleria/fotos_g/0107200725.jpg
)
(All I said about liberals , Cold War liberals, is that they typically redbait, in this specific case make kneejerk claims that Marxists are dogmatic thinkers.)
******************************
The content of competitive elections has been skewed by money, other forms of wealth and power since day one of the liberal-bourgeois revolution. And today, competitive elections are essentially fixed so that only the candidates of the rich are given media legitimacy/official name recognition--it's a competition between those who already endorse the continuation of wage-slavery and all that, that implies in terms of the democratization of power. This, in turn works to castrate/clitorally circumcise universal sufferage. As for our civil liberties, they are being subverted and undermined by the same powers who undermine democracy e.g. the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is nowadays more form than content. For the realities of democratic decision making....well, see the above and then think about how much "freedom of speech" applies to you as an employee in the workplace or on some corporation's private property or within governmental institutions like the military or the ubiquitous national security agencies.
I'm sure everyone on this list and maybe even an overwhelming majority in the general public would agree to expanding and deepening our democratic rights. But, the people who actually rule us will fight that desire tooth and nail and to be sure, most of them are in leadership positions of the bureaucratic structures which rule the rest of us, from the major parties and corporations to the tops in the business unions. They all call themselves "liberal", "conservative", "advocates of the free market and free trade" and "democrats" and/or "repulicans" with small "ds" and "rs". Some even label themselves "Social Democrats" or "men of God". These people see us as pawns in their in their very undemocratic game and they feel no threat to their power as long as we see ourselves as mere consumers, narrow individuals, pursuing our personal, familial interests in competition with the Smiths and Jones for the latest i-Pods.
Mike B)
