Democracy: Socialism or Capitalism

[Gary Childress]

I decided to make a separate topic for this thread of discussion that pops up periodically on the forum.

Is there such a thing as democratic socialism? And if not, why not? What about socialism precludes electing government officials and representatives through voting by the citizens of a socialist society? What forbids democracy under socialism any more than democracy could be forbidden in a capitalist society?

First of all, how do we define socialism? Here is Google AI's definition:

Socialism is an economic and political philosophy characterized by the social, public, or collective ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, rather than private or corporate ownership

Is this or is this not an accurate definition of "socialism"? If not, why not?

Where in this definition of socialism above does it say that socialist policies, laws, and rules cannot be made by representatives elected by the citizens of a socialist state?

Second of all, how do we define "democracy"? Here is Google AI's definition.

Democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives. The word comes from the Greek dēmokratia, combining dēmos ("people") and kratos ("rule").

Is this or is this not an accurate definition of democracy? If not, why not?

Where in the definition of democracy above does it say that the people of a state cannot vote to place the means of production, distribution, and exchange, in whole or in part, under social, public, or collective ownership, rather than private or corporate ownership?

Next, how is socialising something, say healthcare, for example, incompatible with using elected representatives voted on by citizens to run and make decisions concerning public entities of production, distribution, and exchange?

Is there no such thing as capitalism? How is "capitalism" defined? Here is Google AI's definition of "capitalism":

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the use of those assets to generate profit.

Is this or is this not an accurate definition of what is called "capitalism"?

Does anything under the definition of capitalism say that a capitalist society cannot be democratic? Again, I don't see anything suggesting that.

What is the definition of a socialist society? Here is Google AI once again:

A socialist society is a political and economic system where the means of producing wealth—such as factories, land, machinery, and natural resources—are owned or controlled collectively by the public or the working class, rather than by private individuals or corporations.

Is this not an accurate definition of what a socialist society is? If not, why not?

What is the definition of a capitalist society? Again, the Google AI definition:

A capitalist society is a social and economic order built around private ownership of the means of production (such as factories, tools, land, and businesses) and the operation of markets for profit

Is this not an accurate definition of what a capitalist society is? If not, why not?

Now, if a society has both public and private ownership of the means of production (such as factories, tools, land, and businesses), what should it be called: capitalist or socialist?

Here's what Google AI says:

A society with both public and private ownership of the means of production is called a mixed economy.

Is this not an accurate definition of what a society with both public and private ownership of the means of production should be called? If not, why not?

As I see it, democracy is a type of government and has nothing specific to do with the means of production. Socialism and capitalism are different ways to manage the means of production and have nothing to do with the type of government.

Which is better, capitalism or socialism (public ownership of the means of production or private ownership of the means of production)? My answer: I don't know. Let's discuss it.

Thoughts?

[Immanuel Can]

Thoughts?

Well, you have my thoughts on this already, so I won't repeat. But here's a better question:

If there were such a thing as "democratic Socialism," what would it look like?

How many non-Socialist political parties would be allowed?
How often would the public get to vote?
How long would terms of office be limited to?
How would the incursions of the State into the rights of individuals be prevented?
How would "democratic" Socialism create money, in order to power the economy?
How would we prevent Socialism from becoming totalitarian, as it has in 100% of previous cases?

To see the positive case for "democratic" Socialism would be far more interesting than hearing yet one more whine about how unfair free markets are. So have a go at that.

[Gary Childress]

Thoughts?

Well, you have my thoughts on this already, so I won't repeat. But here's a better question:

If there were such a thing as "democratic Socialism," what would it look like?

How many non-Socialist political parties would be allowed?
How often would the public get to vote?
How long would terms of office be limited to?
How would the incursions of the State into the rights of individuals be prevented?
How would "democratic" Socialism create money, in order to power the economy?
How would we prevent Socialism from becoming totalitarian, as it has in 100% of previous cases?

To see the positive case for "democratic" Socialism would be far more interesting than hearing yet one more whine about how unfair free markets are. So have a go at that.

Did you read my whole post? The point of the post was to show that socialism can be democratic. Socialism is not a political system. It is an economic system the same as capitalism. It does not preclude the ability to allow citizens to vote, just like capitalism. There can be a capitalist party in a society. If the capitalist party wins, the society switches to capitalism. If a socialist party wins, it switches to socialism. As long as democracy is adhered to a society can be either capitalist or socialist. And it can switch according to the party that wins.

[Immanuel Can]

Thoughts?

Well, you have my thoughts on this already, so I won't repeat. But here's a better question:

If there were such a thing as "democratic Socialism," what would it look like?

How many non-Socialist political parties would be allowed?
How often would the public get to vote?
How long would terms of office be limited to?
How would the incursions of the State into the rights of individuals be prevented?
How would "democratic" Socialism create money, in order to power the economy?
How would we prevent Socialism from becoming totalitarian, as it has in 100% of previous cases?

To see the positive case for "democratic" Socialism would be far more interesting than hearing yet one more whine about how unfair free markets are. So have a go at that.

Did you read my whole post? The point of the post was to show that socialism can be democratic.

Yeah, it didn't achieve that. Let's see exactly what it WOULD look like.

Socialism is not a political system. It is an economic system

No, it's an ideology, one which is not economically viable and one that is politically disastrous. It's very nearly a religion, actually, judging by the fervency its adherents have, and their complete indifference to facts.

If a socialist party wins, it switches to socialism.

That's not the real question. It's how do you get rid of Socialism.

The old saying goes, "You can vote Socialism in, but you have to shoot it out." That's because Socialism will not ever allow itself to be replaced, except by means of revolution. It's not open to democratic rejection...at all.

[Gary Childress]

Well, you have my thoughts on this already, so I won't repeat. But here's a better question:

If there were such a thing as "democratic Socialism," what would it look like?

How many non-Socialist political parties would be allowed?
How often would the public get to vote?
How long would terms of office be limited to?
How would the incursions of the State into the rights of individuals be prevented?
How would "democratic" Socialism create money, in order to power the economy?
How would we prevent Socialism from becoming totalitarian, as it has in 100% of previous cases?

To see the positive case for "democratic" Socialism would be far more interesting than hearing yet one more whine about how unfair free markets are. So have a go at that.

Did you read my whole post? The point of the post was to show that socialism can be democratic.

Yeah, it didn't achieve that. Let's see exactly what it WOULD look like.

Socialism is not a political system. It is an economic system

No, it's an ideology, one which is not economically viable and one that is politically disastrous. It's very nearly a religion, actually, judging by the fervency its adherents have, and their complete indifference to facts.

If a socialist party wins, it switches to socialism.

That's not the real question. It's how do you get rid of Socialism.

The old saying goes, "You can vote Socialism in, but you have to shoot it out." That's because Socialism will not ever allow itself to be replaced, except by means of revolution. It's not open to democratic rejection...at all.

Capitalism has the EXACT same dilemma. How do you get rid of capitalism once it's in? You can vote a capitalist system into power, but then how many capitalist systems have willingly given up capitalism without a revolution to get rid of them. How many times have capitalists not fought for capitalism, basically buying cooperation, buying soldiers to fight for them and buying police to stop dissent. THINK, IC. Use your brain. Untangle it from dogmatic thinking. Socialism does not = totalitarianism any more than capitalism does not equal totalitarianism. The capitalist faces the same problem of not being able to allow socialism as the socialist faces the problem of not being able to allow capitalism. It is false that the problem of maintaining an economic system is exclusive only to socialism.

[Immanuel Can]

Did you read my whole post? The point of the post was to show that socialism can be democratic.

Yeah, it didn't achieve that. Let's see exactly what it WOULD look like.

Socialism is not a political system. It is an economic system

No, it's an ideology, one which is not economically viable and one that is politically disastrous. It's very nearly a religion, actually, judging by the fervency its adherents have, and their complete indifference to facts.

If a socialist party wins, it switches to socialism.

That's not the real question. It's how do you get rid of Socialism.

The old saying goes, "You can vote Socialism in, but you have to shoot it out." That's because Socialism will not ever allow itself to be replaced, except by means of revolution. It's not open to democratic rejection...at all.

Capitalism has the EXACT same dilemma.

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." What you mean is "free markets."

You can vote a capitalist system into power,

Again, there's no such thing. Name one "Capitalist" government that has ever existed. Name one that was "voted into power." No such thing has ever happened. You're talking nonsense.

Free markets aren't "voted in": they are simply "permitted to exist," because people are allowed to exchange what they have without being bullied or controlled; and they can only be stopped from existing by the application of totalitarian force of some kind, because trading and exchanging with each other is exactly what people like to do.

[Gary Childress]

Yeah, it didn't achieve that. Let's see exactly what it WOULD look like.

No, it's an ideology, one which is not economically viable and one that is politically disastrous. It's very nearly a religion, actually, judging by the fervency its adherents have, and their complete indifference to facts.
That's not the real question. It's how do you get rid of Socialism.

The old saying goes, "You can vote Socialism in, but you have to shoot it out." That's because Socialism will not ever allow itself to be replaced, except by means of revolution. It's not open to democratic rejection...at all.

Capitalism has the EXACT same dilemma.

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." What you mean is "free markets."

You can vote a capitalist system into power,

Again, there's no such thing. Name one "Capitalist" government that has ever existed. Name one that was "voted into power." No such thing has ever happened. You're talking nonsense.

Free markets aren't "voted in": they are simply "permitted to exist," because people are allowed to exchange what they have without being bullied or controlled; and they can only be stopped from existing by the application of totalitarian force of some kind, because trading and exchanging with each other is exactly what people like to do.

You're mincing terminology. A free market and a capitalist economy are not the same thing. Capitalism is by definition private ownership of the means of production. You've been equivocating repeatedly whenever we've talked about socialism and that "capitalism doesn't exist" is BS. Learn economics.

[Immanuel Can]

Capitalism has the EXACT same dilemma.

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." What you mean is "free markets."

You can vote a capitalist system into power,

Again, there's no such thing. Name one "Capitalist" government that has ever existed. Name one that was "voted into power." No such thing has ever happened. You're talking nonsense.

Free markets aren't "voted in": they are simply "permitted to exist," because people are allowed to exchange what they have without being bullied or controlled; and they can only be stopped from existing by the application of totalitarian force of some kind, because trading and exchanging with each other is exactly what people like to do.

You're mincing terminology.

Not a bit. I'm making you say things that are true, instead of making things up.

Capitalism is by definition private ownership of the means of production.

Who do you think owns the things that are exchanged in a free market?

"Capitalism" is an invented word, a phony concept created by Socialists in the 18th Century. They were so embarrassed over the clearly ideological nature of Socialism, that they had to invent an enemy for it that would be equivalently ideological. So they made up the term. But nobody worships "capital," there is no manifesto of "capital," and it has no particular ideology, no society, no theory, and only the free market.

Don't but Socialist hogwash. And they're full of it.

[Gary Childress]

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." What you mean is "free markets."


Again, there's no such thing. Name one "Capitalist" government that has ever existed. Name one that was "voted into power." No such thing has ever happened. You're talking nonsense.

Free markets aren't "voted in": they are simply "permitted to exist," because people are allowed to exchange what they have without being bullied or controlled; and they can only be stopped from existing by the application of totalitarian force of some kind, because trading and exchanging with each other is exactly what people like to do.

You're mincing terminology.

Not a bit. I'm making you say things that are true, instead of making things up.

Capitalism is by definition private ownership of the means of production.

Who do you think owns the things that are exchanged in a free market?

"Capitalism" is an invented word, a phony concept created by Socialists in the 18th Century. They were so embarrassed over the clearly ideological nature of Socialism, that they had to invent an enemy for it that would be equivalently ideological. So they made up the term. But nobody worships "capital," there is no manifesto of "capital," and it has no particular ideology, no society, no theory, and only the free market.

Don't but Socialist hogwash. And they're full of it.

You're making it up as you go along. Look in any textbook for a definition of capitalism; it'll be there. Where is your source that says there's no such thing as capitalism? Virtually everyone one else in the world, all the economists have it wrong. They're all dumber than you are. Only you know there's no such thing as capitalism. You live in your own reality bubble.

[Gary Childress]

The word "feudalism" (and its French root féodalité) was first coined during the 17th century by scholars, royal lawyers, and legal historians to retroactively describe medieval social and legal structures.

So basically, if you asked someone back when what we now call "feudalism" was the dominant economic and social organization, they would have told you that there was no such thing. Literally, capitalists made up the term feudalism to describe what came before capitalism. In the same way, socialists coined the term capitalism for what came before socialism.

[Impenitent]

is your labor a means of production?

who decides what your labor becomes?

thinking is laborious for some...

obey

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

You're mincing terminology.

Not a bit. I'm making you say things that are true, instead of making things up.

Capitalism is by definition private ownership of the means of production.

Who do you think owns the things that are exchanged in a free market?

"Capitalism" is an invented word, a phony concept created by Socialists in the 18th Century. They were so embarrassed over the clearly ideological nature of Socialism, that they had to invent an enemy for it that would be equivalently ideological. So they made up the term. But nobody worships "capital," there is no manifesto of "capital," and it has no particular ideology, no society, no theory, and only the free market.

Don't but Socialist hogwash. And they're full of it.

You're making it up as you go along.

Nope. Go and look at the etymology of "Capitalism." You'll see I've told you the truth. The very concept was invented just before Marx started writing.

Look in any textbook for a definition of capitalism; it'll be there.

Yeah, it will: because we live post-Marx. So of course it's there, just as "unicorn" and "pixie" will be there: people have been fooled by the term, and actually use it. So it's in the dictionary. It's also still nothing more than propaganda.

Where are the "Capitalism" societies? Where do they meet? Which are the "Capitalist" political parties? Where's their manifesto? Who wrote their theory, and who are the leading "Capitalist" figures of it? Where are there "Capitalist" riots, marches and demonstrations? Who funds the "Capitalists"? What regimes have been "Capitalist?" And how many people have they tortured, imprisoned and robbed?

I can give you all of these things for Socialism; if Capitalism is just the same, how come you can't do the same?

[MikeNovack]

Free markets aren't "voted in": they are simply "permitted to exist," because people are allowed to exchange what they have without being bullied or controlled; and they can only be stopped from existing by the application of totalitarian force of some kind, because trading and exchanging with each other is exactly what people like to do.

"Totalitarian force" is ignoring other ways in which "free markets" can be controlled/regulated.

A guild, imposing standards for goods, is imposing control (cannot offer lower grade goods at a cheaper price as an alternative for standard grade goods). Or might be regulation by democratic government. Thus in Viking Iceland, the various grades of wadmal* were established by law.

As I have pointed out before, free markets not necessarily connected to capitalism. There are forms of "socialism" that might have the relationship BETWEEN the communes, etc. be "market". Of course some of you would not consider a society like that, composed of communes (and perhaps also individuals not associated with a commune) to be a form of socialism/communism.


* wadmal was heavy cloth, grades for clothing and even heavier for sailcloth (important for Vikings). Regulated because used as currency and of course, substandard sailcloth a real risk. In her spare time left from childcare and housework, the Viking housewife was literally making/creating money.

[Impenitent]

Viking sails were often oars

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Free markets aren't "voted in": they are simply "permitted to exist," because people are allowed to exchange what they have without being bullied or controlled; and they can only be stopped from existing by the application of totalitarian force of some kind, because trading and exchanging with each other is exactly what people like to do.

"Totalitarian force" is ignoring other ways in which "free markets" can be controlled/regulated.

There are various ways, of course. And some can be legitimate, such as the suppression of monopolies and the balancing of opportunities. Democratic polities do that, through such measures as regulatory boards, regulations and inspections. There doesn't seem to be a way to deal with free markets without some regulation of that sort. But in such cases, the State role is limited to the negative...that is, to the preventing of abuses. It's not extended to aspiring that the State should generate production of its own, or create value, or manage the whole economy.

Socialism presupposes a much more expansive role for the totalitarian State: it controls ALL the means of production, and controls them absolutely. Even Fascism, which is probably the most market-liberal form of Socialism, will only allow as much free trade as serves the interest of the Fascist State. All areas that are of interest to the State come under strict Fascist control. But Communist states micromanage everything they can get their hands on. They make no such distinctions.

What we know, though, from history, is that such efforts turn out to be 100% disastrous for the economy, and even worse for human rights. That much, we know for sure.