• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democracy Vs Socialism

Loxd4

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What are the different between democracy and socialism government? I really can’t find a lot of different but a lot of income. Socialism is supposed to be like a man-made-utopia. Key word in this sentence is “man-made” so there will be flaws inside the government just like a democracy government. So why is socialism such a threat to democracy?
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Loxd4 said:
What are the different between democracy and socialism government? I really can’t find a lot of different but a lot of income. Socialism is supposed to be like a man-made-utopia. Key word in this sentence is “man-made” so there will be flaws inside the government just like a democracy government. So why is socialism such a threat to democracy?
This question is a little odd. Socialism is a way to manage an economy. It's like asking what the difference is between democracy and a capitalist government. A democracy can be either capitalist or socialist. For that matter, according to Marx, a socialist/communist system is supposed to have a democratic government.
 

Loxd4

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Kelzie said:
This question is a little odd. Socialism is a way to manage an economy. It's like asking what the difference is between democracy and a capitalist government. A democracy can be either capitalist or socialist. For that matter, according to Marx, a socialist/communist system is supposed to have a democratic government.
so what are you trying to say? there is no differents...
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Loxd4 said:
so what are you trying to say? there is no differents...
You can't ask that question. They're entirely different things. You can ask what the difference is between democracy and monarchy. Or between capitalism and socialism. But asking what the difference is between socialism and democracy is like asking what the difference is between a 1969 Stingray and an oak tree. They're completely different entities.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Loxd4 said:
Ok, why do they hate each other?
They don't hate each other. According to Marx, a socialist society wasn't possible without democracy.
 

FreeThinker

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kelzie is referring to a very old and idealistic version of what socialism is, one that never truly manifested itself outside of karl marx's brain.

Democracy vs socialism as it is referred to today in our media usually means a free market economy versus a government controlled economy.

In socialism's implementation there are always problems with inefficiency as people are not working for themselves, but for a greater good that is very much intangible in their every day lives.

Tell a man to work his whole life for the greater good and he will do only what he must to get by.

Tell a man to work for himself and he will do everything and anything he can to succeed (within the confines of law ideally).
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Socialism isn't communism. Socialism & democracy & free markets can work in conjunction as witnessed by democratic socialist goverments.
Remember, Tony Blair is supposedly a socialist.
All it means is there is a higher degree of welfare & free healthcare etc.

Of course it can go too far as per when unions start calling all the shots in industry & when there's too much welfare handed out too freely to layabouts.

But then capitilism can go to far. To extent where a minute proportion of people own virtually all the wealth & control everything & the bulk of the workforce get payed peanuts, so there's no money being spent or going through the economy as in some Fascist countries. That's not democracy either is it.

We don't want too far left, nor too far right.
 
Last edited:

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There is an attempt to associate capitalism with democracy, and socialism with anti-democratic ideas in the "democracy vs. socialism" saying. But in reality democracy is where the government is controlled by the population somehow (it it's loosest definition), capitalism is the belief in the free market, and socialism is the use of government regulation or control of business.

We saw capitalism fail in the late 1800's in the US, but we've also seen socialism fail in history. So I'd have to agree with Mambit_Giggler:
We don't want too far left, nor too far right.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What are the different between democracy and socialism government?
In general nothing. But in Marxist terms socialism is the stage where the workers forcibly supress the capitalists. Also there is the often times called the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat".
Socialism is supposed to be like a man-made-utopia
Socialism isn't a utopia.
So why is socialism such a threat to democracy?
Socialism is democracy.
You can't ask that question. They're entirely different things. You can ask what the difference is between democracy and monarchy. Or between capitalism and socialism. But asking what the difference is between socialism and democracy is like asking what the difference is between a 1969 Stingray and an oak tree. They're completely different entities.
I'm inclined to agree, on some scale. Democracy is usually just a social-system, socialism is a social and economic system.
Democracy vs socialism as it is referred to today in our media usually means a free market economy versus a government controlled economy.
Which is the state-controlled one?
"Free-market capitalism" isn't the only type of capitalism, because a state-controlled econmoy is too capitalist, the only real difference is that "free-market" is where businesses are owned by a few wealthy individuals, a state-controlled one is where its owned by the state, which is usually just comprimised as a bureaucracy. Otherwise they run entirely the same, almost. Both workers are dependant on wages, and money plays a most important part.
Tell a man to work his whole life for the greater good and he will do only what he must to get by.
That is not socialism, nor what socialists dream of.
Remember, Tony Blair is supposedly a socialist.
Tony Blair is a capitalist. And considered a right-wing one by that, at least by the British members here.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Personally I find it hard to see how people can talk about democratic capitalism as the same system. It’s rather two separate systems operating in the state. Every aspect of society that is governed by capitalism is governed by a few for themselves, not by the people for the people; hence it’s the opposite of democracy. Even with the moral problems associated with capitalism I am nevertheless for it, based upon utilitarian principles, similar to Adam Smith. Well some of it at least, I’m more left then right in economic matters. .
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Every aspect of society that is governed by capitalism is governed by a few for themselves, not by the people for the people; hence it’s the opposite of democracy.
Again, the same way they cannot be the same thing they cannot be opposite. One deals with economy and the other politics. They are related, but there is no neat comparison like some have claimed.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-Demosthenes- said:
Again, the same way they cannot be the same thing they cannot be opposite. One deals with economy and the other politics. They are related, but there is no neat comparison like some have claimed.
Well in Scandinavian countries some aspects of society is governed by the state that’s the domain of capitalism in other countries. Healthcare, pensions, dental service and in the case of Norway the people “own” a large part of the oil industry and decide what to do with the earnings. In some cases there are both private and state actors in the same area. There are ultra libertarians who claim the state should be governed by pure capitalist principles. I would claim that the state covers all aspect of society, therefore the way you rule it covers economics. That doesn’t mean the state should cover all aspects of society, all democratic governments agree to a mostly liberal and off hand approach to individual rights. Still some country’s limits the actions of other citizens based on democratic consent more than others. Just as the people in some countries decide to let the economy govern itself more or less.

Hell you might even say the people decides to allow capitalism to decide thereby making it democratic, however as the economic power of the wealthy few is so big I believe their power limits democratic actions.
 

Robodoon

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
426
Reaction score
0
Location
Lakeport CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Loxd4 said:
What are the different between democracy and socialism government? I really can’t find a lot of different but a lot of income. Socialism is supposed to be like a man-made-utopia. Key word in this sentence is “man-made” so there will be flaws inside the government just like a democracy government. So why is socialism such a threat to democracy?
Democracy is Socialism

Has the Definition of Democracy been changed over the years?

- Democracy
A goverment of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,... without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Army Training Manual Concerning Citizenship 1928

And the Words of old wisdom (FEDERALIST PAPERS)
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.


http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

"Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika...is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy."
Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988

More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life..."
Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988

Gorby is helping Agenda 21, he works out of a 2 billion dollar piece of US land that American citizens my find hard to visit.

"...I would like to be clearly understood...we, the Soviet people, are for socialism.... We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy."
Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988

"Socialism has a bad name in America, and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of the left is going to change that.... The words Economic Democracy are an adequate and effective replacement."
Derek Shearer cited in Reason 1982



"If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long."

President George Bush (January 1991)

The "new world order that is in the making must focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all."

Nelson Mandela, in The Philadelphia Inquirer (October 1994)


"It's my conviction that the human race has entered a stage where we are all dependent on each other. No other country or nation should be regarded in total separation from another, let alone pitted against another. That's what our communist vocabulary calls internationalism and it means promoting universal human values."
Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988


"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people."

H. G. Wells, in his book entitled The New World Order (1939)
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,046
Reaction score
950
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Undemocratic historical or existing govermemt that use or claim to use socialistic principle are seen as example of socialism.

Undemocratic historical or existing goverment that use or claim to use capitalistic principle are not seen as example of capitalism.

The diffrence lays therefore in that today we have a capitalistic worldorder that set the discurse/discussion in the society. Therefore bad example of socialism or claimed socialism are seen as proof of the badness of socialism. While bad example or claimed capitalism are seen as abnormalitys.

Also there are no example of perfect capitalistic or socialistic societys. But historical and existing societys have been able to create more perfect capitalism then hisorical and existing societys have been able to create perfect socialistic societys. There perfect means the degree of reaching the principle. One big reason is that capitalism came before socialism.

Also you can say that Lenin was both wrong and right. He was right in that it would be very hard for parlamantarian democatic socialist goverment to get away from the capitalistic power structures. But the results from his method was much more worse then the democratic route. But sadly he inspired alot of other countries following his path, many times because they didn't even have a choise.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
This question is a little odd. Socialism is a way to manage an economy. It's like asking what the difference is between democracy and a capitalist government. A democracy can be either capitalist or socialist. For that matter, according to Marx, a socialist/communist system is supposed to have a democratic government.
No, Marx just thought that the state would someday magically disappear much like these anarchist folks here, but until that time he said that there would be no Democracy that the state would be totalitarian. It was Trotsky who thought that Democracy could work with Socialism but he was just as stupid as Marx and he got an ice pick in his head from a fellow "Comrade" for his troubles, Capitalism is the only economic system suitable to Liberty. What they thought and what was true are two very different things. Locke had it right from the get go life, liberty, and property this is a concept that the United States based its Constitution and Bill of Rights on and the only one suitable to a free society Marx was a hack compared to Locke.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Democracy is Socialism

Has the Definition of Democracy been changed over the years?

- Democracy
A goverment of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,... without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Army Training Manual Concerning Citizenship 1928
...
How do you ignore a poster?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Capitalism is the only economic system suitable to Liberty.
The Guilded Age?
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, Marx just thought that the state would someday magically disappear
Not magically, because he thought that when the abolition of classes has been achieved that the state would "wither away". Because in a Marxist view, the state is sort of like a tool for the ruling class to supress the other class. Because when classes have been abolished the need for a state is no longer existant, because classes are no more. Also the reason why we want it to wither away because as I stated before it is a tool of repression, it is not wanted.
much like these anarchist folks here
No, anarchism is the abolition of the state, anarchists advocate the state's abolition. A Marxist does not advocate the abolition, merely the "withering away".
but until that time he said that there would be no Democracy that the state would be totalitarian
Where, I am no doubt more literated in Marxism than you, and I have yet to find any real evidence of your claim.
It was Trotsky who thought that Democracy could work with Socialism
Yes, Trotsky did moreso stress that democracy is essential in socialism than past leaders. This is in a reaction to Stalin who made the USSR into a totalitarian state and called it socialism. But all stressed the need for democracy.
Marx was a hack compared to Locke.
Is this another one of your worthless opinions or fact? Because before when you went around posting Locke it sort of sounded like this:" It is every person's God-given right to own private property, and if anyone says otherwise, they despise humanity." Marx however was not so utopian, Marx was a journalist, historian, philosopher, sociologist, economist and professional revolutionary. Locke was a philosopher, thats about it for him. Also Marx and Locke philosophised on different areas, Marx was more of a social philosopher, about society. Locke was not. Also Locke was an empiricist, Marx was a materialist and dialectician. But then again I'm not very familiar with Locke, so I can't make any good arguement against him, if any.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Comrade Brian said:
Not magically, because he thought that when the abolition of classes has been achieved that the state would "wither away". Because in a Marxist view, the state is sort of like a tool for the ruling class to supress the other class. Because when classes have been abolished the need for a state is no longer existant, because classes are no more. Also the reason why we want it to wither away because as I stated before it is a tool of repression, it is not wanted.

No, anarchism is the abolition of the state, anarchists advocate the state's abolition. A Marxist does not advocate the abolition, merely the "withering away".

Where, I am no doubt more literated in Marxism than you, and I have yet to find any real evidence of your claim.

Yes, Trotsky did moreso stress that democracy is essential in socialism than past leaders. This is in a reaction to Stalin who made the USSR into a totalitarian state and called it socialism. But all stressed the need for democracy.

Is this another one of your worthless opinions or fact? Because before when you went around posting Locke it sort of sounded like this:" It is every person's God-given right to own private property, and if anyone says otherwise, they despise humanity." Marx however was not so utopian, Marx was a journalist, historian, philosopher, sociologist, economist and professional revolutionary. Locke was a philosopher, thats about it for him. Also Marx and Locke philosophised on different areas, Marx was more of a social philosopher, about society. Locke was not. Also Locke was an empiricist, Marx was a materialist and dialectician. But then again I'm not very familiar with Locke, so I can't make any good arguement against him, if any.
Dude the very basic premise of Marx's Communist Manifesto is that Socialism is a better economic system than Capitalism and the two can not coexist or intermingle and that a Government can be formed around another economic system but Marx was wrong, because the only economic system which is condusive to liberty is Capitalism something that has been proven with every system of Government to be created based on his tennants. Without life, liberty, and property a man can not truly be free. Locke wrote the
2nd Treatise of Government which is the very basis for the United State's Constitution and Bill of Rights and you're going to tell me that he wasn't a social philosopher? If you don't know who Locke is or understand his philosophy then you have no idea what the U.S. is founded on.

Why do you cling so strongly to the ideology of a discredited philosopher (Marx) when the ideology of another philosopher has been proven to be so successful (Locke)?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No, Marx just thought that the state would someday magically disappear much like these anarchist folks here, but until that time he said that there would be no Democracy that the state would be totalitarian. It was Trotsky who thought that Democracy could work with Socialism but he was just as stupid as Marx and he got an ice pick in his head from a fellow "Comrade" for his troubles, Capitalism is the only economic system suitable to Liberty. What they thought and what was true are two very different things. Locke had it right from the get go life, liberty, and property this is a concept that the United States based its Constitution and Bill of Rights on and the only one suitable to a free society Marx was a hack compared to Locke.
Same old denying facts all the time huh tot?
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Denying facts? Why is it the people who are the least educated in these matters are always the ones who love to use the term facts without actually presenting any?
Well the fact is that your nation based on property rights grew from its original 13 states through conquest from Spain and Mexico? Not to mention a systematic process of ethnic cleansing in the case of those various "Indian" nations who were nearly all eliminated in one of the largest land grabs in modern history" (Cox 2004:598-599)


Michael Cox (2004) "Empire imperialism and the bush doctrine" Review of international Studies, 30
 

Ivan The Terrible

Ivan The Terrible > All
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
27
Location
In your mind
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A poster earlier said this,

We saw capitalism fail in the late 1800's in the US
The United States has never been a true capitalist society! How did we see it fail?
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This image shows my opinion on capitalism/socialism:


Comrade Brian said:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Marx was a hack compared to Locke.
Is this another one of your worthless opinions or fact?
I would rather agree with his "opinion." And so does a couple centuries of history. Locke's ideas have worked, Marx's are impossible in real life.

Ivan The Terrible said:
A poster earlier said this,



We saw capitalism fail in the late 1800's in the US

The United States has never been a true capitalist society! How did we see it fail?
That was me. It was very very close to capitalism. In the late 1800's after the civil war is called the "Gilded Age." No regulation of business, businesses controlled/bribed much of the government, they were almost the de facto government of the US.

Can you name any presidents that served between Grant and TR (1870's to very early 1900's)? Not many people can, because they took a back seat in government, and business took the wheel.

Not to say that there wasn't great industrialization and technology advance, just that the people didn't control the government.
 
Top Bottom