Loxd4
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 206
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
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?
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.
Loxd4 said:so what are you trying to say? there is no differents...
Loxd4 said:Ok, why do they hate each other?
We don't want too far left, nor too far right.
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".What are the different between democracy and socialism government?
Socialism isn't a utopia.Socialism is supposed to be like a man-made-utopia
Socialism is democracy.So why is socialism such a threat to democracy?
I'm inclined to agree, on some scale. Democracy is usually just a social-system, socialism is a social and economic system.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.
Which is the state-controlled one?Democracy vs socialism as it is referred to today in our media usually means a free market economy versus a government controlled economy.
That is not socialism, nor what socialists dream of.Tell a man to work his whole life for the greater good and he will do only what he must to get by.
Tony Blair is a capitalist. And considered a right-wing one by that, at least by the British members here.Remember, Tony Blair is supposedly a socialist.
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.
-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.
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?
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.
...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
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Capitalism is the only economic system suitable to Liberty.
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, Marx just thought that the state would someday magically disappear
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".much like these anarchist folks here
Where, I am no doubt more literated in Marxism than you, and I have yet to find any real evidence of your claim.but until that time he said that there would be no Democracy that the state would be totalitarian
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.It was Trotsky who thought that Democracy could work with Socialism
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.Marx was a hack compared to Locke.
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.
Same old denying facts all the time huh tot?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.
jfuh said:Same old denying facts all the time huh tot?
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?
We saw capitalism fail in the late 1800's in the US
Comrade Brian said:Trajan Octavian Titus said:Marx was a hack compared to Locke.
Is this another one of your worthless opinions or fact?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?