All depends what you mean by Democratic ,when a Marxist and more deep thinking people use the word ,we understand that Democracy really means Dictatorship by one class over another . As far as the deformed and the rapidly degenerating Workers state of North Korea ,and we can put China in as well ,Stalinism 'Socialism in a single country "or the chinese road to socialism"stopped the development towards Socialism . The position of ruling Class fell to the Political bureacracy as the indigenous capitialist Class was so weak and puny in their late historical and smashing down by their Imperialist big brothers ,USA,Britian ,France Germany. That this situation very unstable situation solidified politically after the 2nd WW. Into what was known as the Cold War. As far as the USSr being Socialism ,no it could never be ,as the Workers State is the Dictatorship of the Proletariet over all other classes ,yes a higher form of Democracy granted but only a transitional form . The mechanism for the laying of the foundations of Socialism but not Classless Stateless Socialism ! A workers State in Isolation from global economy cant develop towards Socialism without the Completion of the World Socialist Revolution and the Abolition of the Nation State System with the Global Intergration of production. Why should the Global proletariet be limited to the puny Nation State System particularly now that the Nation States everywhere are collapsing and disintergrating? Global economy under a Global proletariet ownership ,planning and Proletariet State Globally is the way forward out of the Nationalist Debacle and crisis followed by Crisis and more crisis ,unfortuately that crisis threatens the very existance of Society itself. must be resolved very shortly or we all die with capitialism's inevitable WW3.
it depends can you summarise it in a couple of sentences? In socialism, everyone produces and everyone is rewarded. In capitalism, half the people produce and other people are rewarded. The workers get just enough to live on and the people they work for take the rewards.
What I'm saying is, regardless of whether or not you personally define taxation in exchange for nanny-state behaviors as socialism, the current conception of socialism is exactly that. Therefore, when conservatives blabber on and on about "socialism", they are referring to any measure of state interference and social programs, centralized control and high taxation. This is widely understood I believe. I'm sure you are correct in saying that it isn't true "socialism" as originally defined, but as I said, that is a semantic argument. Whatever ideal of socialism you support clearly does not even exist to 99% of the public, including myself apparently, just as surely as radical anarcho-libetrarianism is a foreign concept to that same 99%. Frankly, terms change their meanings all the time in politics - just look at who we call liberals today. They are, in fact, the near polar opposite to true traditional liberalism, but it is just a term and it is unimportant. What the modern Republican base typically rails against is increased taxation on the rich and expanded social programs for the poor. Myself, I am against expanded centrallized planning and concentration of power to support any class in society and I am for increased personal responsibility and freedom.
Cloud cookooo land stuff,any human that has ever voted has done so thinking about the Ideas advanced by the party's contesting the election . The present crisis of politics is that the traditional Party's have run out of or can only rehash old Ideas. It takes the form in the USa for instance of which capitialist party will be able to impose the Idea that the Banks and Corporations are to "Big to fail"so all resourses of society and needs of Humans are to be subordinate to capitialisms needs. As far as the sham of democratic process ,only 30% of those eligable will cast a vote so 70% realise the fraud that it is. approximately half will vote Republican ,half Democrat so its down to 15% of the public will determine the result ,in fact that is not right either lets state the trurth! The candidate who raises the most money wins ! So it is only those with the money that will determine the result and thats about 1% of the population ,now what form of Democracy allows this ,oh the hint is MONEY CLASS,that would be the Dictatorship of Capitialists over the other class in the unUSA ,the proletariet. Time for that to change ,down with the dictatorship of capitial forward to democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariet over capitial. Now thats an Idea. Was giving $7 000 000 000 000 to the banks a good Idea ,yes if you are a Owner of those banks ,no if you don't own a bank. Socialism for Banks =Capitialism !
Capitalism is not socialism for banks. In the same way that the OP has been defending the term "socialism" I might as well try to defend the version of Capitalism that the left is constantly throwing out for debate. You certainly have correctly identified that welfare for the rich and banking classes is the policy put forth by both of the current ruling parties. The American system is not truly capitalistic and certain representatives are not ignorant to this fact. The reason I support Ron Paul is the same reason I would support Dennis Kucinich, both (along with a handful of others), though opposed in philosophies of how to address the issue, understand that we have neither capitalism or socialism, and realize that both parties support corporatism. It is a defunct system and I can't understand why anyone who understands that wouldn't simply get behind whatever candidate wants to expose the corruption of the system and take away the mechanisms that the corporate and political insiders have put in place to ensure they have their hands on the levers of power.
Agree.Let's look the dictatorship of what class was in the USSR and countries of the Soviet block. In general,what is the mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, can it be carried out by a party of the proletariat? The position of anti-Soviet leftists is clear. They believe that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be carried out only by factory committees or Soviets. In this case, however, is not clear why do the proletariat need the Party. At the Second Congress of Comintern Lenin said: Tanner says that he stands for the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the dictatorship of the proletariat is not conceived quite in the same way as we conceive it. He says that by the dictatorship of the proletariat we mean, in essence, the dictatorship of its organised and class-conscious minority. And, as a matter of fact, in the era of capitalism, when the masses of the workers are continuously subjected to exploitation and cannot develop their human potentialities, the most characteristic feature of working-class political parties is that they can embrace only a minority of their class. A political party can comprise only a minority of the class, in the same way as the really class-conscious workers in every capitalist society constitute only a minority of all the workers. That is why we must admit that only this class-conscious minority can guide the broad masses of the workers and lead them. In "Concerning Questions of Leninism" Stalin repeat after Lenin: :"The highest expression of the leading role of the Party, here, in the Soviet Union, in the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example, is the fact that not a single important political or organisational question is decided by our Soviet and other mass organisations without guiding directives from the Party. In this sense it could be said that the dictatorship of the proletariat is, in essence, the dictatorship of its vanguard, the dictatorship of its Party, as the main guiding force of the proletariat." As we see,Lenin and Stalin had the same view on this question:the presence or absence of the dictatorship of the proletariat is determined not by the authority of the Soviets, trade unions or other similar organizations, but by the fact,in the interesting of what class reorganization takes place,and what class is suppressed. "The difference between proletarian dictatorship and bourgeois dictatorship is that the former strikes at the exploiting minority in the interests of the exploited majority" (Lenin."The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government") So,it's clear: against what class strikes are directed - by this factor is determined the presence or absence of the dictatorship of the proletariat, not by the power to strike committees, trade unions and the Soviets. To conclude that there was no the dictatorship of the proletariat at the base of the fact of the transition of the power from the Soviets to the party and not to look at the fact, in whose interests the party use this power, is just silly. However, the Communist Party performed the essential functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat until the late 1980's. These functions primarily include: a ban on private ownership and organization of planing production and consumption in society at large. This does not deny the fact that the party in post-Stalin's time rotted,and rotted strongly. But the process of the decay required a time. Parties do not degenerate in one day. Degeneration of the proletarian party is a long historical period during which gradually, one by one, are breaking links connecting the party with the class. During this period, the party still largely protects the interests of it's class, but in some forms it can already be and it's opponent. If the USSR was not socialist, then there was no socialist revolution. As a result of "non-socialist" (that is bourgeois) revolution in the late 1930's was completely eliminated private industry and the collectivisation of agriculture was provided. In the Report to the 18 Congress Stalin said: "The collective now combine 18 million 800 thousand peasant households, ie, 93.5 percent of peasant households." Where, when and what the bourgeois-democratic revolution ever led to such results? A nice non-socialist revolution, indeed,as a result of which was expropriated by the first large and then the petty bourgeoisie (mainly peasants)! How could the bourgeois-democratic revolution allow such expropriation? Is not this expropriation a function of the dictatorship of the proletariat and it is a direct consequence of the socialist revolution? Bolsheviks sent to the village to provide the collectivization tens of thousands of trained workers - what is it, if it is not the dictatorship of the proletariat? Lenin regarded the October revolution socialist, because political power was in the hands of the proletariat, or in the hands the party of the proletariat, that is the same thing,because the party unites the best representatives of the proletariat, the most fully realizing the objective interests of their class. This circumstance allowed to pass from the bourgeois-democratic reforms to the socialist. Unfortunatelly,modern antiSoviet leftists do not understand it.They imagine socialism as a kind of ideal society, a kind of kingdom of God on earth, where rivers of milk and honey flow and sousage itself drops into the mouth. And if rivers of milk do not flow,this society can not be a socialism.Indeed, the simlest answer at the quostien: "Why do something in the USSR was not as it should be?" - is: "Because there was no socialism in the Soviet Union there was state capitalism." That's all. One sentence removed all the questions. Simple and convenient.
It there any objection to the use of Socialism to create public sector means of production that can lower our tax burden in a market friendly manner such as Hoover Dam and the Fed?
yes, words change meaning, but what is a socialist supposed to call himself if the right hijack the word to mean anything left of libertarian?
yeah, socialism is a bad word for any of that. even the NHS is not socialism, though obviously socialists support it
Our Founding Fathers wisely enumerated only sufficient Socialism, to promote, and provide for the general welfare and common defense of the United States. What objection is there to establishing public sector means of production in a market friendly manner that can generate revenue to defray the cost of government? We could be lowering our tax burden as well.
The biggest problem with this proposal is that it attempts to solve an insoluble problem, and the result is the stone thrown misses both birds. On the one hand, state control of industry would aim to achieve egalitarianism, i.e. fairness in the business realm, while on the other, the capitalist intent is that profit incentive drives industry efficiency and maximizes production. Partial state control fails miserably in both areas, as we know since we already live in a system very similar to this. Only a few industries are explicitly controlled (the US Post competes with private services), but many such as the financial world are controlled systemically, and the effect is already state dominance. The other question of course, is where you'd like to see the country heading. As we know from our history, nearly everything the state adopts becomes a permanent addition, and rarely do the "replaced" programs go away. The end result of so many expansions (primarily from wartimes) is this monstrosity we possess today, and I'm not a fan.
I tend to refrain from calling myself anything. I like to say I'm one who "questions everything", though of course I do have a bias, as anyone does. I think the only way to be fair about this is to use the words as adjectives. I tend to picture ideology as vectors, where socialism and capitalism are two which tend to push in exactly opposite directions (state control or private control). Everything, including tax breaks, NHS, even SOPA and NDAA could be conceivably classified as one or the other, or at least more aligned with one than the other. I see it as irrational for someone to claim that "pure" capitalism or "pure" socialism is perfection yet ignore everything in between. Of course in any case, a compromised system is going to experience the downside of various vectors, but a good vector will at least improve the situation. I tend to be most fond of individual freedom, and so I would say that "in most cases, a move towards personal freedom will be more beneficial than not", and vice versa. Of course I don't believe this dogmatically, common sense is critical, as some "personal freedoms" might equal the extinction of a species or the death of a human, which are irrecoverable losses.
What I would say is you cant compare them. Pure capitalism is never gonna happen, there is always gonna be quite a bit of state intervention, often on behalf of the capitalists. On the other hand communism would evolve to a point where there would be no capitalism whatsoever. And when that happened there would no longer be any need for a state.
*headdesk* The lack of logic in this astounds me, but I'm all the more curious why it holds weight with thinking people... please enlighten me. I agree that the trend of human politics will always drift towards statism, it is an inevitability in my mind, which is why reboots (revolutions) are so common, but the end result of pure communism... it would require unthinkable amounts of police state infrastructure to reign in the discontented, what could possibly perform this function if not the state? In my mind the proponents of these peaceful community world theories ultimately ignore the fact that humans are not obedient little smurfs... there is always discontent, and whether it be criminals or entrepreneurs, there will always be those who desire to achieve more (and quite frankly many more who are happy with not achieving anything!).
Why not not our tax burden through better use of public sector means of production in the example of Hoover Dam and the Fed?
Why not lower our tax burden through better use of public sector means of production in the example of Hoover Dam and the Fed?
In my opinion, Communism merely needs to more focus on HR issues in modern times to better ensure that the right people get put in the right places at the right time. For comparison and contrast, in some capital market based economies, intrepid HR chics may be known to resort to pants thievery to attempt to retain qualified labor.
Who would be discontented? Everyone would be more or less equal. Try to imagine a world where nobody is lacking anything they need and people have most of the luxuries they could want. Imagine that everything was free and there was no money. There would be no crime.
communism would be better at developing more people, everyone would be highly educated, so there would be less HR problems.
I see now, this is the classic utopian vision of society. Unfortunately you express complete ignorance of human nature. Only a machine is content with "having everything it needs". I've already pointed out, people are never content with having everything, they need something more to achieve, consume or destroy. This, I think is the one absolute fallacy of socialism, the concept that achieving equality would somehow satisfy the human mind.