[omegaword]

i am myself a democratic socialist, which roughly combines the idea that one can have people both be free to elect their leaders and still live in a socialist state, somewhat like a welfare state, but more socialist. opinions?

[Cartertonian]

Hello omegaword, welcome to PoFo.

Perhaps you might like to introduce yourself in The Lobby?

As to your question, what intrigues me is the difference between a democratic socialist and a social democrat. I'm firmly one of the latter, and what disturbs me about socialism is that as I understand it, it's supposed to be a transitional phase on the way to communism.

[Meta777]

Depending on what exactly you mean by 'socialism',
I can say that I've often found myself asking the exact same question.

Is public ownership of resources (and or taxation) incompatible with democracy?
I don't see why they would be, in fact I think such a mix would be a great combination.
Not that I think there should not be any private ownership at all. In my opinion, 'shared' ownership would be ideal.

For socialism (or public ownership of resources) to be compatible with democracy though,
the majority of the people must be in favor of it. (otherwise, it is not democracy).
Many people fear the idea of socialism though, because of its past, and or because of the constant propaganda.
They fear it so much, that even a slight move towards anything considered socialist is instantly viewed as bad for the county.

Some fear it so much that they instead run as fast as they can in the other direction.
I think though that the general mood of people, in the U.S. and in other places, is beginning to shift.
It seems that there are fewer and fewer people who view socialism as an absolute evil.
More people it seems are understanding what socialism actually it.
More people are in favor of ideas that were at one point labeled socialist.

People want taxes on the wealthy, people want affordable healthcare, they want the government to provide them with jobs.
These things may not actually be socialist concepts, but that they are constantly labeled as such dose not seem to curve anyone.
As for what people think of real socialism, it is hard to tell, but what is almost certain is that they are fed up with unregulated capitalism.
It depends on who you ask as to whether such a shift away from capitalism entails a shift towards socialism.
Does it mean that we will eventually become a pure socialist state? I don't know myself, I believe a Marxist would say yes.
Is this move good for the country. Considering our current state of being, I would say that yes it is.

-Meta

[Vera Politica]

i am myself a democratic socialist, which roughly combines the idea that one can have people both be free to elect their leaders and still live in a socialist state, somewhat like a welfare state, but more socialist. opinions?

Soviet
[noun] 1. an elected local, district, or national council in the former Soviet Union.

[omegaword]

Soviet
[noun] 1. an elected local, district, or national council in the former Soviet Union.[/quote]

i am aware of what a soviet is, however the soviet union perhaps excluding its first few years, lost the second word in that definition, unless you count being put in power by the ruling class as elected, which i do not really. as to other questions, my ideal democratic socialism would retain elected officials American style, have nationalized industries, high tax's, but which would be counter balanced by the government supplying most everyday items, for example, the majority of a farmers crop would be taken by the government, but things like food, farm equipment, electricity, water, heat, air conditioning, perhaps even things like TVs, radios and other commodities would be provided in return. that way, all the other money he made could be put to non-essentials while all else was taken care of. prices would be standardized, but adjusted so that producers could always be sure of selling there items to their fellow locals before the government, despite it having the most plentiful stock. also, with a system of checks and balances similar to those in most pure democracies, the people could be reasonably sure of their government. finally, and this is something i feel is important, the government would pay for election campaigns and officials could not accept donations. this is a serious problem in America today, fat cats having too much government sway.
i dont really know how big of a difference there might be between my and social democrats ideals.
finally i really dont expect something like this to happen in America. someone said, quite correctly, that America is terrified of socialism, in a way similar to that of medieval Christians were of heresy (the last bit was from me, not the a fore mentioned person). the only way i could see this becoming possible is if a totally new nation arose based on these ideas of if a already communist country decide to move a little less totalitarian direction.

[omegaword]

about the government paying for campaigns, the amount given to each candidate would vary based on popularity. it would require some serious thought. i am not sure how it would really work, but with serious thought a way could be found.

[Social_Critic]

Omegaworld, if by socialism you mean a state where the government owns the means of production and commerce, then you are wrong. To keep this at the 8.4th grade reading level Obama uses in his speeches, I will add that "government owns the means of production and commerce" means the government owns a lot of the economy, and this in turn means most of you guys work for the government. Somebody like me wouldn't work for the government because in such a state I would do one of two things:

Option 1. Build a raft and go to Miami to enjoy living in a capitalist society.

or

Option 2. Go underground and become a thief so I can use the illegal proceeds to write anti-government pamphlets and instruction booklets on how to build a raft and get to Miami tanned, fully hydrated and with the energy to get to the beach, thus becoming a duly undocumented dry foot.

I could also write a fairly long and detailed document, some may call it a book, describing why this idea of a socialist democracy is a cockamamie idea which originates in the minds of those who forget the fine print. But to put it in a nutshell, you can't have a democracy when power gets concentrated. Many of us think power is concentrated in the US to such an extent the word democracy no longer applies to what we have. But if you think the USA is bad, that socialist democracy hummus you are dreaming up is even worse. When the state is the employer of choice, controls the unions, designates those who run the companies and also happens to boss the army, the police, and the people who give you the permit to bury your grandfather, then the state is absolutely powerful, and as described by thinkers from Plato to Walt Disney, this leads to dictatorship, terror, and the lack of spare parts for your water pump.

[Pants-of-dog]

There was one experiment at making a socialist democracy, Allende's Chile.

But the USA killed it, and the USSR let it happen. There are obvious reasons why the USA and the USSR would not have wanted it to work.

[Social_Critic]

Pants, that's highly theoretical and iffy, because Allende shot himself during a popular revolt led by Pinochet and other patriotic revolutionaries.

Now that I got your attention, I don't have the foggiest idea if Allende would have made it work or not, because nobody knows what the heck Allende had in mind.

What we do know is that my previous post is concentrated moxie, something the commies can't ever deal with is the way their regimes degenerate to favor party members, who morph into a bunch of fascist parasites who pad the way for their relatives to take over. And that's if they last long enough to give up power, something they do when they turn something like 80 or 90.

[Pants-of-dog]

Pants, that's highly theoretical and iffy, because Allende shot himself during a popular revolt led by Pinochet and other patriotic revolutionaries.

I have no idea why that fact has any bearing on my claim.

Now that I got your attention, I don't have the foggiest idea if Allende would have made it work or not, because nobody knows what the heck Allende had in mind.

You mean, except for all the books and other writings that he produced clarifying his position, his long and extensive election campaign where he clearly delineated his positions, the USSR and US intelligence archives that we now have access to, and all the other material surrounding his political career.

[omegaword]

Omegaworld, if by socialism you mean a state where the government owns the means of production and commerce, then you are wrong. To keep this at the 8.4th grade reading level Obama uses in his speeches, I will add that "government owns the means of production and commerce" means the government owns a lot of the economy, and this in turn means most of you guys work for the government. Somebody like me wouldn't work for the government because in such a state I would do one of two things:

Option 1. Build a raft and go to Miami to enjoy living in a capitalist society.

or

Option 2. Go underground and become a thief so I can use the illegal proceeds to write anti-government pamphlets and instruction booklets on how to build a raft and get to Miami tanned, fully hydrated and with the energy to get to the beach, thus becoming a duly undocumented dry foot.

I could also write a fairly long and detailed document, some may call it a book, describing why this idea of a socialist democracy is a cockamamie idea which originates in the minds of those who forget the fine print. But to put it in a nutshell, you can't have a democracy when power gets concentrated. Many of us think power is concentrated in the US to such an extent the word democracy no longer applies to what we have. But if you think the USA is bad, that socialist democracy hummus you are dreaming up is even worse. When the state is the employer of choice, controls the unions, designates those who run the companies and also happens to boss the army, the police, and the people who give you the permit to bury your grandfather, then the state is absolutely powerful, and as described by thinkers from Plato to Walt Disney, this leads to dictatorship, terror, and the lack of spare parts for your water pump.

i do agree with one part of your statement, power is to concentrated in the U.S., but its the corporations who have power. and through their paid politicians, they can almost always decide who is elected to the important stuff. anyone who doesn't A. have a crap ton of cash to start or B. doesn't have some to put him on the board and then get corporate backing, will never get elected. also, i do not define my ideas as a democracy, more the ideal form of the soviet union where they have democratic principals. and i dont know about you, but the way im seeing things this incredible capitalist society we are living in doesn't seem to be what it once was. our empire fell apart before most medieval monarchist ones, so tell me how exactly this is superior. also dont try the retort about the USSR dieing first, as it was not really what i propose here. i would liken it more to pre CIA
coup which deposed Guatemala's most popular government EVER. which consequently was a semi socialist government which was elected by the people. my idea takes that a little further.

[Fraqtive42]

As to your question, what intrigues me is the difference between a democratic socialist and a social democrat. I'm firmly one of the latter, and what disturbs me about socialism is that as I understand it, it's supposed to be a transitional phase on the way to communism.

Socialism itself is a very hard term to pin down, but the definition that you refer to is exclusively Marxian. Many alternate definitions exist, which generally refer to the pursuit of an economic system separate from communism entirely. This socialist economy, pursued in its own regard, can refer to one of three systems that I know of: cooperative (or democratically controlled) enterprise, common ownership of enterprise (when ownership is not retained by a selective group of individuals, and instead by all), or state ownership (i.e. the public sector). A characteristic feature of a socialist economy is production for use rather than for profit. This feature is generally the one which I use to define non-Marxian socialism (excepting forms of market socialism, perhaps).

Democratic socialism itself is especially broad, so omegaword may have to be more specific about whether he advocates reform or revolution. Social democracy historically used to refer to reformist socialism (i.e. favoring democratic change to society instead of spontaneous or organized revolution as a means to achieve socialism). This basically means that historical social democracy and democratic socialism are not mutually exclusive, so it is possible to use the terms interchangeably if one is explicitly referring to socialist social democracy and gradualist democratic socialism. Contemporary or modern social democracy of course still supports the capitalist mode of production, but reformed to approximate the ideals of social justice.

[Social_Critic]

Pants, I thought you were older and wiser. Rule number one for politicians is to lie about their real plans. Rule number two is to cover up their lies so we vote for them. Rule number three is change course later when they got power. Rule number four is re-write history to make people believe they never said what they said they would do. Rule number five is to brag about how they do what they promised.

Hell, nobody has an excuse, all of us are idiots for believing what we want to believe. The human brain has been designed to absorb the most outlandish garbage, sort it out into neat piles, and then avoid the smell as it rots. Which is the reason why I'm metamorphosing into a huge roach hiding behind my couch, and wear a person suit when I go out to look for food.

[Pants-of-dog]

Pants, I thought you were older and wiser. Rule number one for politicians is to lie about their real plans. Rule number two is to cover up their lies so we vote for them. Rule number three is change course later when they got power. Rule number four is re-write history to make people believe they never said what they said they would do. Rule number five is to brag about how they do what they promised.

Hell, nobody has an excuse, all of us are idiots for believing what we want to believe. The human brain has been designed to absorb the most outlandish garbage, sort it out into neat piles, and then avoid the smell as it rots. Which is the reason why I'm metamorphosing into a huge roach hiding behind my couch, and wear a person suit when I go out to look for food.

Dude, don't mention me or quote my posts if you are going to write something that has nothing to do with what I said.

[Social_Critic]

Sorry. The two were linked in a subtle way, an umbilical chord which wound itself quite well, I thought, because all we know about Allende is what he said he would do, and we also know individuals like Allende lie all the time. Kapish?

[Pants-of-dog]

Sorry. The two were linked in a subtle way, an umbilical chord which wound itself quite well, I thought, because all we know about Allende is what he said he would do, and we also know individuals like Allende lie all the time. Kapish?

If you wish to provide verifiable evidence of Allende lying at any point, feel free.

[omegaword]

As to your question, what intrigues me is the difference between a democratic socialist and a social democrat. I'm firmly one of the latter, and what disturbs me about socialism is that as I understand it, it's supposed to be a transitional phase on the way to communism. [/quote]
Socialism itself is a very hard term to pin down, but the definition that you refer to is exclusively Marxian. Many alternate definitions exist, which generally refer to the pursuit of an economic system separate from communism entirely. This socialist economy, pursued in its own regard, can refer to one of three systems that I know of: cooperative (or democratically controlled) enterprise, common ownership of enterprise (when ownership is not retained by a selective group of individuals, and instead by all), or state ownership (i.e. the public sector). A characteristic feature of a socialist economy is production for use rather than for profit. This feature is generally the one which I use to define non-Marxian socialism (excepting forms of market socialism, perhaps).

Democratic socialism itself is especially broad, so omega word may have to be more specific about whether he advocates reform or revolution. Social democracy historically used to refer to reformist socialism (i.e. favoring democratic change to society instead of spontaneous or organized revolution as a means to achieve socialism). This basically means that historical social democracy and democratic socialism are not mutually exclusive, so it is possible to use the terms interchangeably if one is explicitly referring to socialist social democracy and gradualist democratic socialism. Contemporary or modern social democracy of course still supports the capitalist mode of production, but reformed to approximate the ideals of social justice.[/quote]

i believe that no socialist government should be lead by fascists, dictators or the wealthy. to have such leaders in my mind contradicts socialism's ideals. so because these should be avoided at all cost, i believe reform, then protest to gain reform, then and only after the other two fail, violent revolution. the only reason that democracy is included in my idea is that if correctly applied it could prevent such leaders from gaining power. also it should be a direct democracy as far as elections go. no electoral college crap. also i think that my ideal government would be democratic socialism in all ways economically and socially.

[Fraqtive42]

i believe that no socialist government should be lead by fascists, dictators or the wealthy. to have such leaders in my mind contradicts socialism's ideals. so because these should be avoided at all cost, i believe reform, then protest to gain reform, then and only after the other two fail, violent revolution. the only reason that democracy is included in my idea is that if correctly applied it could prevent such leaders from gaining power. also it should be a direct democracy as far as elections go. no electoral college crap. also i think that my ideal government would be democratic socialism in all ways economically and socially.

Reform definitely would be a constituent of gradualist democratic socialism, but keep in mind that violent (and hence undemocratic) revolution immediately causes your ideology to lose its democratic character. In fact, revisionist Marxists such as Georges Sorel, who believed that violent revolution was the ideal way of attaining socialism, laid the groundwork for fascism.

On a side note, do you find yourself identifying with people such as Eduard Bernstein?

[omegaword]

i dont think that if a popular uprising supported by the people to overthrow a totalitarian regime takes place that it is undemocratic. take the U.S. revolution for example . the first true democracy in the modern world was created threw violence. as to Eduard yes, i do in a general way agree with many of his views. however i do think that unless a system is definitively socialist, and not capitalist, it will ultimately hurt the lower to middle classes more than it helps them. look at china.

[Lightman]

the first true democracy in the modern world was created threw violence.

In what sense was the post-Revolutionary Union a "true democracy"?