Socialism vs. Democracy

[trabeatedtravis]

Haha wow
I'm surprised there seems to be such capitalist support here, but I like it. I became a capitalist after I began following and reading books by Peter Schiff. The guy is brilliant.

Here is a question I have been wondering about:
What is the difference between socialism and democracy?

Aside from which system you believe in, don't they both reach the same net result? In socialism AND democracy, every person is given an equal voice. However, the actual power ends up in the hands of representatives, because it would be ludicrous to expect every citizen to vote on every affair of the state. I feel like this is why the Constitution calls for a republic and not a democracy.

Am I missing something?

 

[medicineman]

My take on the two systems is probably well established on this venue. In the simplest terms it is this:
Capitalism requires capital to be successful, letting your money do the work. A hard row to hoe for poor people.
Socialism, the right kind, is a social structure as the name implies, meaning it is more about the people and less about the money/capital.
I actually believe in a mixture, a socialistic form of capitalism if you will. One where the people/workers actually own the company and get a cut of the "profit". A profit limited to a certain percent of gross income. all income over the maximum would be used for social programs. A system dedicated to people, not money. This would end world wars and allow the prolific thinkers to concentrate on making humanity better, rather than designing new weaponry.

 

[undertheice]

Am I missing something?

what you're missing is that the two belong to totally separate realms. one is a matter of economic theory and the other concerns itself with political and social control. though the two may be inextricably entwined, it is only the fools who believe that the state should be solely responsible for the welfare of the people who demand that they be one and the same. democracy (mob rule) is the means of forcing all members of the population into conformity with the majority. it seeks to eliminate the individual as a meaningful force for change, eliminating individuality in favor of the herd mentality. socialism (economic control by the state) is the means by which the few within government seek to gain control over the marketplace, eliminating competition in favor of some idealized norm concocted by the needs of the political elite's agenda and portrayed as necessary for the good of society.

though the attempt is occasionally made to meld the two into a communal society, large scale success is an impossibility and really isn't even a desirable outcome. the complexity of any large enterprise demands specialization and management. with management comes the capacity for the accumulation of power and its abuse. by consolidating the powers of law enforcement, the military, the judicial system and the economy within one body (the government) the temptation to abuse becomes overwhelming and the totalitarian state arises. a successful melding of the two would lead to no better outcome. mob rule invariably tends toward an insistence that the lowest common denominator become the established and enforced norm. individuality is subverted, along with any chance of innovation and excellence. the mob, in charge of all facets of a society, cannot help but demand that mediocrity be maintained and this destines any society to stagnation and eventual collapse.

the only logical answer is to separate the economy from the political world, allowing business to operate independent of the demands of the state. with intelligent and equitably enforced regulation by the state merely to avoid the interference with the rights of all individuals, this provides the needed separation of power that ensures neither government nor business interests accrue unwarranted power over the citizenry at large. the more localized the oversight of business, the better. statewide or local oversight and enforcement may better take into account the needs of the region than some bureaucrat a thousand miles away. this frees the more centralized authority to deal with international affairs, those matters that concern the nation as a whole and to ensure that those localized authorities do not interfere with the basic rights accorded the individuals of the nation.

 

[undertheice]

I actually believe in a mixture, a socialistic form of capitalism if you will. One where the people/workers actually own the company and get a cut of the "profit". A profit limited to a certain percent of gross income. all income over the maximum would be used for social programs. A system dedicated to people, not money. This would end world wars and allow the prolific thinkers to concentrate on making humanity better, rather than designing new weaponry.

nice to see you're just as naive as always.

what you seem to forget is that under a capitalist system there is nothing to prevent the "workers" from doing just what you propose. they occasionally do and sometimes even succeed. what capitalism allows and your rather foolish notion denies is the reward for success beyond what someone else considers sufficient. your concept merely plays to the envy of the mob, rewarding them for their mere existence and denying the productive the fruits of their labors beyond what those jealous fools will allow. it doesn't eliminate greed. it only places more profit in the hands of the greediest few, the politicians. government run social programs are notoriously wasteful and you would have the cream ripped from the people themselves and invested in that black hole of waste.

capitalism isn't about the money. it is about the enrichment of the lives of those who labor and invest the fruits of their labor. the crumbs you would have government hand out to the people are to be torn from the investment pool that provides the impetus for great enterprise. instead of investing in success, you would have us invest in poverty and slavery. you would have us chain ourselves to the agenda of the few. what point is there in productivity when the wages of mediocrity are all that we will be allowed?

the very idea that such mediocrity would be the end of war is ludicrous. there will always be some excuse for war. only if all men are bent to one will can there be any hope to end such conflict and that would be the end of freedom as well. it is a simple truth that mankind is driven to accumulate more in order to better his lot in life. if he is not allowed to earn more, he will undoubtedly attempt to steal it. this is one of the root causes of international conflict and creating a society in which such accumulation through legitimate means is limited cannot help but lead to escalating violence as a means to regain the potential for unlimited accumulation.

i'm afraid your dreams of utopia fall flat on all fronts. there is no renaissance without strife, no progress without pain. the reign of mediocrity you propose would create more unrest than it would than it would end.

 

[medicineman]

Dear under, as usual you overstate the simple premis of people working together as anti capitalistic. Your statement that people can break loose from the slave state of being a capitalistic worker drone to rise to heights akin to J Paul Getty is ludacris. Out of the millions of workers that are oppressed by capitalism, how many actually succeed in this endeavor. I'm pretty sure the % is way below .001%. I know some "capitalists", not the millionaire types but capitalists none the less. They are never satisfied with their wealth status. Too much is never enough. They expect their employees to sacrifice while they are on a buying spree. Cutting wages while buying new toys for themselves. This is the bane of capitalism, selfish greed. Overcome that emotion and the planet end it's inhabitants will be much better off. Just because one could not steal all the wealth from an enterprise for themselves, would not be the end of the world as you know it. I agree that the main players in the enterprise should get more out of it, but not in the porportions that now exist in the capitalistic thievery going on in todays marketplace. No-one deserves the opulence that is now on display by the worlds wealthy, while starvation and incredible poverty exists accross the globe. Will it ever change? I doubt it, but one can hope the world takes a turn for the better. Condoning the current financial conditions on the planet is tantamount to extreme cruelty.

 

[undertheice]

Dear under, as usual you overstate the simple premise of people working together as anti capitalistic. Your statement that people can break loose from the slave state of being a capitalistic worker drone to rise to heights akin to J Paul Getty is ludicrous. Out of the millions of workers that are oppressed by capitalism, how many actually succeed in this endeavor. I'm pretty sure the % is way below .001%. I know some "capitalists", not the millionaire types but capitalists none the less. They are never satisfied with their wealth status. Too much is never enough. They expect their employees to sacrifice while they are on a buying spree. Cutting wages while buying new toys for themselves. This is the bane of capitalism, selfish greed. Overcome that emotion and the planet end it's inhabitants will be much better off. Just because one could not steal all the wealth from an enterprise for themselves, would not be the end of the world as you know it. I agree that the main players in the enterprise should get more out of it, but not in the proportions that now exist in the capitalistic thievery going on in today's marketplace. No-one deserves the opulence that is now on display by the worlds wealthy, while starvation and incredible poverty exists across the globe. Will it ever change? I doubt it, but one can hope the world takes a turn for the better. Condoning the current financial conditions on the planet is tantamount to extreme cruelty.

though it is possible, i never claimed that everyone can attain riches beyond their wildest dreams. it is quite possible for anyone in this country to sustain themselves comfortably, barring any number of negative incidents, by applying the same entrepreneurial spirit that has produced so many fortunes before. not everyone is destined to succeed. this is as true in a socialist society as it is in a capitalist one. the difference between the two is that the capacity for outlandish success always exists in the latter and it is nearly forbidden in the former. you rant on and on about the greed and thievery inherent in capitalism, but these are negative aspects that are not specific to that system alone. every attempt at socialist society has been rife with these corruptions as well and they become all the more dangerous when coupled with the unbridled power of the all-powerful, all-controlling state.

there is nothing anti-capitalist about people working together. indeed, such cooperation should be considered a valued part of the choices offered within a free marketplace. it is being forced to work together that runs contrary to the liberty inherent in capitalist society. the very idea that a man cannot own the fruits of his own labor is an affront to any reasonable person's sense of individual liberty. the well-being of the herd and the productivity of the hive are primitive notions that stunt our desire for exploration and limit our horizons. this may be profitable to those who seek control over the masses, but it spells stagnation and decline for the race as a whole. it is control we are talking about. some desire to be under the parental thumb, but many chafe at the idea of such constraints. to deny a man the opportunity to build upon what he creates to whatever limits he may set for himself, simply because others might not be so industrious or so lucky, is a waste of the creativity of the species and an inhumane treatment of a creature with so much potential.

this oppression that colors your view of capitalism is nothing more than man's natural need to actually work for his survival coupled with a jealousy of those who's wealth allows them to cease their labors. yes, we could take the accumulated wealth of the world to feed the hungry and house the homeless, but what morality is there in such theft? what point is there in absconding with the property of other, though it might be for a good cause, when those riches will soon run out and leave all of us hungry and naked and at the mercy of an elite group that controls our every resource as well as the power to bend us to their will?

 

[medicineman]

That is one point of view, not necessarily the correct one. I never claimed to accept oppression in either society. The oppression that has come before does not necessarily have to be present in a new version of socialism. If you read the precepts in my post on socialism, maybe you would have a clearer picture of what a fresh socialist state would look like. It would look like a plague to the top 10%, but that leaves 90% of the people that would probably benefit from it's institution. There would be pockets of individualism in commerce, actors, authors, musicians atheletes and other talented individuals, but those multimillion dollar salaries would have to go.

 

[undertheice]

That is one point of view, not necessarily the correct one. I never claimed to accept oppression in either society. The oppression that has come before does not necessarily have to be present in a new version of socialism. If you read the precepts in my post on socialism, maybe you would have a clearer picture of what a fresh socialist state would look like. It would look like a plague to the top 10%, but that leaves 90% of the people that would probably benefit from it's institution. There would be pockets of individualism in commerce, actors, authors, musicians athletes and other talented individuals, but those multimillion dollar salaries would have to go.

i've read that crap time and again. it seems the product of little more than childish naivete and a certain amount of senile dementia. that oppression that has always come before and that you just refuse to accept is the result of placing too much of the power of too many sectors of society in the grasp of a political elite. you may believe that such an eventuality can be avoided, but history has proven you wrong. your childish utopia denies human nature and seeks only to punish those you deem worthy of society's wrath. there is nothing fresh about those failed policies. there is nothing just about the wanton theft of personal property. individualism never thrives under the heel of totalitarianism, whether the authority involved is a jackbooted thug or the dictatorship of the proletariat. you merely want to deny the benefits of liberty to those you envy, based on a stereotypical depiction from some dickensian archetype. it is certainly a liberal wet dream, but an orwellian nightmare to anyone with any sense.

 

[The Mastermind]

OP,

Comparing socialism and democracy is like comparing apples and oranges. Socialism is an economic system, comparable to capitalism, and other economic systems. Democracy is a form of government, and in its purest form back to the ancient Greeks revolves around the population as a whole having a deciding factor in politics. A Republic, in which we live in, is when a representative is chosen by the people and sent to do our bidding.

From a social perspective, I hold ideologies similar to that of libertarians. From an economical stand point, I am a free-market Keynes that believes in a welfare state to a degree. My ideal welfare state would include universal healthcare, a government run system for student loans, and a bit more enhanced version of the social security we have. I also believe in private unemployment benefits and pensions, and believe they can work in the private sector.

Believing that the government having full control of the economy (socialism) or private enterprise knowing best (capitalism) in their extreme forms never work. Finding the right balance between the two is the best possible means of achieving anything. I believe in a corporatist society where business, government, and labor have to work together in achieving their own personal goals; one doesn't gain without the other picking something up along the way. While others will argue the government is inefficient, others will argue that corporations only care about the bottom line at the expense of customer's well being. The government is wasteful in its expenditures, while businesses will put forth faulty goods and hope you don't get sick. For example, the recent increase in recalls from drug products to toys and others is a result of the Obama administration and others slapping the shit out of them through fines and law suits. If it wasn't for this ability, businesses would idly go by. Consider it consumer rights. Just a small facet of what I believe.

 

[mrmadcow]

This is the bane of capitalism, selfish greed. Overcome that emotion and the planet end it's inhabitants will be much better off.

selfish greed is not a product of capitalism but of human nature.what makes you think it will disappear under socialism? the USSR had several generations to bred it out.how did they do?

The oppression that has come before does not necessarily have to be present in a new version of socialism.

people wont work hard without an incentive, capitalism uses rewards(ie; financial gain,aka greed),socialism has always used oppression, can you come up with a practical alternative?

I actually believe in a mixture, a socialistic form of capitalism if you will. One where the people/workers actually own the company and get a cut of the "profit". A profit limited to a certain percent of gross income. all income over the maximum would be used for social programs.

again, where is the incentive to create profit above the maximum you would allow? once a person or company owned by the workers hits its max,why should it toil for more?
lets say a factory exists where the workers own & devided everything equally,come December 1, the accountant says we have earned the max allowed by law & all profits for the month of December must be turned over to the government "to better mankind". How many would show up? & how productive would they be?

I know some "capitalists", not the millionaire types but capitalists none the less. They are never satisfied with their wealth status.[/COLOR]

its their drive to make more money(aka greed) that creates jobs.if by hiring 10 people,they can make x$, by hiring 20 people,they can make 2x$. take away the ability to make more & what incentive do they have to hire more people?
if my factory can turn a million dollar profit with 10 workers,why would I hire 20 workers if the government is going to take away everything over a million dollars?

bottom line, how do you stop human nature (greed) from pissing all over your socialist society?

 

[mrmadcow]

i've read that crap time and again. it seems the product of little more than childish naivete and a certain amount of senile dementia. that oppression that has always come before and that you just refuse to accept is the result of placing too much of the power of too many sectors of society in the grasp of a political elite. you may believe that such an eventuality can be avoided, but history has proven you wrong. your childish utopia denies human nature and seeks only to punish those you deem worthy of society's wrath. there is nothing fresh about those failed policies. there is nothing just about the wanton theft of personal property. individualism never thrives under the heel of totalitarianism, whether the authority involved is a jackbooted thug or the dictatorship of the proletariat. you merely want to deny the benefits of liberty to those you envy, based on a stereotypical depiction from some dickensian archetype. it is certainly a liberal wet dream, but an orwellian nightmare to anyone with any sense.

well said..again

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to undertheice again.

 

[sharon1]

Your statement that people can break loose from the slave state of being a capitalistic worker drone to rise to heights akin to J Paul Getty is ludacris. Out of the millions of workers that are oppressed by capitalism, how many actually succeed in this endeavor. I'm pretty sure the % is way below .001%. I know some "capitalists", not the millionaire types but capitalists none the less. They are never satisfied with their wealth status. Too much is never enough. They expect their employees to sacrifice while they are on a buying spree. Cutting wages while buying new toys for themselves. This is the bane of capitalism, selfish greed. Overcome that emotion and the planet end it's inhabitants will be much better off. Just because one could not steal all the wealth from an enterprise for themselves, would not be the end of the world as you know it. I agree that the main players in the enterprise should get more out of it, but not in the porportions that now exist in the capitalistic thievery going on in todays marketplace. No-one deserves the opulence that is now on display by the worlds wealthy, while starvation and incredible poverty exists accross the globe. Will it ever change? I doubt it, but one can hope the world takes a turn for the better. Condoning the current financial conditions on the planet is tantamount to extreme cruelty.

Unfreaking believable.
I am flabbergasted that there are people walking around in this country that believe this shit.

Please tell me, oh wise medicine man...how much is too much?
Who should detirmine what would constitute "too much opulence"?
Would you please name one place on this whole fucking planet that hasn't been touched by greedy individuals?

Answer this...is it ever ok for an employer to go "on a buying spree", while he currently has employees that make less than he does?
If so, how much is the employer allowed to spend say, if he makes 2 million a year?
How about if he makes 50 billion?

At what point would you cut off the CEO from spending? How could you possibly enforce such a step?

Your opinions aside (because they are clearly far-fetched and totally unconstitutional)...it is brazenly apparent that you have given next to no thought at all into this post of yours.

I am reminded of a quote I read by Thomas Sowell...When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.

Education.....well....education and the ability to use the common sense God gave a duck....would go a long way for you.

 

[medicineman]

i've read that crap time and again. it seems the product of little more than childish naivete and a certain amount of senile dementia. that oppression that has always come before and that you just refuse to accept is the result of placing too much of the power of too many sectors of society in the grasp of a political elite. you may believe that such an eventuality can be avoided, but history has proven you wrong. your childish utopia denies human nature and seeks only to punish those you deem worthy of society's wrath. there is nothing fresh about those failed policies. there is nothing just about the wanton theft of personal property. individualism never thrives under the heel of totalitarianism, whether the authority involved is a jackbooted thug or the dictatorship of the proletariat. you merely want to deny the benefits of liberty to those you envy, based on a stereotypical depiction from some dickensian archetype. it is certainly a liberal wet dream, but an orwellian nightmare to anyone with any sense.

The end of capitalism is coming. It will be painful for a few, but beneficial for many. I'm sure you are in the painful category. Capitaliosm has proven that greed trumps humanity, in spades. When people (Like you) view socialism from the completely brainwashed position that you have exposed on this forum, time after time, there is no chance of changing their minds. It is so sad, because people like me would welcome you to the light. The real feeling of brotherhood and cameraderie that capitalists never really get to feel. I would offer you a hand, a meal, whatever I could, but you and your stupid pride would refuse. That is the difference between real socialism and capitalism. Thank the Lord, Capitalism is going the way of the dinosaurs. The sad part is, they will probably start a war to end all wars and basically destroy most of humanity, that is the capitalist mantra, war.

 

[BudMcLovin]

The end of capitalism is coming. It will be painful for a few, but beneficial for many. I'm sure you are in the painful category. Capitaliosm has proven that greed trumps humanity, in spades. When people (Like you) view socialism from the completely brainwashed position that you have exposed on this forum, time after time, there is no chance of changing their minds. It is so sad, because people like me would welcome you to the light. The real feeling of brotherhood and cameraderie that capitalists never really get to feel. I would offer you a hand, a meal, whatever I could, but you and your stupid pride would refuse. That is the difference between real socialism and capitalism. Thank the Lord, Capitalism is going the way of the dinosaurs. The sad part is, they will probably start a war to end all wars and basically destroy most of humanity, that is the capitalist mantra, war.

I don’t understand what people have against capitalism. Capitalism is economic freedom, which goes hand in hand with personal freedom. It also is the most efficient means of production. Because resources are privately owned competition insures resources are allocated to what the consumers want to purchase. Consumers determine what workers get paid by what they purchase not some union or government goon. It assumes people act out of self interest which for the most part they do.

How anyone would want the government to control the economy is beyond me. Socialism is just one small step from communism and you can keep them both. What gives others the right to part of my life? That’s what the governments doing when it takes my money, that I’ve gave part of my life to earn, then gives it to someone who’s too lazy to earn for themselves. Why is my life less valuable?

Capitalism isn’t going anywhere in America. The current socialist President will be out in 4. See sometimes Americans need a reminder how insane socialism actually is to realize how great we actually have it because of capitalism.

 

[medicineman]

I don’t understand what people have against capitalism. Capitalism is economic freedom, which goes hand in hand with personal freedom. It also is the most efficient means of production. Because resources are privately owned competition insures resources are allocated to what the consumers want to purchase. Consumers determine what workers get paid by what they purchase not some union or government goon. It assumes people act out of self interest which for the most part they do.

How anyone would want the government to control the economy is beyond me. Socialism is just one small step from communism and you can keep them both. What gives others the right to part of my life? That’s what the governments doing when it takes my money, that I’ve gave part of my life to earn, then gives it to someone who’s too lazy to earn for themselves. Why is my life less valuable?

Capitalism isn’t going anywhere in America. The current socialist President will be out in 4. See sometimes Americans need a reminder how insane socialism actually is to realize how great we actually have it because of capitalism.

Keep dreaming. Socialism will not be instituted in America in our lifetime, so you can hoard all you want, But we'll be lucky if the greedy ass capitalists don't drop the bomb, the big one, on sombody, and they retaliate, goodby retirement, LOL.

 

[sharon1]

Still waiting for your answers to my questions there medman.

 

[budsmoker87]

I can't believe my ears

Are people really calling this "capitalism" in America still? Where's the free market enterprise, I ask you? When people from PRIVATE BUSINESS take EXECUTIVE POSITIONS in PUBLIC OFFICE, you no longer have capitalism, or socialism, or whatever the fuck people are shouting these days about Obama. It's called fascism...it's something we've had for a long time in this country. From all the financial "advisors" coming from the Federal Reserve Bank, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, AIG and other "hedge funds"....to the defense secretaries and other pentagon officials coming into power from raytheon, blackwater, etc.


Now what is socialism? Socialism is an equal redistribution of wealth. In America, we have the LARGEST GAP in distribution of wealth of ANY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY. So again, I ask you...where's the equality/socialism there?


Christ I could go on, but if ppl don't see it for what it is now, then my arguments/points are useless...but to summarize...


capitalism has been dead for a LONG, LOOONGG time in this country

and socialism never existed and surely does NOT exist now...not even remotely close. You want a prime example of TRUE socialism? Then watch a BBC documentary about remote tribes living in the western pacific, amazon, africa, etc.

 

[mrmadcow]

.....Capitaliosm has proven that greed trumps humanity, in spades. ...... The real feeling of brotherhood and cameraderie that capitalists never really get to feel. .....

OK this just proves you are not in touch w/ reality.are you saying capitalist never give to charity or help others out? WTF! put down the bong. seek help. do you really belive this drivel that you type?
maybe that is the answer!! MM does't believe the shit he spews,he just likes to see others bang their head against the wall.
when surrounded by women & I get the urge to throw shit at the fan,I will ask if anyone knows why wedding dresses are white? answer- because traditionally, all household appliances are white!!!

and that is what you are doing MM! am I right??

if not,you still haven't answered my question
how do you stop human nature (greed) from pissing all over your socialist society?