There is nothing Democratic about Marxism, Communism, Socialism..

[Peacetrain]

Dictatorship by committee.. is still dictatorship.

Committees become institutions, and then take on a will and life of their own.

I will take the individual voter in a Democratic government any day over the committee.

[BeFree]

1. So

You like republican?

Our system is a republican democracy.

In fact, what we have is committees making all the decisions.
They call it congress and legislatures and councils and commissioners.

[Bandit]

5. We have a Democratic Republic that also endorses Democracy through Referendums

When people place a referendum on the ballot it is pure Democracy in action. Sometimes for the better and sometimes not. California being a prime example of both.

[villager]

2. goddamn fascist Scandanavian social safety nets!

Why can't they be "free" to massively subsidize corporations, the way we are!!?

[defendandprotect]

14. And, isn't that system what most Americans want according to polls -- !!

[EOTE]

3. Do you know what Socialism is?

Do you honestly think that's in any way approaching a dictatorship? What we have right now with our nearly unbridled capitalism is far closer to a dictatorship.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

124. They don't, and nor do you, and nor do I.

Socialism is not a well-defined term - different groups of people use it to mean different things, and no one definition is more authoritative than some of the others.

So anyone who says "Socialism means X, and people who use it to mean Y are Wrong" is pretty much certain to be wrong.

I stopped using the word when Tony Blair announced that he was a socialist and Ken Livingstone announced that he wasn't.

When asked "are you a socialist", unless your politics are well to the right of Ron Paul the only possible answer is "by some definitions".

[tekisui]

4. Democracy is not mutually exclusive from those political ideologies.

[ret5hd]

6. You are conflating economic systems and methods of governing.

Sorry, fail.

on edit: there is also nothing inherently democratic about capitalism.

[Viking12]

7. Another person that doesn't know the difference between political systems and economics systems

Marxism (whatever that means), communism, and socialism are forms of economic organization that can be implemented through different political systems.

[former9thward]

24. When have they be implemented through democratic means?

[girl gone mad]

32. Most of Europe, modern day.

[former9thward]

34. Europe is not socialist. That is just ridiculous.

European companies are overwhelmingly in private hands, capitalist, operated for profit.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. + a whole bunch

That's the 800lb gorilla in the room that some here refuse to acknowledge.

[DutchLiberal]

111. Spain, Portugal and Greece have socialist parties in government...

[former9thward]

133. Bernie Sanders is a socialist and he is in our government.

Does that make the U.S. socialist?

[DutchLiberal]

142. No, he isn't. He's in your representative body.

Spain, Portugal and Greece have socialist parties making up *government*. They govern the country. Does Sanders govern the country?

I suspect you knew the difference very well.

[former9thward]

145. Possibly you don't understand our Constitutioin.

Our Constitution has three equal branches of government. Executive, Congress and Judiciary. They all make up the government and they are equal to each other. Sanders is a member of Congress and yes, he through his votes governs the country. I actually suspect you know this very well.

[DutchLiberal]

147. Now I'm sure: you're just playing dummy. Have fun, but without me! n/t

[white_wolf]

148. The difference is this.

Sanders is one man, in those countries Dutchlibearl mentioned socialist parties actually make up majorities and coalitions which constitute the government.

[former9thward]

150. Socialism is an economic system not a political system.

I think it is intellectually sloppy to mix the two. The Communist Party runs China but I know of no one who seriously calls the Chinese economy communist. When you mix the two it becomes very easy to blame any problems 'on the capitalist part' and anything you like 'that's socialism'. I have seen posters on here claim roads and fire departments are socialist. Things that have been around for thousands of years before socialism was ever thought of. Ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

[white_wolf]

151. Economic systems are implemented through political systems.

They are not one and the same, but they are linked to some extent. As for China any party can call itself communist or socialist. The true test is in the polices of that party and in China's case it is clearly a capitalist party.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mr blur]

125. You are just...wrong. Read a book. Maybe a dictionary.

[former9thward]

134. If you are so confident you would have provided a definition from that dictionary.

But you didn't. I don't wonder why.

[readmoreoften]

65. When has capitalism been implemented through Democratic means?

Research the Enclosure Movements of the 1600s and you'll see how capitalism was "democratically" founded.

[DutchLiberal]

110. Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia... all over the last decade.

Just take your pick.

[LeftishBrit]

129. Socialism? Well, in Britain 1945-51, 1964-70, 1974-1979..

and by the very skin of its teeth, the palest sort of socialism, 2007-2010. I won't include 1997-2007, not because Blair wasn't democratically elected, but because he was a Conservative in all but name.

And in many other Europaean countries over the years, especially in Scandinavia.

And recently in Brazil, for example.

[former9thward]

135. So you are suggesting Britain was a socialist country in those periods.

Government control of companies? No profit making enterprises. What happened in between times? Did the economy jump back and forth between government control and private control? No it didn't. Please don't re-write history to shoe horn your definition into the facts.

[LeftishBrit]

140. It had a Socialist party in government during those times!

'Did the economy jump back and forth between government control and private control?'

No, it had a mixed economy throughout those times. With greater emphasis on the government sector under socialist governments, and on the private sector during Tory governments.

'Please don't re-write history to shoe horn your definition into the facts'

Take that up with the British Labour Party, and its equivalents in many other countries! I didn't personally invent the usual Europaean definition.

[kristopher]

90. govt through sophistry is what has triumphed in the US IMO

The Sophists taught "arête" (Greek: ἀρετή, meaning quality or excellence) as the highest value and determinant of one's actions in life. The Sophists taught artistic quality in oratory (as we might teach someone to both write and to deliver a moving or motivational monologue) as (one) manner of demonstrating one's "arête". They taught oratory as an art form, used to both please and to influence others through the excellence of one's speeches (as opposed to using logical arguments). (The Sophists taught that a person should seek arête in all that he did, not just oratory).

Regarding Marx, he saw the best way to organize reality as dialectical materialism; which is founded on the concept of "dialectics" to which Marx added the "materialism" part. The materialism aspect of Marxist Materialism is generally referred to with the slightly misleading (IMO) term "means of production".

Dialectic
Dialectic (also called dialectics or the dialectical method) is a method of argument, which has been central to both Indic and European philosophy since ancient times. The word "dialectic" originates in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in his Socratic dialogues. Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason.<1> This differs from a debate, in which both sides are committed to their viewpoint and only wish to win the debate by persuading or proving themselves right (or the other side wrong) – and thus a jury or judge is often needed to decide the matter. It also differs from rhetoric, which is oratory that appeals to logos, pathos, or ethos. Rhetoric is communication designed to persuade an audience to side with a particular argument or action.

...

... This is what Marx had to say about the difference between Hegel's dialectics and his own:

"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." (Capital, Volume 1, From the Afterword to the Second German Edition, Moscow, 1970, p. 29).

Essentially, these are research strategies for organizing a world view by which a person is able to predict the actions of the constituent elements of a culture.

Marx thought that the way a culture related to the physical aspects of their world and provided for their needs was the force that dominated all others. So when you saw a feature of culture you wanted to understand, you would start looking for the explanation in the relationship between the feature you are investigating and the various ways it interacts with the physical environment. Using that relationship as a guide, the next step would be to gain an understanding of how those physical factors influence the "dialectic" that is present in the cultural phenomenon you are interested in. This is where you look at the way the mental aspect are shaped by the physical forces.

Personally I use a research strategy based on "cultural materialism" which builds on Marx by redefining materialism as not only production, but also human reproduction.

[Brickbat]

8. There's nothing democratic about capitalism, either.

Because you can't compare economic theories with political actions.

[defendandprotect]

16. In fact, capitalism is the very opposite of democracy --

The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along -- !!

:)

[leftstreet]

9. good grief, what brought this on?

:popcorn:

[defendandprotect]

13. Fear of capitalism going down --

and democratic socialism rising -- !!

[leftstreet]

15. Yep

:scared:

[xphile]

67. My guess? Blatant ignorance.

:shrug:

Love the pic!

[yardwork]

118. LOL!

[Peacetrain]

10. Self Preservation...even in political philosophies.. is the uber goal.

No matter how egalitarian a political philosophy starts out as.. in time, it becomes its own worst enemy.

I will take the craziness of a democratic government any day.

[white_wolf]

22. The ignorance. It burns!

You are right about one thing self-preservation is a major goal of systems. Look at capitalism,the capitalists do everything in their power to destroy democracy and take all the power for themselves. Face it capitalism is the most undemocratic economic system there is.

[readmoreoften]

64. +1

[readmoreoften]

63. DId you go to school in 1953? "Democracy" is not the system we live in.

We live in a CAPITALIST system. That is the proper opposite to socialism or communism. Either can be democratic or authoritarian. You really need to do research or read a book before you show your red-baiting, right-wing ignorance on this topic. Seriously, you straight up belong on Free Republic.

[Starry Messenger]

78. +1000

[leftstreet]

103. +1

[NashVegas]

73. Me Too! I Wish We Had A Democratic Government Here in the US

[CreekDog]

91. but that doesn't happen here...that's for other countries right?

we just have to avoid the dreaded "socialism" monster and whatever path we take to avoid it is just fine as long as it's not on your list.

unrec.

[CreekDog]

96. i guess you don't want to talk about it

:rofl:

since you haven't been back. :rofl: :bounce:

[bobbolink]

98. Kinda looks that way.

We've been tricked! :rofl:

[yardwork]

119. That's terrific. You go!

[marmar]

11. Democratic Socialism lives and thrives.....

....... ever been to Scandinavia?

Unrec for linking socialism to dictatorship.

[former9thward]

26. You have apparently not been there.

The companies there are private and capitalist. They operate for profit. Where is the socialism?

[marmar]

29. Democratic socialism doesn't mean you don't have PRIVATE businesses.

Do you know nothing about what it means? Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit before making such stridently ignorant statements.....and BTW, I've been to Sweden and Denmark.

[former9thward]

33. You should educate yourself. You don't know what socialism is.

You are picking and choosing 'good things' and arbitrarily calling it socialist. Any 'bad thing' you deem capitalist. Doesn't work that way. Socialism is an economic system. Sweden's economy is almost completely private and capitalist.

[marmar]

36. You still don't get it, and clearly aren't able to.

nt

[Matariki]

76. As should you.

There is a difference between 'state socialism' and a 'socialist democracy'.

From wikipedia|
Social democracy is a political ideology of the left on the classic political spectrum. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.[1> Practical modern social democratic policies include the promotion of a welfare state, and the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers' rights.

[dawg]

81. In the real word, there is no such thing as pure capitalism or pure socialism.

Either would be an abomination.

You accuse others of calling random good things socialist and random bad things capitalist. But you are also mistaken. Any economic system that falls short of 100% socialism, you consider to be capitalist. You refer to Sweden as "almost completely private".

According to CIA factbook, Sweden's gov't expenditures are approximately 236.6 billion out of a total economy of 444.6 billion, resulting in an economy that is 53% governmental. Clearly, this is not almost completely private.

Likewise, the U.S. economy is probably around 20% public.

In the modern era, no free people have ever chosen pure socialism *or* pure capitalism through democratic processes. It requires a mixture of both in order to make a modern economy work right for the majority of its citizens.

[DutchLiberal]

112. Like he said: socialism doesn't mean the state owns all the business...

That's communism what you're describing.

It looks like you take your ideas of what socialism is from right-wing radio.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Well lets start with Norway's state run oil industry.

Oh wait, I'm sure you have some made up excuse for why that doesn't count.

But that is beside the point. Modern social democracies MIX public and private enterprise, generally REGULATE rather than OPERATE most sectors of the economy (but check out that pesky Norwegian Oil problem), and provide broad and comprehensive SOCIAL WELFARE programs funded through progressive taxation. And they do so through DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS. The split between revolutionary socialism and democratic socialism is over 100 years old at this point, dating back to the Second International (1889.)

[former9thward]

42. State owned oil companies are in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Brazil, Malaysia among others.

Does this mean these countries are socialist? Apparently since that is your criteria.

[LanternWaste]

58. Are we referring specifically to governments or economic models?

Are we referring specifically to governments or economic models? It's a rather critical difference...

[yardwork]

114. You can make up your own definitions for words.

It's fine. You're allowed to make up your own definitions for words, but most people are going to continue to use the regular definitions.

For instance, you can decide that what most people call the color "green" is actually grey. Every time somebody talks about the nice green leaves on the trees you can contradict them and say, "No, those leaves are grey" but the conversation is going to be short.

[former9thward]

146. I use the classical economic definition that any university professor

teaching economics uses. I am sorry that is not useful for you.

[LeftishBrit]

131. Where is the socialism?

In the provision of public services, that's pre-eminently where!

Democratic socialist countries generally have mixed economies. Private companies and businesses exist in such countries. They just don't run or replace public enterprises and services.

[jacquelope]

41. Are you talking about social democracy?

Democratic socialism and social democracy are not the same thing.

[mitchtv]

80. three of the Scandinavian nations are monarchies

to further bend the labels.

[defendandprotect]

12. You're talking about totalitarian enforcement of those systems ...

that's what makes them "dictatorships" and fascist --

otherwise, they are not --

[Cleita]

17. There's nothing Marxist, communistic or socialistic

about dictatorships either by individual or by committee. They only call themselves that and are in fact pretty fascist in how they operate. You are conflating Soviet and Maoist totalitarianism with those systems. Actually, socialism is quite compatible with democracy as our Scandinavian nations have shown us.

[BOG PERSON]

43. fascism and authoritarianism are not interchangeable words fyi

[Cleita]

47. I didn't interchange them.

We presently have a fascist nation, here in America, not run by authoritarianism but by industrial caveat. It is nonetheless fascist. When we cross the line into considering torturing our incarcerated humans and invading nations that did nothing to us except that we want something of theirs, we have become fascist, yet there is no king or dictator or other authority figure that we can identify.

[white_wolf]

18. Ever hear of Democratic Socialism?

You know the system they have in those horrible totalitarian countries like Sweden and Norway? I don't really need a sarcasm tag do I? Oh and as for Marxism why don't you read up on it instead of spouting RW talking points. The dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't denote a dictatorship like Stalinism, but rather a system where the working class has power as opposed to capitalism which Marx called the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. As for committees what do you think Congress is?

[DirkGently]

19. Social *Democracy* seems to be working just fine in Europe. Solar power, worker benefits, healthcare

[former9thward]

27. You don't keep up much on the news.

All over Europe governments are moving to take away those "worker benefits". Europe is powered by nuclear and coal. Don't know where you thought any significant power is coming from solar.

[DirkGently]

52. Europe is (pardon the pun) light years ahead of the U.S. in sustainable energy, including solar.

As for the benefits, whatever the current movement, they are likewise vastly superior to those here. Universal healthcare, substantial vacation. Maternity leave.

Surely you don't think you can dismiss all of that with a vague reference to setbacks caused by the unregulated financial markets in the U.S.? To the extent there's been movement away from social democracy and toward the centrist "third-way," there's no indication that has improved things. If anything, countries like the U.K. that have shifted rightward have arguably suffered for shying away from European socialist models.

As for reading the news, perhaps it's you not "keeping up."

LOS ANGELES | Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:16am EST

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The U.S. solar power sector grew 67 percent in 2010 but still lagged European markets by a wide margin in installing solar systems, the industry's trade group said on Thursday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/10/us-solar-idUSTRE72928520110310

Germany is one of the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installers, with a solar PV capacity as of 2010 of almost 17 gigawatts (GW).<1> In 2009, Germany had 9.8 GW which generated 6,578 gigawatt-hours (GW·h) of electricity — an average power of 710 MW.<2> Solar power now meets about 2 percent of Germany's electricity demand, a share that some market analysts expect could reach 25 percent by 2050.<3>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

Report: U.S. decades behind the world on parental leave
By Bernd Debusmann Jr.
February 24, 2011

NEW YORK | Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:56pm EST - The United States is decades behind the rest of the world in parental leave policy, a Human Rights Watch report said on Wednesday.

Of the 190 countries studied in the report, 178 guaranteed paid leave for new mothers and nine were unclear about their maternity policies. Just three countries clearly offer no legal guarantee of paid maternity leave -- Papua New Guinea, Swaziland and the United States

http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/us-behind-on-parental-leave-2710060-1.html

Right up there with Swaziland, we are. Yaaaay corporate capitalism! Um.

Healthcare? Kind of an old story. Ours doesn't work.

Best health care in the world? Not us, not the US
By Gary Schwitzer on January 6, 2010 7:12 PM | 5 Comments | No TrackBacks
"Ranking 37th -- Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System" is an article posted online by the New England Journal of Medicine. Excerpt:


Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy. These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/blog/2010/01/best-health-care-in-the-world-not-us-not-the-us.html

Those dum-dum democratic socialist countries do a bit better:

By Susan Heavey

WASHINGTON | Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:10pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People living in countries with government-run healthcare systems like Sweden and Canada are far more confident than Americans that their families can get good, affordable care, according to a 22-nation survey released on Thursday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/15/us-usa-healthcare-poll-idUSTRE63E2TO20100415

In short, the American view of Every Man For Himself capitalism doesn't work for anyone, except the very rich. Other countries our rightwingers dismiss as "Socialist" nightmares of gigantic taxes and no freedums -- which actually retain plenty of capitalist entrepreneurship -- simply add reasonable taxation, regulation and social programs to the mix. And get better results.



editted for speling.

[hifiguy]

122. You will never be able to change a troll's willful misperceptions

by doing something as silly as arguing the actual facts. :)

[AKDavy]

20. The distinction between political economic systems...

is defied by our political system, which is driven my economic concerns.

Money buys out elections.
When money fails to buy an elected, it buys the elected.
Rather than defense, our military protects "vital national interests," which are in large part economic.

The distinction is a matter of abstract description. In application, our system fuses the two.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. True. There's nothing apple-esque about oranges.

Don't conflate economic systems with political ones.

There are plenty of democratic socialist countries. Arguably a lot more democratic than this one.

[retread]

23. What???

[izzybeans]

25. The best thing about this post is that Marx would agree with you.

Democratize the economy. Though he undertheorized the political-economy, so he didn't conceptualize that way.

Dictatorship by committee is exactly the structure of our economy right now. Heard of corporate boards, ceos? Are they elected by the people they control?

No. Maybe they are elected by shareholders, but that's the same thing as allowing landowners to vote in elections.

If you love democracy so much, take it everywhere, including your job.

[white_wolf]

28. The title of this post sounds like something from Free Republic.

[bobbolink]

30. Repeat, because you aren't gettng it. System of Government does NOT = Financial system.

Democracy is in the Governmental column with Dictatorship, Totalitarianism, etc.

Captitalism is in the Financial column with Socialism, Communism.

You are mixing the two columns and confusing yourself.

This is a very important concept. It should have been taught in school.

[nomb]

31. "public ownership, workers' control of the labor process and redistributive tax"

"Bogdan Denitch, in Democratic Socialism, defines it as proposing a radical reorganization of the socio-economic order through public ownership, workers' control of the labor process and redistributive tax policies"


That's all well and good, the problem usually comes when it's time to shoot, imprison or "re-educate" those people who get in the way.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. Don't confuse an economic system with a politcal system.

It is entirely possible for a socialist country to be a successful democracy, as Norway, Sweden and Denmark have proved.

[Hugabear]

37. There is nothing democratic about capitalism

The only difference between capitalism and a dictatorship is the ILLUSION that you have a voice, when in reality the corporations control just about everything.

[Modern_Matthew]

38. I visited a Marxist forum and many advocated banning free speech...

Needless to say, I will never return.

[Better Believe It]

55. Adn what are the names of those organizations?

[readmoreoften]

60. The Made-upists and the Don't existists?

[readmoreoften]

59. Oooo. One Marxist forum. Did they force churches to marry gays too?

This is ignorant bullshit. Only Stalinists would "ban free speech" and they're .01% of Marxists.

[ikri]

69. No free speech in the UK

There's no law governing free speech in a lot of places, that doesn't necessarily mean that the government is going to kick your door down at 3am for talking badly about them. It can just mean that you're responsible for your words and you can't simply go around making any old shit up (see Fox News).

[LeftishBrit]

141. Oh, so some anonymous internet forum members had some silly ideas?

I'm SHOCKED; I never could have imagined such a thing!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Or, vegetarianism, Catholicism, or altruism. So, what?

[superduperfarleft]

44. I guess OP left to do a little more research.

Good on ya, OP!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Hopefully, he/she is looking up the word "inherently".

[robdogbucky]

45. I'm going with Einstein on this one.....

Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

"Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society..."

http://monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[CanSocDem]

53. nailed it! (eom)

[readmoreoften]

61. EINSTEIN WAS A FASCIST WHO DIDN'T BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH!!!111!!!!

Alan Greenspan is a far better hero.

[robdogbucky]

132. Nice use of all caps there

That really smarts, like in my ears are ringing with your shouting.

Please provide some kind of link. Or rationale, otherwise STFU, mkay?

Oh, and thanks for adding substance to our conversation (NOT)

WTF does Greenspan have to do with this discussion?

Are you trying to be coy? Funny? Obtuse? Arrogant? Hostile?

Because you ain't smart and you're not convincing.

Have you missed your meds?

I get it now.

Hijack thread, suppress discussion, yell alot.

Where have I seen this before?

Sockpuppet??

[white_wolf]

143. I'm pretty sure he was doing

a sarcastic interpretation of a RWwer response to the post above him.

[hifiguy]

144. You are begging for a pizza delivery

unless you are being snarky, in which case you did a pretty horses**t job. Because Alan Greenspan belongs behind bars.

[Zorra]

74. I agree about Communism and Marxism.

But IMO, "Socialism" is, today, a loosely defined concept.

A system labeled "Democratic Socialism" can incorporate characteristics of both socialism and democracy and still be democratic.

If you want to specifically define Socialism using the classic definition of Marxist Socialism as a system brought about through revolution and then implemented and and presided over by "The Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat", then I completely agree with you.

[readmoreoften]

99. Then you don't know what Marxism is.

And what exactly is undemocratic about "dictatorship of the proletariat"? At the time the term dictatorship didn't have the perjorative meaning it does now because there were no "dictators" yet. It simply means that workers have the right to control the world that they create. There is nothing wrong with that. It opposes what we live in now which is a "dictatorship of the capitalists."

[white_wolf]

101. The best example of the dictatorship of the proletariat

is not the USSR, but the Paris Commune which was almost direct democracy. And that isn't my interpretation of it either. Engels the man who was just as important to Marxism as Marx himself said that the Paris Commune was a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[readmoreoften]

107. +1

[Zorra]

102. Yeah. All those years of studying European History in college

were lost on me.

Particularly my thesis on Lenin.

[readmoreoften]

104. Apparently you didn't learn much. Sigh. An education wasted. For shame.

Because you're absolutely ignorant on the topic. It's probably not your fault. Most universities these days are so right-wing that you'll never get a proper education on Soviet history anyway.

Quick quiz! What interesting thing did Lenin do for the latter half of 1914 and why?!

SInce you're such an expert on Lenin, I'm sure you'll know the answer.

[white_wolf]

106. If he doesn't answer pm me.

I want to know.

[Zorra]

126. BTW, it's "she". And it's too late to answer, I could have looked it up by now.

But honestly, all I think I remember is him being arrested in Austria as a spy around this time. It is the lessons we learn from history, not the times and dates, that are most significant.

Look, I think if Lenin had lived, Russia would have taken a much different, and far better, course. Lenin warned about Stalin. on his deathbed even, as I recall. Lenin was an extremely intelligent man and a gifted and concerned leader. As I recall (I studied all this many years ago, so if I don't immediately remember exact times and dates of occurrences, that is why), his brother was executed in a plot to kill the Tsar. Lenin had every reason to do what he did. I get it.

If you are a card carrying communist true believer, I will probably not be able to have a constructive discussion with you. It is like having a discussion with an evangelical christian, except that instead of quoting the bible, I fear you'll be quoting Marx. And while I recognize there is some, perhaps a great deal, of truth in both of those doctrines, respectively, it is my experience that human existence and development does not follow a blueprint.

I may have even believed a lot like you at one time.

peace

[white_wolf]

139. First of all my apolgies for the mistake.

I hope I didn't offend. I'm not sure if you could call me a "true believer" as to me that implies dogmatic faith in an ideology or religion and I'm dogmatic about nothing.

[Zorra]

152. No problem.

We're on the same team here. We want to destroy the plutarchy forever, and institute democracy.

We'll need to stick together to do that.:thumbsup:

[Warren Stupidity]

108. again: 1889 marxists split over revolution vs reform

a definition of marxism that eliminates the 100+ year history of the democratic socialist wing of marxism is a shitty self serving right wing definition of marxism. Marxist socialist political parties have held power across Europe and have profoundly changed the nature of western european society and their political and economic systems. They have done so through reform within a democratic system.

[JVS]

49. There is no democracy until the class enemy has been destroyed!

[meow mix]

50. oh for a second there i thought i was on Free Republic nt

[MilesColtrane]

51. It's a riddle wrapped in an enigma, I tells ya.

[Better Believe It]

54. Are you claiming to be familiar with Marxism? If so, answer these simple questions.

What is your opinion on Karl Marx's support of Abraham Lincoln, the " Marxist left opposition" fight against Stalinism and your views on the different socialist groups in the United States such as the International Socialists Organization, Against the Current and Democratic Socialists of America? As you surely must know, those are three of the larger socialist organizations in the United States.

I'm asking those questions assuming you have some rudimentary knowledge of Marxism and its history.

I assume that because certainly one can't condemn something they know little or nothing about.

I'm listening.

[readmoreoften]

66. Those are the three largest socialist organizations in the US.

And they are more "democratic" than even DU. This poster is as arrogant as she is ignorant.

[Better Believe It]

84. I would appreciate a response to my questions "Peacetrain".

[Better Believe It]

87. Still waiting for your response.

[readmoreoften]

56. I'm not even going to respond to your stupid, McCarthyite, Glen Beck post.

As if we have no committees and institutions in this society. Dumbest post in the history of DU.

[leftstreet]

71. Red-baiting fills me with optimism!

I figure someone, somewhere still fears the power of a re-surging Left

:-)

[white_wolf]

82. I don't know why they do.

Let's face it the Left has been far too inactive in past decades.

[ParkieDem]

57. K&R

Too many people on DU often forget this.

[JoseGaspar]

62. The OP is apparently unaware that he is saying the exact opposite...

... of what he thinks he is saying. Both of the terms, Communism and Socialism, derive from the French Revolution and refer to extending democracy to social property rather than leaving social property as a purely private concern. This was explicitly expressed by a third political term, "Social Democracy", which was once interchangeable with "Socialism" and "Communism", i.e. the doctrine of extending democracy to the social realm, as well.

Conversely, the only way to insure that people don't "democratically" overturn the private ownership of social property was to throttle democracy itself. Thus what the OP calls "democracy" is a still-born oxymoron, at best.

More, dictatorship and democracy are in no way contradictory. Democratic dictatorships have been the norm from the very beginning of the term (amongst the Greek city-states) and extend well into the present. Name an example? The British Empire is an obvious example, in which parliamentary democracy was clearly the political form in England but did not make it even to Ireland, let alone to British India.

In order to get beyond the propaganda slogans of a 5th grade civics class, the OP must ask "who" and "how"... "Democracy for who?" and "How is that Democracy realized or stymied?"

Still, the OP can not get there without first abandoning the "Civic Catechism".

"Those words which you are using; They do not mean what you think they mean."

[Skidmore]

68. At some point, individual votes become consensus

and because of the impracticality of having members of a large society vote on every single issue that impacts it, we vote on groups of people to represent our ideas. Congress is a committee--an corrupt one, but a committee nonetheless. And it is an institution.

[white_wolf]

70. Capitalism is the enemy of democracy.

It is a system based upon accumulating personal wealth and personal power at the expense of anyone else. Modern corporations the epitome of modern capitalism at work are among the most undemocratic institutions in the world today. All power is held by the board of directors and an appointed CEO, that is the very definition of Oligarchy. It is rule of the few over the many. There is no freedom of speech you can be fired for pretty much anything. Private companies regulate are lives far more than any government. Nearly every contract in any given industry says the same thing and it does nothing more than empower the corporation over you and some contracts even say that corporations have the right to amend any part of the contract with no notice as they see fit. That to me sounds like a dictatorship, a rule by decree if there ever was one. So come on OP enlighten me as to the democracy of capitalism, because I don't see it.

[mitchtv]

83. +1

enemy of free enterprise as well. fully evolved capitalism leads to monopoly

[hifiguy]

121. Agreed

+1

The OP is apparently incapable of differentiating between models of political and economic organization.

The social democratic model of Germany and Scandinavia provides our only hope for survival as a species in anything like a civilized state.

[howard112211]

72. Oh my, where to start... Hint: "Marxism" is not a form of government.

[Matariki]

75. Wow. You have a lot of studying and reading to do.

unrec for ignorance.

[Matariki]

77. PS - do you prefer Dictatorship by Corporate Shareholders?

[TheKentuckian]

79. What is this nonsense you are talking? Why are you comparing economic systems and even philosophies

to a form of government?

[white_wolf]

85. The saddest thing about this post is that many people agree with it.

We have to combat this message whenever and wherever we hear it. As long as the capitalists succeed in their big lie no meaningful change to our society can be made.

[Better Believe It]

88. They are generally well meaning people who just know little or nothing about socialism.

They are not well read in the subject and many have never read a book or even a pamphlet written by a contemporary socialist or Marxist.

[BOG PERSON]

94. i know it's a cliche, but it's still true

people eventually get the government they deserve.

[Better Believe It]

97. It is a cliche and I really don't agree with it.

Did the Russian people deserve Joseph Stalin, the Benito Mussolini, the Spanish Franco or Chileans Pinochet?

I don't think so.

[BOG PERSON]

120. i don't know if the russians deserved stalin

but the germans sure did, if you know what i'm saying.

[Marr]

86. Socialism is not a system of government, and it has nothing to do with dicatorship.

[KG]

89. hee-hee

epic fail. :rofl:

[Canuckistanian]

92. Are Scandanavian countries anti-democratic?

They proudly and rightly call themselves "Socialistic" nations.

They seem to have regular elections and healthy debates in their legislatures.

And what do you have against committees? Committees are part of a democratic system, too.

[CreekDog]

100. yes, Sweden, Norway, Denmark are all helping Republicans because they don't love Obama

:rofl:

or something.

what narrow-minded, American-centered nonsense! :wtf:

[white_wolf]

93. I notice the OP is gone.

Hopefully he left to go read a book and learn something. Or at the very least browse the Wikipedia articles on Marxism and Socialism.

[last_texas_dem]

95. Mainly because half the people I was with believed it until I explained the situation to them

Teh Commies are in ur government, runnin ur death panels...

Soros! Alinsky! Cloward-Piven! WOODROW WILSON OMGZ!!!!1!

:scared:

[Selatius]

105. Your ignorance shows when you conflate economic systems and political systems. It's depressing. nt

[blindpig]

109. This 'democracy' which you exalt is a sham.

There can be no political democracy if there is no economic democracy. 'One man one vote', what a joke, as though a wealthy individual has no more influence over our government, our society, has no more influence than me.

So instead of a 'committee' chosen by the people you would prefer those decisions made by those who own damn near everything in our society and whose purpose is to perpetuate that arrangement.

[LeftinOH]

113. There is nothing democratic about capitalism, either. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

116. What is the purpose of this thread?

Other than flamebait, I mean.

[JVS]

123. Another purpose of this thread is to support and exert the dominance of the bourgeoisie.

[MadHound]

117. Umm, technically speaking, Marxism, along with communism, socialism and capitalism,

Are systems of economic thought, not systems of political thought.

You can have a democratic communist state, just as you can have a fascist capitalist one.

That's part of the problem, people always confusing the two.

[Lars77]

127. As a Norwegian living in Germany with an MA in American studies..

Fuck, i still don't know what to make of this thread.


The internet is a fascinating little universe.

[Jackpine Radical]

138. "Fuck, i still don't know what to make of this thread."

Neither does anybody posting on it.

Hei fra Wisconsin.

[LeftishBrit]

128. Socialism does not mean the same as left-authoritarianism

There are Socialist parties that are elected democratically in many countries.

Left-wing governments do not 'rule by committee' any more than right-wing governments do. I am not even quite sure what you're saying in the last sentence: that dictatorship may be by a small group rather than an individual? Or that you want direct democracy such as rule by referendum rather than rule by a Cabinet?

[wickerwoman]

130. Yes because one is a political system and one is an economic system.

There is nothing Democratic about capitalism either.

[Taverner]

136. Um, bullshit

Socialism =/= Dictatorship

Communism =/= Dictatorship

For one, Socialism is an economic system, not a political one

As for Communism, it was billed by Marx as 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', but what he meant was something more akin to Syndicalism. Soviet is the Russian word for Syndicate, and the plan was to build the pyramid from the syndicates on up.

Stalin came along and had to piss on that, unfortunately

[Jackpine Radical]

137. There is nothing democratic about capitalism.

[mmonk]

149. I'll take a democratic government over corporate rule.