Democratic Socialism

[Ali]

I'm behind historical materialism, but I'm not sure socialism works as a modern political movement in the context of western capitalism. How can you define a 'worker's party' in an society whose proletariat are being relocated to free trade zones?

[Becky]

Democratic socialism doesn't work because any attempt to use parliament to change the fundamental status quo of capitalism that works in our global economy would be highly contested.  Removing capitalism is not something I have any faith in, for people are self-interested individuals.

Also, the lack of a substantial "working class" here in the UK (and the subsequent growth of the middle class who really have no place in democratic socialism) makes this "rule by the workers/ownership of means of production" a bit unwelcoming.

Now social democracy, which seeks to redistribute wealth whilst not challenging the necessity of capitalism, does work much better (until progressive taxation and nationalised industries prove ineffective and inefficient).  This is the slightly more realistic version of "socialism". 

Saying that, the hey-day of socialism has gone here in the UK, and the governments are all centre/centre-right and deeply in love with their liberal laissez-faire economics.  Capitalism has triumphed!  I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's better than anything else.

[Helm]

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's better than anything else.

It's not better of what we have to think up for the future. Unless you think massive economical inequality which breeds extreme suffering,  loss of life and war, is the best we can do, ever.

[Becky]

I meant that it's the best we have right now.

[Helm]

But are we working for something better, or solidifying the status quo?

[Tuomas]

You know, the best thing you have is the only thing you have right now.

I think it's silly to say man is lazy, man is greedy, or even not willing to work as bees, yet we have people who visualise of such. It's not like we're all the same here and run by our minds. Rather, I find it so, that most of us find this "status quo" too comforting to do anything about it. I'm a bit with Akumayo here. Not that I'm a socialist, what ever that means then. I'm a follower of Bernstein's ideas, not Marx's. And I am part of the Finnish social democratic party. I do not support capitalism at all, it is but opression and doesn't lead t any good. True, time has shown us that Marxism-Leninism works when there is war, as we've seen economic growth in capitalist Countries during war time. Then thing is, that the communism we have seen needed the war to survive. And it wouldn't have had Lenin not died, remember it was he who warned people about Stalin. And then we have the US government who start a war, get their stockmarkets flowing and prices up and suddenly everything is better again, forgetting the fact that people die for it.

I'm quite happy here, we have a social democratic president and people seem to think she is a commie, which she isn't, we're just one of the most lefty nations in the world, and wow, things are going swell even though we fight a bit over ridiculous matters. And hey, people tend to envy the scandinavian welfare system, well, I'm not complaining. But capitalism is really the worst thing that could happen. You think it's ok, when everyone goes on their own and live longer if they are born in certain families, because that's how it is. I bet an unemployed hobo under a bridge would agree. It's shit here too, we have poor people. None of them are poor enough for others to care, but they have problems coming along, even though the difference between wealthy and poor is minimal, it's bound to grow should we stray to the path of capitalism. Hm, and no, I'm not a communist anymore, it just doesn't work, but it does work better than capitalism.

[Raggit]

I'm happy with the system we have here in the states.  Sure, it's in the gutter right now, and it needs some serious repairs and revisions, but it's pretty cool, I guess.

[Layabout]

The only way socialism will work is if all people are implemented with brain controlling devices, thus destroying any chance of free thought. people are greedy. full stop x 10

[Becky]

I don't think we can talk about absolutes in human nature - some may genuinely be gregarious and prepared to work for the good of the community, but others are self-interested and will work hard only to further their own aims and desires.  As long as people are individuals, you cannot say that a socialist complete redistribution of wealth is possible, and that everyone will be better off under a socialist banner.

I personally think that equality of opportunity and access to education, healthcare, benefits and infrastructure are more important and realistic than complete economic equality.  I don't think we have acheived equality of opportunity either, and I appreciate that we do have a long way to go.

[Slava]

I miss Communism in my country, it meant everyone worked hard and helped one another. Now people do not understand the work ethic and have become idle and disinterested. Communism to me meant the whole state helped one another to become grater, greater then the capitalist scum of the Americas. But I do believe democracy in Communism could work, as Marx once said.

[Nacho]

That guy was great... I loved the scene of the cabin in "A night at the Opera".

[LimpingFish]

I hate labels.

[Akumayo]

Capitalism has triumphed!Ã,  I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's better than anything else.

I strongly disagree.Ã,  As Helm brought up, Capitalism is a war-based system.Ã,  Production for profit only works when there is profit to be had, when there is demand, when there is war.Ã,  Capitalism promotes destruction over peace, oppresion over freedom.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's better than anything else.

It's not better of what we have to think up for the future. Unless you think massive economical inequality which breeds extreme suffering, loss of life and war, is the best we can do, ever.

Excellently put.

I'm happy with the system we have here in the states. Sure, it's in the gutter right now, and it needs some serious repairs and revisions, but it's pretty cool, I guess.

Ahh, but it could be better, don't you think?Ã,  True democracy cannot exist without Socialism, our [United States] system is not a democracy at all, as it claims.Ã,  It is a republic.Ã,  Those serious repairs and revisions could come about much more swiftly under Socialism, I believe.

The only way socialism will work is if all people are implemented with brain controlling devices, thus destroying any chance of free thought. people are greedy. full stop x 10

I highly disagree.Ã,  Socialism would work because people WEREN'T brain controlled.Ã,  It would allow a true democracy by the people.Ã,  People are greedy?Ã,  Yes, some people are, by nature.Ã,  Does that mean we should rely on a system that promotes that greed, and plants it in people who might've otherwise been humble?Ã,  I think not.

As long as people are individuals, you cannot say that a socialist complete redistribution of wealth is possible, and that everyone will be better off under a socialist banner.

As long as people are individuals, you cannot say that any form of government or society will make everyone better off under its banner.Ã,  I'm not saying that Socialism is a door to utopia, rather, I think it is just a noch better than the capitalist system.

[FieryPhoenix]

This is a topic I think about all day long.Ã, Ã, As a bleeding heart liberal, the political mess in my country breaks my heart.Ã, Ã, I'm in the USA and the elections are just a few days away.

I highly recommend the books by Howard Zinn- especially "A People's History of the United States"- especially for anyone who lives in the states.Ã, Ã, 

I don't know what the answer is for a fair, just, and equitable government for any country and/or all countries in this new world order.Ã, Ã, I understood the idealism of the Kim Philby's - but we are in a new kind of mess.Ã, Ã, 

[Helm]

As a bleeding heart liberal, the political mess in my country breaks my heart.

This display of causality is startling.

[shitar]

Communism only works when people are not greedy or lazy. Capitalism only works when people are greedy and lazy. Which do you think people are?

Also, arguing that capitalism only functions when there is a war is hardly evidence based, as since the invention of the wheel there hasn't been a significant period of time when there hasn't been a war going on somewhere.

Give me a single year since WW2 where there wasnt a single active US soldier in any foreign nation in the world.


p.s. you wont find one

[shitar]

As stupid as this sounds I've been trying to come up with my own political theory for a while (just incase my idiot Serbia allows US to build bases on mainland soil and Im forced to overthrow them :| lol ). The one that I keep coming up with, I will show here. It dosent really have a name so name it what you want.

It is based around an absolutely and constantly artificial adaptation to the worldly factors for self-benefit. If one country becomes a world power and the other falters you immediately switch to that country as your "big brother" but without actually having "loyalty" or "ally" based allegience. If communism is the best thing for your economy at the time, switch to it. If capitalism is, you switch to it. The key here being that you never retain 'attachment' to any of the systems. You never actually try to advance or improve the system of the government (US spreading capitalism, USSR spreading Communism) but rather you USE the systems to advance and improve, in an adaptation-like way, the state itself.

The people ARE the state but the state is higher than the people, if that makes sense. You work to advance the state. I found out that this is similar to one of the Facism axioms so Im really wondering if this is a smart idea or not :/ .

The state must be multi-ethnic, period. No one-ethnicity countries with this political theory. The country must be a unification of multiple ethnicities, with the loyalty being to the country and not the ethnicities. The reason for this being to destroy the poision of ethnic-based nationalism, and to create a climate of social understanding and openess to different cultures.

The country is lead by TWO bodies of government. The military and the more common "political government". The political government is responsible for the economic, social, foreign relations and actual functionallity of the state. However they do not dictate the existance of the state. They do not control the military directly, and they 'are not the state'. If this body of government is destroyed in war the country is not defeated. As long as the military body exists the state is legitimately in existance regardless of invaders inhabiting the land.
What inspired the previous thought was looking at WW1 Serbia. The state itself was defeated and it became German-Austrian. However the army still survived REGARDLESS of economy of Serbia and inexistance of the political-side of the state (and for a while the army wasnt even on Serbian soil, it fought for its own country from foreign territory). The key here being that the army functioned withOUT economic backup of the political state. That country survived WW1 because the army survived. The existance of a state is dictated by the status of the army not by borders or political governance.


Sorry if you read all this and felt you wasted your time. This idea probably sucks to most of you :p. Just felt like getting it out of my brain and seeing how bad people think it is.

[InCreator]

Well, I haven't seen democracy or socialism ANYwhere really working.
Take a country. At the start, it doesn't matter on what system people build it up, be it cooperative socialsim or oppressing capitalism. If the country advances and strengthens enough to make difference on Earth, someone has to control it. Someone almost alone.

At the top of the pyramid, there's a man with others balls in his fist. Who cares who elected him? Who cares how the system is called? At the moment he reaches the throne, others either sing along or hide.
There's way too much references from history to prove this. Ask your grandparents, last time someone misused his power turned soil of Europe into a mass grave. Yes, Hitler. And his two co-killers, Truman (used atom bomb against human) and Stalin (competed Hitler in creating graves).

As I write, George W. Bush walks around with a black suitcase in his hands, capable of ending my life really fast and ensuring that there won't be even the country I'm residing in. For next thousand years.

Americans whine and hate their own leader. So does rest of the world. Ain't you democratic country? Why is he still in power if you don't like him and his doings? Do dropping polls and ratings save any of lives in Middle East? Nah. People are powerless.

And there's more of those men. Another one sits few thousands kilometres east and thinks how to remove country with history very similar of mine.

Whatever the system is, things stay same. There can only be more anarchy or less. But casual people never have power over their life.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
--Josef Stalin

But talking about human absolutes - war is and will be one kind of basic human behaviour. This is what we are.
The fact that human is predator to other human is something that makes me want to be something else than a
human being.

[shitar]

Well, I haven't seen democracy or socialism ANYwhere really working.
Take a country. At the start, it doesn't matter on what system people build it up, be it cooperative socialsim or oppressing capitalism. If the country advances and strengthens enough to make difference on Earth, someone has to control it. Someone almost alone.

At the top of the pyramid, there's a man with others balls in his fist. Who cares who elected him? Who cares how the system is called? At the moment he reaches the throne, others either sing along or hide.
There's way too much references from history to prove this. Ask your grandparents, last time someone misused his power turned soil of Europe into a mass grave. Yes, Hitler. And his two co-killers, Truman (used atom bomb against human) and Stalin (competed Hitler in creating graves).

As I write, George W. Bush walks around with a black suitcase in his hands, capable of ending my life really fast and ensuring that there won't be even the country I'm residing in. For next thousand years.

Americans whine and hate their own leader. So does rest of the world. Ain't you democratic country? Why is he still in power if you don't like him and his doings? Do dropping polls and ratings save any of lives in Middle East? Nah. People are powerless.

And there's more of those men. Another one sits few thousands kilometres east and thinks how to remove country with history very similar of mine.

Whatever the system is, things stay same. There can only be more anarchy or less. But casual people never have power over their life.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
--Josef Stalin

But talking about human absolutes - war is and will be one kind of basic human behaviour. This is what we are.

Killing is a necessity and natural.

[vict0r]

Well, I haven't seen democracy or socialism ANYwhere really working.

The democratic/capitalistic system we have here in Norway works great. In fact, it has been claimed to be the best country to live in, three years in a row.