Verisure
Senior Member
Oh! I'm impressed even if he isn't. I can't be too critical, though, because I know how it feels. When the doctors give me an injection I always turn my head the other way.
Your "Socialism" section/forum caught my eye
- Thread starter Senter
- Start date
El Castor is mucho impressed with Ashkenazi. Seems we are his favorite people in the whole world.
Verisure
Senior Member
I didn't know that.
But he snubbed you (and your link) nonetheless? Yikes! I think you must have come very close to hitting a nerve.
Timewise 60+
Senior Member
Ben,Remember that this coming November. We don't have a democracy here in the U.S., so whatever you do... don't vote!
The difference between a democracy and republic is as follows: The key difference between a republic and a democracy is not how power is projected, but the limits to power. Both use the representational system, meaning that the citizenry is represented in the government by elected leaders. In both cases, the majority rule, but in a republic the constitution limits how the government can exercise power.
Maybe @ElCastor thinks only the Ashkenazi boys are smartBut he snubbed you (and your link) nonetheless? Yikes! I think you must have come very close to hitting a nerve.
Last edited:
The US government knows the idea of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a very popular and winning idea. So they lie. They stress the idea that that is what they are in order to win you over for themselves and their career. But what do they DO? They very, very successfully govern for capitalism with emphasis on leading corporations, and for the rich. That is why in 2021, while the top half held 97.5% of the wealth (over $138 trillion), the top 1% held more than $60 trillion (43.5%) of that $138 trillion. But they would much rather have you believe they are really trying to make life better for the average person but that they are just incompetent, and so, "darn it, the rich out-smart us every time".
Wow. You even took the bait on "national socialism" being socialism.
Good article! And yes, just like some who like to conflate "national socialism" with socialism, so too do we find some who like to conflate Scandinavia with socialism. And why? SIMPLE! It's because those people fell for the capitalist propaganda and the effort to confuse and thereby disarm the people so they can be "governed" more easily!
Verisure
Senior Member
You are TOO good.The US government knows the idea of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a very popular and winning idea. So they lie. They stress the idea that that is what they are in order to win you over for themselves and their career. But what do they DO? They very, very successfully govern for capitalism with emphasis on leading corporations, and for the rich. That is why in 2021, while the top half held 97.5% of the wealth (over $138 trillion), the top 1% held more than $60 trillion (43.5%) of that $138 trillion. But they would much rather have you believe they are really trying to make life better for the average person but that they are just incompetent, and so, "darn it, the rich out-smart us every time".
Wow. You even took the bait on "national socialism" being socialism.
Good article! And yes, just like some who like to conflate "national socialism" with socialism, so too do we find some who like to conflate Scandinavia with socialism. And why? SIMPLE! It's because those people fell for the capitalist propaganda and the effort to confuse and thereby disarm the people so they can be "governed" more easily!
It would be good if you could provide some examples. Actually, as I've continued to say, history shows that while a number of countries have tried to transition to socialism, it is a long and tedious process, and nearly all have fallen victim to sabotage from within by those who want some form of capitalism. Even Cuba today, some 60 years after their revolution, comtinue to say they are "creating socialism" and aren't quite there yet. The interference and embargoes by the US are a major problem for them but the point is they could not instantly transition to socialism like flicking a switch.
So the "take-away" from all the above is that there has not yet been a socialist country, anywhere, at any time. There have been struggles to create it but the strategies for doing so need further refinement.
senior chef
Senior Member
A nonsensical statement ? Oh ? Really ? Good heavens, man. Everyone with even a modicum of history knowledge knows full well what happened during Stalin's dictatorship. Did you never read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book Gulag Archipelago ? In 1970, Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel peace Prize for his seminal work on Soviet atrocities.
If that is not enough to convince you of the evils of Communism , then a trip to any library will soon clear up the truth in what I say.
Since you make fun of my post, I suspect that you may never have heard of "The Berlin Wall" where the Soviets had to erect a concrete and barbed wire wall , complete with machine gun towers, to KEEP EAST GERMAN citizens from fleeing in mass to the freedom of West Germany.
Last edited:
Verisure
Senior Member
It could be that some of the problem here is the standard conflation of "communism" (communist ideology and policy) with "communism" (theoretical communist society). If we keep our wits about us when we read post in which people refer to "communism", we will often see that it is very common to not only confuse the two, but also to even refer to first one, then the other without the poster knowing they're doing it! And sometimes you will see this flip-flop between the two in the same sentence!! For this reason I try to NEVER refer to "communism". I try to remember to either specify "communist ideology" or "communist society".
Communist ideology and strategies have historically been a problem, and communist society is a theoretical and distant event that I'm not convinced will ever happen. And BTW, if you consider what Marx said communist society would be and how it would happen, you have to conclude that communist society cannot be imposed by force. Anyway, my opinion is that there's no good reason to agonize over communist ideology because it is mostly dead, and there's no point in discussing communist society because it is a very distant theory that may never happen, and if it does it will be well received at the time by a huge majority because it will be understood properly and will happen by itself.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
You can find examples in countries that are apparently refining their socialist form of government and/or economy.
First of all there is only one country I know of that I believe is still working toward socialism, and that is Cuba. But they will tell you they aren't there yet. But "examples" of what? .... "chains of corruption" to "monetize their authority"? That has happened in just about every country that has strayed from the socialist path and has "liberalized" the rules to allow private business for private profit, which is something any socialist system would ban.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Ok, but the topic is socialism.
Every form of government is corruptible. So far, at least. I'd wager nothing's been done within the Russian government that hasn't been done in the US. And economies are corruptible, but some forms of gov't make economic corruption easier than others. Authoritarian forms of government are particularly good examples.
oldpop
Member
- Location
- Inner Space
"Authoritarian"?? You don't think the USA has become pretty damned corrupted with politicians accumulating millions of dollars, favored corporate sources of wealth and campaign buys being approved by SCOTUS, and sweetheart deals for favored corporations and corporatists??
The "authoritarian" governments you mention have to all be non-socialist and anti-socialist if not outright dictatorships like N.Korea.
Socialism and authoritarianism don't mix.
Marx said āDemocracy is the road to socialismā because democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people, and socialism has to be that too or it isn't socialism.
SeniorBen
Senior Member
Not necessarily. In a direct democracy, people vote directly on issues. In a representational democracy, people elect representatives who make decisions for us.
Not necessarily. Five U.S. presidents lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College and the presidency. That happened in 2016 and 2000 and three other times. During those times, it was minority rule.
Not necessarily. A republic isn't necessarily a constitutional republic.
As far as the U.S. not having a democracy, a representational democracy is basically the same thing as a republic. So yes, we do have a democracy ā a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/democracy-vs-republic/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy/Democracy-or-republic
Basically, we have a representative democracy with a constitutional republic.
When most people talk about a democracy, they're usually referring to our elections, and whether they are fair and legitimate. When we think of our government, we think of our republic and our Constitution. That may not necessarily be accurate since they both refer to the same thing, but it's a way to make things a bit more clear.
If somebody makes the claim that our democracy is flawed, people generally interpret that as a statement about our elections ā not our government or our Constitution.
Verisure
Senior Member
That requires a lot of thought. If majority rule is not respected (and has actually been circumnavigated in the examples you've given) then isn't it proof positive that Democracy, in the instance, is absent? In other words, isn't the practice of using the Electoral College anti-Democratic ... pure and simple? Fascist, maybe? Collective dictatorship? Just plain Dictatorship?
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
No where have I ever said the US isn't corrupt. I've said the opposite. ALL governments are corruptible. All economies are corruptible. And I didn't name any authoritarian governments, I said that in my opinion (imo), they are the most easily corrupted.
Socialism is an economic system and democracy is a political system (or ideology). They can co-exist, with the majority deciding (ideally) on collective ownership of resources and goods, possibly communities and businesses, maybe the military, and so on. But again, economic systems are also corruptible; you put someone in charge, he shows favoritism, practices nepotism, wheels get greased, blah-blah-blah. I was gonna say you can't compare the two, but it's the same ol', same ol'...they're comparable in a lot of ways.
Verisure
Senior Member
Verisure
Senior Member
This is very important to understand and it shouldn't be a profound issue at all but Americans (I'm generalizing of course) think that corruption is baked into Communist philosophy while whatever it is the US calls itself "can" be corrupted only by specific misdeeds by a ne'er-do-well who just happens to have found his/her way into political influence, and misuses it. This is why my earlier statement (post #18) met with disbelief ... and worse.
I'll wager that your wager won't find any "takers" once the chips are down.
Timewise 60+
Senior Member
BINGO! You get the prize... the electoral college is a form of a democratic republic where representatives carry forth the wishes of the electorate. I am sure many will 'word smith' this, but the basic concept is true. This clarifies the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. The reason this is not fascist, or a dictatorship is because all of this is controlled by our Constitution. As you know our Congress (our elected representatives) can change our Constitution....
Timewise 60+
Senior Member
Ben, forgive me for trying to keep this discussion simple. So many seemed confused about the basic concept of democracy and America. I agree with most of what you posted, but as I say, sometimes simple clarity is better than full definitions with all the variables included. Sometimes less is more...
I didn't mean to imply that you said the US isn't corrupt. I haven't seen any post where you said it wasn't.
Socialism would not be only an economic system, but since the economic system of any country is its foundation and all else, from government to education and culture, arise from the economic system and its needs to then serve to support it, socialism becomes a socio-economic system complete with a suitable government to facilitate it and protect it just like all economies do. The government of a capitalist country is a capitalists' government for capitalism's benefit. The government of a socialist country would be a socialist government for the benefit of socialism.
And you seem to know this although you start out denying it, because you said "economic systems are also corruptible; you put someone in charge, he shows favoritism, practices nepotism, wheels get greased".
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Do you not believe a gov't can corrupt it's economic system?