no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Democratic Socialism: The Great Fiction
May 19, 2016 Andrew Brady 0 Comment

Democratic socialism is probably the most misunderstood and overrated political philosophy of the last decade… if you want to call it a political philosophy at all. Many cling to the name Democratic Socialism, as if it has any differences from socialism. Individuals make the fallacy that democratic socialism is simply regulated capitalism. As of late, we’ve come to cringe at the word “Capitalism”. There are also many myths and misunderstandings about capitalism flowing around, you can find my article on that topic here. Nonetheless, democratic socialism is incredibly overrated for what it actually entails. Let me explain.

All socialism is inherently democratic.

Socialism in its purest to most flexible forms is completely democratic. Vladimir Lenin’s socialism was democratic. Karl Marx’s socialism is democratic. In fact, Karl Marx called his form of socialism (among other things) “Dictatorship of the Proletarian”. This means rule by the populace- the same thing as democracy. Vladimir Lenin said, “Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working-class movement from this spontaneous, trade-unionist striving to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social Democracy.”(1). Indeed, revolutionary socialists and c*******ts considered themselves whole-hardheadedly democratic socialists.

But this is only one side of the proclamation. Today, many people consider themselves democratic socialists. With democratic p**********l candidate Bernie Sanders proclaiming to be democratic socialist and getting ample support, the t***h about democratic socialism is obvious- there is a large amount of “democratic socialists” in the United States today. But they are socialist-in-name-only.

Most Modern “Democratic Socialists” aren’t really socialists.

Socialism, as discussed in my article on socialism found here, is defined by collective ownership of the means of production. Different socialists go about this in different ways. For example, Vladimir Lenin believed that the only way to achieve socialism was to revolt against the powerful, take over the all powerful monopoly (the state), and use that monopoly to achieve the ends of c*******m. Other socialists are reformists, such as Peter Hain. However, the ends are the same. The end is collective ownership of the means of production.

There is also disagreement among socialist schools of thought about how to achieve collective ownership. Some socialists, anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-c*******ts, in particular, believe that the government must be immediately abolished and that their utopia would naturally be reached through the destruction of the idea of private property. Others, such as Lenin and Marx believed that the state must garner lots of power and force monopolies over every economic industry before utopia can be achieved.

Note that with these disagreements in socialist schools of thought, none of them incorporate the ideas of modern “democratic socialists”. This is because “democratic socialists” are merely Galbraithian and Keynesian. There is no legitimate democratic socialist economic school of thought. These individuals proclaiming to be democratic socialists are only democrats (in the governmental sense, not modern political) with mixed Keynesian economic ideas. Their economic philosophy is not socialistic.

Why doesn’t democratic socialism ever stay democratic?

F. A Hayek, the Nobel peace prize-winning economist, had an excellent piece on democratic socialism and the rule of law in his book, “The Road to Serfdom”. Broadly, democratic socialism doesn’t stay democratic for several reasons. Nothing gets done in democratic socialism because the government must attempt to incorporate everyone’s means, ends, and goals; and humans inherently have different value scales and desires. In democratic socialism, the government grabs more and more power under the name of “welfare”.

Nothing gets done in democratic socialism. When a government tries to incorporate everybody’s goals and means to reach those goals, it often fails. In large economies, individuals don’t all have the same ends and goals. Thus, when you take their money and property and assume you know how to spend it better than they can, you undermine their goals in favor of the “community”. They ignore that everyone working towards and achieving their own goals would make the “community” favorable. The latter is a bottom-up approach to economics and end utility. The former paints everyone with a broad brush.

This is socialism in general, but when you incorporate democracy into this, you have many different people “v****g” for many different things. When everyone disagrees about everything, the government has two options. The first is to accept the minority-majority, which would make the majority of people upset. The second is to take control of the situation and do what the government sees fit. Remember this is all working on the working people’s labor and money. This doesn’t sound like “dictatorship of the proletarian” to me.

Every time democratic socialism has been tried, the government has grabbed more and more power over monopoly powers over certain industries for “welfare”. The government first grabs education, healthcare, and food- the necessities. Then it maneuvers to less necessary endeavors like entertainment and media. This is when they really get the most power. Sure you can force people to do things through education and food, but when you grab entertainment and media, you can control the minds of the masses very quickly and very discreetly. Propaganda was rampant in every socialist society to date.

Both of these lead to totalitarian states ruled by the government. Karl Marx himself feared this outcome of revolutionary socialism. He said, “The state is based on this contradiction. It is based on the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities” (2). Totalitarianism in this fashion is, indeed, described as f*****m by many scholars. I do not believe that it is total f*****m, but the economic model certainly closely resembles f*****m.

Finally, what is democratic socialism?

In theory, which democratic socialism is, all socialism is democratic. In fact, all forms of government are democratic in theory- but socialism is particularly democratic. The goal of socialism in its founding age was to eliminate the totalitarianism and conservatism of central Europe in the 19th century and replace it with a democratic model. This is how socialism came about. So I will argue that democratic socialism is the same thing as any other socialism.

Many will argue that democratic socialism is simply regulated capitalism; however this is not so. Regulated capitalism is a mixed economy, but it certainly is not socialism. Regulated capitalism can be described as being Keynesian or statist. However, capitalism seems to regulate itself. All great innovations in capital and safety have come directly from the market. Scientists, or the general individual, finds something that is destructive, which is made common knowledge, and the businesses on the market create something that prevents this destructive force.

Electric cars are becoming more and more common because of the market. Car producers see value in selling electric cars because people are concerned about the environment. It’s not because the government mandates it. In fact, the government has helped slow the progress by giving big oil so much money. Also, in terms of the workers rights and conditions, improvements have come only from advances in capital by less-regulated capitalism. Improved capital (machinery, etc) has made work both easier and more productive, which inherently improves working conditions.

However, I digress. I am arguing that capitalism regulates itself more than any government has. Democratic socialism is not regulated capitalism. Democratic socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, just like classic socialism. The only difference between Lenin and democratic socialists of today is that Lenin was revolutionary. Socialists today are more gradualist.

Morgan

No, and to deny the difference is simply being obstinant and obtuse. Possibly you could do some studies during the industrial age when conditions were determined solely by the company owner, where peoples safety was never a concern, long abusive hours of children, yes when children were allowed to work in sweatshops. Take the time to look up what was allowed and existed.

Still some of these conditions still exist, for example, a simple lunch break in most states are not the law for adults, only children, there are still places that would have people work 13 hours with nothing more than a cigarette break, I know of one, good ol corporate IHOP, my son would work there without a break for 13 hours without a lunch or dinner break,but to go the the bathroom or cigarette, he was allowed to
swallow some food while still cooking. By law he was not entitled to one, it is under the discretion of the employer.

To your quote:"all socialism is democratic",No, most socialism is not democratic, it is usually fallen under a dictatorship form of government.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

and you honestly believe that socialists changed all that, rather than the free market? All must be doing great and everyone well fed and provided housing and vacations in Venezuela then which is a democratic socialist country or claims to be.
It would be worth your while to read "the politically correct guide to Socialism, then the politically correct guide to c*******m, then the Black Book of C*******m to get the real picture.

Morgan

You think the "free" market changed it, no, it was the outcry of people to the government to establish laws to prohibit abusive conditions. You will see it again very soon. As Trump has taken away the protections to the environment, the environment will become another dumping ground, the companies will pocket their profits without any consciousness or guilt, not their problem, they have the money to always remain safe.

And it wasn't socialist, it was our democracy.

Radiance3

===============
The liberals-democrats new emerging power t***sformed to full blown c*******m. A new leader Ocasio-Cortez emerged to lead this c*******t style. How America have t***sformed to c*******m, via open borders. Where all i*****l a***ns fight and demand to be taken cared of and be feed.

Freedom curtailed, government thinks for the people, dictates what the people must do to serve the dictatorial power of the supreme leader.

Morgan

Honestly, where have you've been? Venezuela has been overridden by a dictator. V**ed in but then took over and it can happen here, it IS happening here. The very thing our framers tried to avoid was the total empowerment of ONE party, yet it has come about by the deceptions and manipulations of the Republican party, who to be sure want to be THE ONE PARTY SYSTEM.

Morgan

Why would I read what has poisoned your brain with its propaganda?

bahmer

Amen and Amen

pafret Loc: Northeast

Combatting abuses of Rapacious Capitalism as in your son's case are what unions are for. The exploitative practices of the Industrial Age are what established most of our modern infrastructure but it was done at the same human cost as building the Chinese Wall across their Northern border. The unions rose to combat these abuses and unfortunately in modern times have in their turn become the abusers.

Your assertion that socialism is not democratic is absurd; one needs only to look at all of the nations which have or had socialism and everyone was and is democratic. Governments of all kinds ultimately take control of all of the aspects of everyones life. That controlling process has been accelerated at an astounding rate since 9/11 and we are rapidly approaching total control of a police state all the while we maintain we are a Constitutional Republic whose governance is determined by democratic means of our elected Representatives..

Morgan

All forms of governing have to fight to prevent corruption which includes those of unions. But they had decided to throw out the baby with the bathwater and rather than fixing the corruption they chose to tear it down, they simply dismantled them, not rebuilding, leaving workers defenseless at a time when there are more corporations than ever.

Laws protecting the people and their environment is not controlling the people it is controlling the abuses of corporations.
The Chinese wall was under a dictatorship government, and basic s***ery, something I know here in the south, still tries to keep practicing, just under the wire by law, hence 13 hours of work without a decent break. Ironically, it only hurts them as it is proven, people who work exhausted do not perform well or with any good efficiency, and they will pay more with errors made. But they're too cheap, greedy and bull-headed to acknowledge those facts.

If you prefer to loosely define socialism as democratic, meaning all people working together in a collaborative way for a united goal, but that is not the complete t***h, if the people are threatened and forced under a dictatorship, then no it is not under a "free choice" democracy.

As far as I know, capitalism and socialism are economic structures that work in polar opposites. One works for the individual the other as a whole.

We have the best of the best we have a capitalistic society that also has social programs to help the starving, elderly, or disabled. This does not make democrats socialists, nor does it make us a socialistic government and this verbiage and misdefining has got to stop. It is a lie.

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

=============================
"This does not make democrats socialists, nor does it make us a socialistic government."
You are right there, but when a member or so of the Democratic Party announce themselves as Democratic Socialists, very loud alarm bells should go off! That was close to Hillary's declaration as a Progressive Democrat, Bernie's, and perhaps the new one whose name I forget. They are Socialists in the Democratic Party, and if given the chance would pursue the Socialist dream for the nation. Lots of young idealists follow them too.

woodguru

They aren't even close, except to ignorant fools that took all the McCarthy era buzzwords and lumped them into the same h**e and fear mongering rhetoric.

C*******t
Socialist
N**i

As pertains to c*******t countries the word socialism was used interchangeably with c*******m. As democrats use socialism it's to talk about things like social security and welfare, but that is not completely taking away people's wealth and using it in and for a collective government controlled by the government.

woodguru

Under Trump we would have full blown dictatorship if he gets his way, democracy and f**r e******ns gone, 40% of the people electing presidents.

vernon

And that is why and forever you will remain stupid.

vernon

You were almost that with obama.The people realized what was happening and v**ed in Trump.Now you mfers need to just tell the t***h and quit all this lying and agitation.