Intellectuals only: is democratic socialism the ideal form of government?
Before I even ask anything, please leave if you are here to insult or otherwise post objectionable material here on Y!A. You WILL be reported. Now that that's taken care of, if you are enlightened, then please proceed:
I don't understand everyone's abhorrence for democratic socialism. It seems to me that there is a social stigma against the democratic socialist form of government due to the communist regimes of Soviet Russia, PR China, North Korea, and other failed governments. However, people do not realize that communism is NOT socialism, and socialism is NOT democratic socialism.
In my humble opinion, the US public needs to become enlightened and reconsider the situation and analyze it in an objective manner, relying on science and ethics (morals).
The democracy currently present in the USA is a system that only perpetuates poverty; the people at the top stay at the top and the people at the bottom stay at the bottom.
People who grow up in impoverished, gang-ridden cities, such as Watts or Compton, have little to no chance of growing up to be someone in the world. If you grow up in a household where you have very little money for food at home with a single mother and three brothers, while being subjected to a substandard educational system, then you will almost invariably end up in a gang, and/or steal or sell drugs for money in order to help feed your family and make a living. Even if you do try to get an education (considering you can even afford school materials), your education will be sub par compared to the middle and upper class students; and how do you expect to both go to school AND make a living for yourself? People say that "America is the land of opportunity," and that "anything is possible in the USA," but do these statements hold true for those who grow up in the conditions I described? You tell me.
In a socialist society, everyone could elect representatives and every family and individual would inevitably receive a minimum amount of money with with to live comfortably and healthily (most healthy products are extremely over-priced) and there would therefore be no "ghetto" neighborhoods and everyone could afford to obtain an education and succeed in life.
And NO, the problem is NOT that you award necessity instead of work, because there would be a minimum income cap, but there would also therefore be room for improvement in income with education and competition. The difference is that there would not be the elitist super-rich that exists today due to the imperialist capitalism that began over a century ago with the British Empire.
Here is an excellent point that someone made in another answer (not my info), so take this into consideration as well:
"War, poverty, exploitation and oppression are products of the capitalist system, a system in which a minority ruling class profits from the labor of the majority. The alternative is socialism, a society based on workers collectively owning and controlling the wealth their labor creates.
It is the right governmental structure for a post-industrailized society like ours. But capitalists have fought the people of the US about this for years and has won. People really can't even think outseide the bounds of capitalist mind control, they can't envision a just society."
So true, so true.
However, we all know that this type of government can never be established because the elite of the world would never risk letting something like that happen, for it would decimate their power and grip on the world economy.
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest Answer
Here's the basic problem with a Socialist Democracy: It's predicated on the belief that people are generally good and will be willing to work and do and advocate for the good of everyone. If this were true, a Socialist Democracy would work. The problem is it doesn't take into account the root of human nature -- selfishness. Because of this, you will still have an elite and an underclass, but the difference will be that the elite will be those in positions of political power, and the underclass will be everyone else after the wealth has been redistributed according to the way the elite ruling class sees fit. The end result is big government controlling the economy.
The person who says that socialism is a society based on workers collectively owning and controlling the wealth their labor creates couldn't possibly be more wrong. No way the government is going to step back and allow the workers to have that much control, and even if that were possible, how are you going to get all the workers to agree on how to distribute that money in a way that is fair and equitable to all? There's simply no getting around the human nature trait of selfishness, so the best you could hope for is endless squabbling among the workers. At worst you'd have workers (or members of the government elite) who covet power and control stepping in and making decisions that may appear to benefit everyone but in reality benefit them first and foremost.
Capitalism is hardly a perfect system, but its roots are founded in the idea that those who take risks, develop products and services that people want, provide better products and services than the competition, and simply do better are the ones who will advance. In this system, success is determined by consumers like you and me, NOT any form of government. This makes it possible (difficult, but possible) for people who live in poverty to advance up to middle class and even upper class income if they work hard, apply themselves, and strive toward improving themselves and society as a whole.
BTW, are you aware of the main reason poverty is perpetuated in this country? One political party has been pushing for welfare and education reform for well over a decade now. Their plan is to augment welfare with education or job skill training and job placement assistance, with the ultimate goal of reducing the number of people on welfare. The same political party is advocating a voucher system for schools that would level the playing field for all students and force sub-par schools to provide a better education or close their doors. Why have neither of these plans been implemented? Simple: The other party wants to keep the current system going so they can keep the voters under their collective thumbs while lying to their constituents. They say "We are the ones who care about you. The other evil people want to take your welfare away!" Wrong. The other party wants to bring these people to the point where they don't need welfare anymore.
As a result of one party just throwing money at a problem while doing nothing to correct it, we now have a large group of people of all different racial and ethnic backgrounds who are completely capable of working but have decided they are not going to work because Uncle Sam is handing them money. A Socialist Democracy will not correct such a problem because, again, it's predicated on the belief that people are generally good and will WORK and DO for the greater good. The problem is a Socialist Democracy lumps these people who refuse to get off their lazy @$$es but still expect perpetual handouts in with the people who WILL work and do, so eventually everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator, at which point the economy collapses because NO ONE is willing to work.
BOTTOM LINE: In the final analysis, capitalism, despite its flaws, is still the better system for a country based on guarantee of individual citizen's rights and minimum government interference.
- vote_usa_firstLv 71 decade ago
Zero government is the ultimate form of government. Or minarchism. Absolute minimum government.
Private property, and personal freedom and liberty are what all people should strive for. (personal freedom and liberty coming naturally upon birth)
Those you want to take care of in your socialist utopia are taken care of voluntarily by those who care.
Is it morality that pushes you towards compulsory 'donations' to those who cannot make what others can? If so, why do you lack the morality preventing that theft of private property in the first place?
The result of your system is one where corporations and individuals use the lawless power of government (police, military, 'justice system') to create monopolies and seize the property and wealth of their enemies in the name of 'morality' and 'equality'.
I will post a link in a minute to a book you might enjoy, its a old one, so its free in pdf if you wish. It is said to be the greatest critique of socialism ever written.
By Ludwig von Mises (1922)
(store link if you like it alot)
# Part I. Liberalism and Socialism
o 1. Ownership
o 2. Socialism
o 3. The Social Order and the Political Constitution
o 4. The Social Order and the Family
# Part II. The Economics of a Socialist Community
* Section I. The Economics of an Isolated Socialist Community
o 5. The Nature of Economic Activity
o 6. The Organization of Production Under Socialism
o 7. The Distribution of Income
o 8. The Socialist Community Under Stationary Conditions
o 9. The Position of the Individual Under Socialism
o 10. Socialism Under Dynamic Conditions
o 11. The Impracticability of Socialism
* Section II. The Foreign Relations of a Socialist Community
o 12. National Socialism and World Socialism
o 13. The Problem of Migration Under Socialism
o 14. Foreign Trade Under Socialism
* Section III. Particular Forms of Socialism and Pseudo-Socialism
o 15. Particular Forms of Socialism
o 16. Pseudo-Socialist Systems
# Part III. The Alleged Inevitability of Socialism
* Section I. Social Evolution
o 17. Socialistic Chiliasm
o 18. Society
o 19. Conflict as a Factor in Social Evolution
o 20. The Clash of Class Interests and the Class War
o 21. The Materialist Conception of History
* Section II. The Concentration of Capital and the Formation of Monopolies as Preliminary Steps to Socialism
o 22. The Problem
o 23. The Concentration of Establishments
o 24. The Concentration of Enterprises
o 25. The Concentration of Fortunes
o 26. Monopoly and Its Effects
# Part IV. Socialism as a Moral Imperative
o 27. Socialism and Ethics
o 28. Socialism as an Emanation of Asceticism
o 29. Christianity and Socialism
o 30. Ethical Socialism, Especially That of the New Criticism
o 31. Economic Democracy
o 32. Capitalist Ethics
# Part V. Destructionism
o 33. The Motive Powers of Destructionism
o 34. The Methods of Destructionism
o 35. Overcoming Destructionism
- Anonymous1 decade ago
That was Nazi Germans political system. Google it
"National Socialist Democratic Worker's Party"
- Anonymous1 decade ago
To the FIRST POSTER: Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Social Democrats were the ONLY ones who stood up to Hitler.
Hitler's rise to power began with the Reichstag Fire of 1933. A "catastrophe" which was engineered to terrorize the populace into fear and submission. JUST LIKE BUSH AND 9/11.
"The Emergency Decree stated: "Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."
Immediately, there followed the first big Nazi roundup as truckloads of SA and SS roared through the streets bursting in on known Communist hangouts and barging into private homes. Thousands of Communists as well as Social Democrats and liberals were taken away into 'protective custody' to SA barracks where they were beaten and tortured. "
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago