Topic: A Tale of Two Socialisms (Read 329 times)

I agree completely. No popular elite has ever risen to power without leaving a trail of bodies in the background in my opinion. Non-violence rarely helps the powerful people achieve their goals(Mahatma Gandhi's Non-Cooperation movement etc).

I agree, at least with our voices it can still influence political travel, with a democratic system. from this system, the people's voice is very decisive to bring the direction of travel from a country

Just compare the political system that was in USSR with system that was in capitalistic countries. Usually, during socialism you've got only 1 political party while at the same time in western countries there is a fight between several political powers. This thing is called politics.
Mayors, presidents and congress have to deal with the financial side of their work. And courts should not be affected by capital and normaly in US and EU judges are normaly independent and I can't say the same about courts in socialistic countries).

The only reason I'd go with the "democratic" system is that even though we can't say we are completely financially free, we can still affect politics. Systems like China only works while the economy is good, if it's not you just suck it up and sit quietly in a corner.

Power can be amassed behind the barrel of the gun but it will not last for too long as people will realize that the real power is with them and there can be the time when people will use that power against the very government that they assume should be protecting them. Capitalism and democracy can be considered as bad systems but the problem is that many other contender ideas can't be considered as better alternatives. There are actually good ideas for governance but when they are applied human nature gets in the way leading to massive failures. We saw this with the communism in the 70s and 80s. In the end, there is no perfect system it is how we use the system that matters most. In addition, the end should not be used to justify the means.

You really believe in this? In democracy as we have, the capital place everyone. mayors, judges, presidents, congress. Everyone. BobK71 is more then right.

Just IMHO but it is pretty stupid to compare elections during socialism where people are not allowed to vote against their government (otherwise they are risking ti get killed) with the things that happen during democratic elections.

we live under financial socialism, and that the results aren't all that different, fundamentally speaking.

Paul Krugman: "the dollar is backed by men with guns."

Inequality is institutionalized.  People with centralized wealth and power tend to pass them to their offspring.  What we have, in effect, is modern feudalism.  Check and check.

Democracy is allowed as long as it only makes the system look good.  Socialist countries had real elections only at the town or village level.  The West has real elections only at the circus level.  Check and check, for filling positions of real power by 'indirect democracy.'

Inequality is institutionalized.  People with centralized wealth and power tend to pass them to their offspring.  What we have, in effect, is modern feudalism.  Check and check.

While various countries have come close, no country can boast of being a purely capitalist or socialist country, not in the purest form anyway. There are aspects of socialism in capitalist countries and there is enough evidence of the price mechanism at work in socialist countries. l do agree with some of the points you make, but the conclusion is overly simplistic.
NO, true power doesn't lie behind the barrel of a gun. This was the thinking behind to race to amass weapons in the 70s and 80s, but going by that the USSR would still be existing. l could go on, but you get the drift.

One way or another, violence is the ultimate guarantor of the elites' power.  Mao: "political power comes from the barrel of the gun."  Paul Krugman: "the dollar is backed by men with guns."

While various countries have come close, no country can boast of being a purely capitalist or socialist country, not in the purest form anyway. There are aspects of socialism in capitalist countries and there is enough evidence of the price mechanism at work in socialist countries. l do agree with some of the points you make, but the conclusion is overly simplistic. NO, true power doesn't lie behind the barrel of a gun. This was the thinking behind to race to amass weapons in the 70s and 80s, but going by that the USSR would still be existing. l could go on, but you get the drift.

What we despise are the socialist countries of Cuba, the Soviet Union, China in the socialist days, etc.  We think that we have basically free-market, democratic systems in the West.

I invite everyone to think again.  I make the case that, while the above countries lived under economic socialism, we live under financial socialism, and that the results aren't all that different, fundamentally speaking.

Socialism depends on the ignorance of the people to survive.  Check and check.

It depends on the silencing of dissident voices.  Check and check.  Time and again, my discussions with economists suggest it's not that they don't know the system is rigged.  They don't want to know.

Central planning, whether in the economy or in money, is marketed as giving power to benevolent experts to act for the public good, with the reality of taking from the many to give to the few.  Check and check.

Periodic purges or revisions tell us the pain we're experiencing is due to the failure of past leadership and ideas.  Somehow, the system is fine but the people never seem to measure up.  Check and check.

Inequality is institutionalized.  People with centralized wealth and power tend to pass them to their offspring.  What we have, in effect, is modern feudalism.  Check and check.

One way or another, violence is the ultimate guarantor of the elites' power.  Mao: "political power comes from the barrel of the gun."  Paul Krugman: "the dollar is backed by men with guns."

Democracy is allowed as long as it only makes the system look good.  Socialist countries had real elections only at the town or village level.  The West has real elections only at the circus level.  Check and check, for filling positions of real power by 'indirect democracy.'

This is not to say there aren't major differences between 'capitalist' and socialist countries.  There are.  But not in a fundamental way, and not in the long run.

Sadly, it's true worldwide that those with power will not give it up easily, and certainly not for the good of the society at any time.  The only possible resistance, apart from self-education, is to cast a suspicious eye to every narrative promoted by the mainstream media, especially as it pertains to wars and terrorism.

It is here that the rubber meets the road, where our literal blood is spilled for the benefit of the elites.  It's here that we must be truly vigilant.