Amazon.com Widgets
  • There is NOTHING Democratic about Socialism.

    Socialism is Socialism, in all Socialist countries, you will always have state being the main entity and dictator by means of high taxation and high regulation. This gives government the power and means over control of what and how much gets produced. So essentially Socialism is all about state control, and by giving government this power, it has always shown in recorded history to lead towards totalitarianism. The Labour Government in Britain is the prime example of this, it used the prolonged testing of Democratic Socialism, and look at where Westminster government is today. It's not serving it's people, but themselves.

    The ideology was founded in the 1870's, and by looking at the Communist Manifesto, you can see how closely the 10 steps match the relation to the Democratic Socialist policies. Socialism is the slow and gradual path towards Communism. Democracy is about freedom and choice, when it comes down to a more regulated government controlled economy, you are essentially bullying businesses by means of force on various issues.

  • Yes democratic socialism and communism are the same thing

    Yes, I believe that functionally democratic socialism and communism are inherently the same thing. I believe that both theories incorporate a large portion, and nearly all if not completely all, rights to the government in order to control the economy. Both systems place heavy emphasis on the government's role in the economy.

  • Democratic Socialism is Nothing More Than Communism in Sheep’s Clothing

    A primary argument that the two are not one in the same is invariably that socialism is primarily an economic system, while communism is both economic and a political in its ideology. Bull. Although communism tries to supervise both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned communally an underlying objective is to achieve classlessness, which is exactly a primary trait of democratic socialism itself. Both attempt to prevent the effects of what they view as uncontrolled capitalism, so in essence there is little or difference between the two ideologies, one of which is being forced upon our nation as we debate the minimal difference between them.

  • 6 in one, half a dozen the other

    The motivation behind both democratic socialism and communism is to counter exploitation by a wealthy, privileged elite of the poor under-privileged class by means of government-managed economy, rather than a free market economy, in the interest of the public good. Whether by revolution or democratic election, the objective of both is to create a single class utopian society achieved by redistribution of wealth to provide basic entitlements and equal opportunities for each individual to realize his creative potential. In each case, the government is trusted to control the means of production and limit individual profits. So people are expected work for the benefit of the collective society at the expense of individual prosperity beyond mandated limits. Unfortunately, as Margaret Thatcher observed, "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

  • Socialism:Urban = Communism:Rural

    Both Socialism and Communism strive for the same thing, Complete Government (or "public" some will say) ownership, control, and overreach. Socialism is more adherent towards urban centralized society where as Communism tailors more towards rural based society.

    For example:
    Communism - you have two cows, the government takes both and sells you some milk.
    Socialism - you have two cows, the government takes both and gives you free milk all the whilst raising taxes on everything else to pay for the free milk.

    Throwing the term 'democratic' in front of Socialism merely implies the method of taking control i.e. through a system of democracy vis a vis voting in presidential elections within an indirect representative form of government like the United States.

  • Sssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssss

    Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssss weoeuh8e udhudbueb jebubhufiu uehburhuheruiheui ueuhejowjkeio ehriojhwion erijroiwje reurirjei9 r jm mj j n jk jj jj 9 9 hjjrrf rfjeeej f mc cfkc k kk k kk k kkk k k k k kkkee e e d d dd jjifg89gri jfhguijroithriejt ighiruejtijky6890 igj9trjky90tk mityijtiojkhy tikjyiotrjyjkj tiijyiortj909yjt0u yitujoiptyuoko ijghioj

  • Sssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssss

    Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssss weoeuh8e udhudbueb jebubhufiu uehburhuheruiheui ueuhejowjkeio ehriojhwion erijroiwje reurirjei9 r jm mj j n jk jj jj 9 9 hjjrrf rfjeeej f mc cfkc k kk k kk k kkk k k k k kkkee e e d d dd jjifg89gri jfhguijroithriejt ighiruejtijky6890 igj9trjky90tk mityijtiojkhy tikjyiotrjyjkj tiijyiortj909yjt0u yitujoiptyuoko ijghioj

  • Democratic Socialism is a Dream we can't do yet, and so was communism.

    Democrat socialism claims that it is significantly different from because it holds to democracy as a value and elected officials of the people to control the means of production. What it fails to recognize is that this creates an identical system to communism, only with different labels for the people in the positions of power, and debatebly different means for those people to come to power. What really exists is a scale between private ownership and public ownership with two directions... Political economic philosophies pursuing public ownership, and political economic philosophies pursuing private ownership or the protection of private ownership. What occurs time and again is that people come up with a new label for their belief of who has ownership of capital, and then this group says we are different because we don't go as far as those did (yet). In "communist" societies so far, Cuba, Russia, North Korea an elite society forms which controls all of the means of production. Democratic socialism claims that because the officials are elected this will not occur. But without evidence; and when the democratic group tends towards one party dominance, or even complete single party control, with the party selecting all candidates, the system is actually identical... Although elections take place, the people have no real role in selecting who wins, the "democracy" is an illusion. When private ownership is the goal, the separation of power and abdication of control by governing bodies prevents absolute control by small bodies through the opposition of centralization of power. Or, in other words, in Communism and Socialism the goal is to remove power from the individual and place it in the society as represented by a select group concentrating power. In the system which the socialist/communist arose as a criticism to, (capitalism) it is believed that the individual has all power regarding to the individual and in governance the individual voluntarily surrenders a portion of this power to representatives in exchange for goods or services either political or economic. E.G a political representative to handle decisions in a manner trusted by the elector, and for economic an employer who the employee entrusts time and labor into for profit. The upside of this is that in capitalism an individual can choose to entrust their self with their economic capital and direct it. In communism and democratic socialism this decision is yielded to the greater community or society as a whole. Democratic Socialism and Communism are both systems where the individual abdicates responsibility for their decisions regarding their individual being in favor and belief that society as a whole will choose better than the individual.

  • It is a communism, but with little amendment to be less extreme.

    It is communism, but pure communism is too extreme which is undemocratic at all. Therefore a little amendment had been made to make it democratic and less extreme, but still a communism. Little amendment is not similar to major or structural change. It makes communism more democratic, but not a democratic. Only more democratic in communism but not a democratic.

  • Population Control Systems

    A Constitutional Republic limits the GOVERNMENT and protects individual liberty...
    A Democracy is a destabilizing system that becomes an angry mob making demands of the minority...
    An Oligarchy is a group of people that run everything...
    A Dictatorship is one person runs everything...
    There are some sub groups; Plutocracy, Monarchy and so on.
    Those are Government Types or Systems.
    Communism and Socialism are interchangeable and wind up inevitably as population control systems used by all of the above mentions systems except by Constructional Republic.
    Fascism is the opposite of a Plutocracy. Plutocrats are large business interests that control a given government while Fascism is a government that controls and regulates businesses.
    Capitalism is a word used to describe the Bourgeoisie as Marx did.
    NAZI is a Nationalized Socialist.
    In the end it boils down to this, on the one hand is Anarchy and in the other Oligarchy so realize that population control systems limit the people while in general anarchy leads back to oligarchy.
    PAX

  • Not Exactly the Same

    Democratic socialists of course want democracy. They want free and fair elections. They think this makes them right and that the only thing whatsoever that was wrong with communism was that it wasn't democratic. Yes that was a problem. But the mere fact that the government was trying to micromanage the entire economy was itself a problem. At least if we tried democratic socialism at some point common sense would prevail and the democratic socialists would be elected out of office and we would not have democratic socialism any more.

  • Sssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssss

    Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssss weoeuh8e udhudbueb jebubhufiu uehburhuheruiheui ueuhejowjkeio ehriojhwion erijroiwje reurirjei9 r jm mj j n jk jj jj 9 9 hjjrrf rfjeeej f mc cfkc k kk k kk k kkk k k k k kkkee e e d d dd jjifg89gri jfhguijroithriejt ighiruejtijky6890 igj9trjky90tk mityijtiojkhy tikjyiotrjyjkj tiijyiortj909yjt0u yitujoiptyuoko ijghioj

  • Then so is Fascism and Conservatism!

    One argument that can be levelled is that Conservatism and Fascism are the same, but that WOULD be ludicrous, wouldn't it?

    Many conservatives in the 1930s were VERY friendly with Hitler, and hailed him as a great example of a leader; he turned the economy of Germany around and enriched the middle classes. Only when he went too far in 1939 and we HAD to declare war on him, then it was no longer possible to deny the truth about his regime and what it was doing.

    Both ideologies come from the same stable, that there is an elite who are entitled to accrue wealth and rule with privilege, though the methods differ. I would be VERY disingenuous to suggest THEY are the same, but it has to be admitted that many democratic conservative nations cuddle up to Fascist regimes (the USA being the best example). Many democratic socialist nations also do this 'buddy, buddy' thing with communist regimes, and that ain't right, but they are NOT the same thing, despite being grounded in the same ideology, which is that all humans are equal, and all who contribute to society deserve a reasonable share of the profits and spoils.

    The greatest irony is that Western nations are now lining up to do business with China and beg for their manufacturing and investment since they became a capitalist economy (though NOT a free market one, not by a long shot!), yet they are STILL a totalitarian regime with appalling human rights, and last I checked it was still the COMMUNIST party in charge!

  • As a Communist, I am disappointed by democratic socialist leaders and parties

    Who allow large sections of the economy to remain under heavily regulated capitalist control. They are setting themselves up for an eventual reactionary backlash from a still powerful ruling class, followed by austerity and the reestablishment of intensive exploitation. Capitalism is not a bad dog you can keep on a leash. It is a superpredator that will consume you unless you kill it first.

  • As a Communist, I am dissatisfied by Democratic Socialist parties and leaders

    Who allow large sections of the economy to remain under heavily regulated capitalist control. They are setting themselves up for an eventual reactionary backlash from a still powerful ruling class, followed by austerity and the reestablishment of intensive exploitation. Capitalism is not a bad dog you can keep on a leash. It is a superpredator that will consume you unless you kill it first.

  • Facts Are Facts

    First... There are different types of Socialism.
    With this in mind, Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet the majority of public needs, not to make profits for a few.

    Democratic Socialists do NOT want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But they also do not want big corporate bureaucracies & lobbyists to control society either.

    Democratic Socialists believe that social & economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect... Which in the USA would be the middle class.

    In a nut shell --- Democratic Socialism is a system of government by which the whole population rules. The Society of people is most important with a healthy dose of regulated capitalism, regulated to ensure the people are protected from financial gouging and corporate abuses.

  • No they are not

    Democratic Socialism is when the economy is organized socialistically in a democratic fashion, while communism is a post-scarcity economy where almost all labor is automated and there is superabundance. The terms are very propagandized however so people are often confused, for example people think the USSR called itself communist when it only said they were going to achieve it one day.

  • They're not quite the same.

    Democratic socialism (not to be confused with social-democracy, which is just slightly regulated capitalism) attempts to install socialism via (bourgeois democratic, as they are in 'democratic' countries at this time) elections. They believe they can fight the system from within to eventually establish communism (a classless, stateless society with common ownership of the means of production).

    (Revolutionary) communists on the other hand believe this is impossible, as the system was specifically designed by the bourgeoisie (who own the means of production) and the only way to overcome capitalism is via revolution. They believe that the current 'democratic systems' are not democratic (rule of the people) at all. A direct democracy is what they want, where everybody always has got a say about everything, without leaders. To accomplish communism, revolutionary communists want the proletariat (anyone who has to sell his/her labour (physical or intellectual) to a capitalist (member of the bourgeoisie), so the proletariat is the majority of the people) to overthrow the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois government and install the so-called 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. This would be a 'democratic dictatorship': democratic because every proletarian would have a say (in counsels, 'soviets' in Russian), dictatorship because one class (the proletariat) would have power over another (the capitalists/bourgeoisie). Note that communists believe this to be the case in capitalism, where the minority oppresses the majority. Also note that all capitalists can easily become proletarian. The purpose of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is to eliminate class differences; to make the bourgeoisie proletariat; to achieve a classless society. (There's also the question about the farmers, but different tendencies have got different views.) After this stage, the state (a tool of oppression) is no longer needed, and society becomes stateless.

    A bit off-topic, but anarchism is basically the same, but skipping the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. (So revolution would be directly followed by a communist/anarchist society).


    In short, democratic socialists want to use elections to come to power and begin change, communists want to people to take power via revolution.

  • They're not the same

    Today's political climate portrays the opposition by lumping groups in with the most demonizing terms whether they are based in fact or not. The truth is that if you look at the reasons they say these two are the same aren't based in logic but conspiracy, ignorance, 19th century literature, and political warfare. Sorry, unknowable guesses aren't truth.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.