5 ms·

I could just as easily say 'under capitalism, you are presented with the illusion of democratic choice at the ballot, but in reality the constituency of our ele

I could just as easily say 'under capitalism, you are presented with the illusion of democratic choice at the ballot, but in reality the constituency of our elected officials is mainly the capital-owning class' But that's not really engaging with the concepts of capitalism anymore. Sometimes that's perfectly fine. But it's a little lazy to fall back on instead of defending the merits of capitalism as an ideology.

g42gregory 5y ago
Yes, there is corruption in capitalist society, no question. And corruption can reach the point where it's no longer a free capitalist society. But I think what people do not understand is the Socialism is a totalitarian society to begin with. You can't have one without the other. All of our leaders were "democratically" elected. We have one choice at the ballot and you can vote Yes or No. You place your "secret" ballot (filled out in a closed booth!) into a separate "Yes" box or "No" box in full public view of election officials, who just signed you in and have pen and paper in their hands. Our leaders enjoyed an overwhelming public support as a result. This is Socialism.
- malermeister 5y ago
  Versus in the capitalist US where you have two parties to choose from, both of which are owned by the same lobbyists and neither of which ever changes anything meaningful. You have the grotesquely evil option and the controlled opposition getting voted in on the platform of not being grotesquely evil. Neither of them gets anything useful done. Meanwhile what little choice is left is getting undermined by gerrymandering and voter suppression. Yay capitalist democracy?
  - sharemywin 5y ago
    In all fairness I read an article that said about 60% of the time the wealth get congress to act in their favor versus about 30% of the time for the majority.
- 7sidedmarble 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean, but I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim we can't engage with the ideas of Marx because of the history of the 20th century communist revolutions. Revolutions themselves tend towards things like military juntas or communist ruling parties. I think incremental change is possible and if you read Marx he very much saw socialism as a continuum.
  - soco 5y ago
    I think the point is there's a huge discrepancy between any, just any writing of Marx, and the daily life in any, just any, socialist country. I lived myself in one as well, and while I can recognize Marx's writing merits, it gets me sick when I hear about thinking to implement any of those. Because I've seen them at work and there's no better proof than reality.
- bccdee 5y ago
  A socialist would argue that socialism is by definition democratic, and the fact that (eg) the USSR was totalitarian from the get-go means that it was never socialist. After all, a socialist society is definitionally one where power rests in the hands of the working class, and that was certainly not the case in the USSR. Now, you could argue that, per this definition, no socialist society is possible. But that's not the argument you're making. You're arguing that what socialists actually want, despite whatever they say, is Soviet-style totalitarianism, because the USSR called itself socialist. Which is not a sound argument.
  - soco 5y ago
    I think it matters much less what they wanted, than what got implemented. Nobody lived in an imaginary society, they all lived in the real world where things turned up bad. Also amanita looks beautiful, right?
    - bccdee 5y ago
      The problem is that your argument is unsound. > All of our leaders were "democratically" elected. We have one choice at the ballot and you can vote Yes or No. You place your "secret" ballot (filled out in a closed booth!) into a separate "Yes" box or "No" box in full public view of election officials, who just signed you in and have pen and paper in their hands. Our leaders enjoyed an overwhelming public support as a result. This is Socialism. That's not socialism. That's authoritarianism. Look in any dictionary — you won't find any of them say that sham elections are a component of socialism. Of course, you can make the argument that socialist societies are necessarily authoritarian, but you're not. You're just pointing at an authoritarian society that called itself socialist (and which, incidentally, also called itself a democracy despite not being one) and saying "this is definitionally socialism, and socialism necessarily entails everything we see here." Regardless of what you actually think of socialism, that's not a sound logical argument.

g42gregory 5y ago

Yes, there is corruption in capitalist society, no question. And corruption can reach the point where it's no longer a free capitalist society. But I think what people do not understand is the Socialism is a totalitarian society to begin with. You can't have one without the other. All of our leaders were "democratically" elected. We have one choice at the ballot and you can vote Yes or No. You place your "secret" ballot (filled out in a closed booth!) into a separate "Yes" box or "No" box in full public view of election officials, who just signed you in and have pen and paper in their hands. Our leaders enjoyed an overwhelming public support as a result. This is Socialism.

malermeister 5y ago
Versus in the capitalist US where you have two parties to choose from, both of which are owned by the same lobbyists and neither of which ever changes anything meaningful. You have the grotesquely evil option and the controlled opposition getting voted in on the platform of not being grotesquely evil. Neither of them gets anything useful done. Meanwhile what little choice is left is getting undermined by gerrymandering and voter suppression. Yay capitalist democracy?
- sharemywin 5y ago
  In all fairness I read an article that said about 60% of the time the wealth get congress to act in their favor versus about 30% of the time for the majority.
7sidedmarble 5y ago
I'm not sure what you mean, but I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim we can't engage with the ideas of Marx because of the history of the 20th century communist revolutions. Revolutions themselves tend towards things like military juntas or communist ruling parties. I think incremental change is possible and if you read Marx he very much saw socialism as a continuum.
- soco 5y ago
  I think the point is there's a huge discrepancy between any, just any writing of Marx, and the daily life in any, just any, socialist country. I lived myself in one as well, and while I can recognize Marx's writing merits, it gets me sick when I hear about thinking to implement any of those. Because I've seen them at work and there's no better proof than reality.
bccdee 5y ago
A socialist would argue that socialism is by definition democratic, and the fact that (eg) the USSR was totalitarian from the get-go means that it was never socialist. After all, a socialist society is definitionally one where power rests in the hands of the working class, and that was certainly not the case in the USSR. Now, you could argue that, per this definition, no socialist society is possible. But that's not the argument you're making. You're arguing that what socialists actually want, despite whatever they say, is Soviet-style totalitarianism, because the USSR called itself socialist. Which is not a sound argument.
- soco 5y ago
  I think it matters much less what they wanted, than what got implemented. Nobody lived in an imaginary society, they all lived in the real world where things turned up bad. Also amanita looks beautiful, right?
  - bccdee 5y ago
    The problem is that your argument is unsound. > All of our leaders were "democratically" elected. We have one choice at the ballot and you can vote Yes or No. You place your "secret" ballot (filled out in a closed booth!) into a separate "Yes" box or "No" box in full public view of election officials, who just signed you in and have pen and paper in their hands. Our leaders enjoyed an overwhelming public support as a result. This is Socialism. That's not socialism. That's authoritarianism. Look in any dictionary — you won't find any of them say that sham elections are a component of socialism. Of course, you can make the argument that socialist societies are necessarily authoritarian, but you're not. You're just pointing at an authoritarian society that called itself socialist (and which, incidentally, also called itself a democracy despite not being one) and saying "this is definitionally socialism, and socialism necessarily entails everything we see here." Regardless of what you actually think of socialism, that's not a sound logical argument.