Democracy vs. Socialism

[Votto]

"The Road to Serfdom", by Fredrich Hayek

There can be no doubt that most of those in the democracies who demand a central direction of all economic activity still believe that socialism and individual freedom can be combined. Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the greatest threat to freedom.
It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. It began quite openly as a reaction against the liberalism of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle".
Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said, "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man," he said in 1848, "while socialism makes each man a mere agent, A mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order for there to be "equality", must their be a government to impose it?

Additionally, can "equality" ever be attained in society? Has there ever been absolute equality within society whether socialist or otherwise?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The Road to Serfdom", by Fredrich Hayek

There can be no doubt that most of those in the democracies who demand a central direction of all economic activity still believe that socialism and individual freedom can be combined. Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the greatest threat to freedom.
It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. It began quite openly as a reaction against the liberalism of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle".
Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said, "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man," he said in 1848, "while socialism makes each man a mere agent, A mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order for there to be "equality", must their be a government to impose it?

Additionally, can "equality" ever be attained in society? Has there ever been absolute equality within society whether socialist or otherwise?

And if the people in a Democracy choose by the power given to them by Democracy to establish socialist/socialistic institutions?

 

[Votto]

"The Road to Serfdom", by Fredrich Hayek

There can be no doubt that most of those in the democracies who demand a central direction of all economic activity still believe that socialism and individual freedom can be combined. Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the greatest threat to freedom.
It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. It began quite openly as a reaction against the liberalism of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle".
Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said, "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man," he said in 1848, "while socialism makes each man a mere agent, A mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order for there to be "equality", must their be a government to impose it?

Additionally, can "equality" ever be attained in society? Has there ever been absolute equality within society whether socialist or otherwise?

And if the people in a Democracy choose by the power given to them by Democracy to establish socialist/socialistic institutions?

This is why people choose it. Listen to the prophet Hayek nearly half a century ago.

"To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives - the craving for freedom - socialists began increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom". Socialism was to bring "economic freedom" without which political freedom was "not worth having".
To make this argument sound plausible, the word "freedom" was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of us all. Freedom in this sense, is of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.
The claim that a planned economy would produce a substantially larger output than the competitive system is being progressively abandoned by most students of the problem. Yet it is this false hope as much as anything which drives us along the road of planning.
Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "communism" and "fascism". As the writer Peter Ducker expressed it in 1939, "the complete collapsae of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of unfreedom and inequality which Germany had been following. Not that communism and fascism are the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved and illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany".

I guess we are doomed to let history repeat itself over and over. Human beings are incapable of any other behavior it seems.

 

[Votto]

In the mind of a socialist, freedom cannot be attained until a free market is dead. Is it then possible to create freedom by eliminating freedom?

 

[Timmy]

How do u define socialism?

 

[Votto]

How do u define socialism?

It is a form of collectivism. There are many flavors of collectivism: fascism, communism, socialism, etc.

Today we have what is called "democratic socialism". Wiki defines it like this.

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.[1]

So instead of a Stalin telling us what to do you can now vote for either Hillary or Trump on what we should be doing as we eagerly await them to "transform" us. LOL.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The Road to Serfdom", by Fredrich Hayek

There can be no doubt that most of those in the democracies who demand a central direction of all economic activity still believe that socialism and individual freedom can be combined. Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the greatest threat to freedom.
It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. It began quite openly as a reaction against the liberalism of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle".
Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said, "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man," he said in 1848, "while socialism makes each man a mere agent, A mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order for there to be "equality", must their be a government to impose it?

Additionally, can "equality" ever be attained in society? Has there ever been absolute equality within society whether socialist or otherwise?

And if the people in a Democracy choose by the power given to them by Democracy to establish socialist/socialistic institutions?

This is why people choose it. Listen to the prophet Hayek nearly half a century ago.

"To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives - the craving for freedom - socialists began increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom". Socialism was to bring "economic freedom" without which political freedom was "not worth having".
To make this argument sound plausible, the word "freedom" was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of us all. Freedom in this sense, is of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.
The claim that a planned economy would produce a substantially larger output than the competitive system is being progressively abandoned by most students of the problem. Yet it is this false hope as much as anything which drives us along the road of planning.
Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "communism" and "fascism". As the writer Peter Ducker expressed it in 1939, "the complete collapsae of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of unfreedom and inequality which Germany had been following. Not that communism and fascism are the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved and illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany".

I guess we are doomed to let history repeat itself over and over. Human beings are incapable of any other behavior it seems.

Countries do not evolve to socialism and then to communism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How do u define socialism?

It is a form of collectivism. There are many flavors of collectivism: fascism, communism, socialism, etc.

Today we have what is called "democratic socialism". Wiki defines it like this.

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.[1]

So instead of a Stalin telling us what to do you can now vote for either Hillary or Trump on what we should be doing as we eagerly await them to "transform" us. LOL.

The US military is the number 1 flavor of 'collectivism'.

 

[Timmy]

How do u define socialism?

It is a form of collectivism. There are many flavors of collectivism: fascism, communism, socialism, etc.

Today we have what is called "democratic socialism". Wiki defines it like this.

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.[1]

So instead of a Stalin telling us what to do you can now vote for either Hillary or Trump on what we should be doing as we eagerly await them to "transform" us. LOL.

So your not cool wh biz regulation, safety nets, biz + gov partnerships /projects , and stuff like that ?

 

[Old Rocks]

In the mind of a socialist, freedom cannot be attained until a free market is dead. Is it then possible to create freedom by eliminating freedom?

What kills the free market most effectively is the free market. Just as we saw when that craven CEO bought the patents for a certain drug that many could not live without, literally, then raised the price 7500%, greed is the worst enemy of the free market. Adam Smith recognized that, and warned of it, and also warned of failing to pay the working man his fair share of the value of the products of his labor.

Socialism and capitalism both need the other. It is which is used where and to what extent that is the debate. All successful industrial nations are combinations of both. Even China and Russia. Those on either side that insist on 'pure' socialism or 'pure' capitalism are fools that cannot learn from history.,