CDZ Difference between Democratic Socialism and Communism

[Votto]

Er..........um.................the former USSR had elections

A lot of good that did them, eh?

Elections in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

And guess what, the NAZI party referred to themselves as National democratic Socialists and seized power via democracy.

Recently, another thread I started got sidetracked over an argument as to whether Democratic Socialism and Communism amounted to the same thing. So, thought I'd make this thread to discuss the difference, in case anyone is still interested. The following is an excerpt from an article at time.com:

**
How is democratic socialism different from socialism and communism in the former Soviet Union and other countries abroad?
The simple answer is that democratic socialists believe in a democracy, while communist forms of government are not democracies.

“Democratic socialists believe in elections, the First Amendment — [they] want ordinary people to have more power in a more democratic system,” Kazin says. “In communist countries, the state controls everything and a small group of people control the state, a tyrannical system.”

Confusion is understandable, however, because the USSR did stand for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But for context, here’s how Kazin explains when the distinction started to be made between socialism and communism: “All communists call themselves socialists because they want it on the way to pure communism.” But, he explains, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 caused a split between those who identified primarily as communist and those who identified as socialist. In 1919, the Bolsheviks formed the Comintern (Communist International), an international organization of communist parties and groups. Those who wanted to follow in Russia’s footsteps joined, essentially declaring themselves communist, while others decided to stick with socialism.
**

Source:

What to Know About the History of Democratic Socialism in America

And how it differs from socialism and communism in other places around the world

time.com

Er..........um.................the former USSR had elections

A lot of good that did them, eh?

Elections in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

Not very fair ones:
**
Since Vladimir Putin became President of Russia there has been increasing international criticism of the conduct of Russian elections.[18] European institutions who observed the December 2007 legislative elections concluded that these were not fair elections. Göran Lennmarker, president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), said that the elections "failed to meet many of the commitments and standards that we have. It was not a fair election."[19] Luc Van den Brande, who headed a delegation from the Council of Europe, referred to the "overwhelming influence of the president's office and the president on the campaign" and said there was "abuse of administrative resources" designed to influence the outcome. He also said there were "flaws in the secrecy of the vote." "Effectively, we can't say these were fair elections," he said at a news conference.[20]

In February 2008 The human rights organisation Amnesty International said that the presidential election on 2 March would not be a genuine election: "There is no real opposition ahead of the election. There is no real electoral campaign battle," Friederike Behr, Amnesty's Russia researcher, was quoted as saying. In a report on the elections, Amnesty said laws restricting non-government organizations, police breaking up demonstrations, and harassment from critics were all part of "a systematic destruction of civil liberties in Russia."[21] Another human rights organisation, Freedom House, said that the victory of Putin's party in the 2007 elections "was achieved under patently unfair and non-competitive conditions calling into doubt the result’s legitimacy."[22]

The Russian government has acted to prevent international observers monitoring Russian elections. In 2007 the OSCE was prevented from monitoring the legislative elections held in December.[23] In February 2008 the European Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights announced that it would not send observers to monitor the presidential election on 2 March, citing what it called "severe restrictions" imposed on its work by the Russian government. "We made every effort in good faith to deploy our mission, even under the conditions imposed by the Russian authorities", said Christian Strohal, the organization's director. "The Russian Federation has created limitations that are not conducive to undertaking election observation".[24] The OSCE has also withdrawn its attempts to monitor the elections.

The 2011 Russian legislative elections were considered to be rigged in favor of the ruling party by a number of journalists and opposition representatives.[25] However public opinion-polls prior to the election suggested that the ruling party could count on the support of 45–55 percent of voters, which may suggest that there were no mass falsifications, despite isolated cases of fraud.[26] Nationwide exit polls were very close to the final results.[27]

In 2015 OSCE called the Russian government to respect and support the work of independent election observers, following a number of incidents where citizen observers were beaten or harassed in regional elections.[28] There is a widespread practice of increasing attendance on unpopular or controversial votes using financial bonus for everyone attending, free food, toys, etc.[29]
**

Source:

Elections in Russia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Damn. Who said anything about fair?

Was it fair that the media allowed and promoted conspiracy theories about Trump and Putin 24/7, but when it came to conspiracy theories about Biden the press not only refused to report the Hunter affair as well as allegations about Biden raping a staffer, they censored social media regarding it.

In fact, about 30% of voters who voted for Biden said they would probably not have voted for Biden had they known about them.

The democrat party are experts on herding the masses to vote a certain way, which is why they have full control of academia and the media.

How on earth can that be overcome?

 

[Votto]

Recently, another thread I started got sidetracked over an argument as to whether Democratic Socialism and Communism amounted to the same thing. So, thought I'd make this thread to discuss the difference, in case anyone is still interested. The following is an excerpt from an article at time.com:

**
How is democratic socialism different from socialism and communism in the former Soviet Union and other countries abroad?
The simple answer is that democratic socialists believe in a democracy, while communist forms of government are not democracies.

“Democratic socialists believe in elections, the First Amendment — [they] want ordinary people to have more power in a more democratic system,” Kazin says. “In communist countries, the state controls everything and a small group of people control the state, a tyrannical system.”

Confusion is understandable, however, because the USSR did stand for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But for context, here’s how Kazin explains when the distinction started to be made between socialism and communism: “All communists call themselves socialists because they want it on the way to pure communism.” But, he explains, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 caused a split between those who identified primarily as communist and those who identified as socialist. In 1919, the Bolsheviks formed the Comintern (Communist International), an international organization of communist parties and groups. Those who wanted to follow in Russia’s footsteps joined, essentially declaring themselves communist, while others decided to stick with socialism.
**

Source:

What to Know About the History of Democratic Socialism in America

And how it differs from socialism and communism in other places around the world

time.com

It is STILL Oligarchal Collectivism. Keynes was an Economic know nothing. So was FDR.

I don't really know anything about Keynes (name sounds familiar though), but I really liked FDR's New Deal. Anyway, bottom line is I'm a pretty big fan of Bernie Sanders, AOC and others like them. They define themselves as Democratic Socialists, and it fits with what I quoted in the Wikipedia article. That is, it's a democratic system, not an oligarchical one.

FDR's New Deal was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Did you know that? Then FDR tried to have SCOTUS replaced so he could appoint stooges to jam his program down our throats. Did you know that? At the time, the democrat party was appalled at this power grab, but today democrats praise him for the attempt and talk openly about doing it.

These are fascists.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Recently, another thread I started got sidetracked over an argument as to whether Democratic Socialism and Communism amounted to the same thing. So, thought I'd make this thread to discuss the difference, in case anyone is still interested. The following is an excerpt from an article at time.com:

**
How is democratic socialism different from socialism and communism in the former Soviet Union and other countries abroad?
The simple answer is that democratic socialists believe in a democracy, while communist forms of government are not democracies.

“Democratic socialists believe in elections, the First Amendment — [they] want ordinary people to have more power in a more democratic system,” Kazin says. “In communist countries, the state controls everything and a small group of people control the state, a tyrannical system.”

Confusion is understandable, however, because the USSR did stand for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But for context, here’s how Kazin explains when the distinction started to be made between socialism and communism: “All communists call themselves socialists because they want it on the way to pure communism.” But, he explains, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 caused a split between those who identified primarily as communist and those who identified as socialist. In 1919, the Bolsheviks formed the Comintern (Communist International), an international organization of communist parties and groups. Those who wanted to follow in Russia’s footsteps joined, essentially declaring themselves communist, while others decided to stick with socialism.
**

Source:

What to Know About the History of Democratic Socialism in America

And how it differs from socialism and communism in other places around the world

time.com

They are both tyrannical systems of government that promise free chit to the dredges of society in exchange for their support------who then use their useful idiots to rob taxpayers (middle class) and the poor alike to make everyone poorer. The only real difference between is that socialism initially started off as a catholic christian thing while communism had more of a jewish influence in its formation. The two have since merged more or less------and there is no real difference. Both promise to take from the rich (who actually run both groups so you know its lip service) and give to those who don't want to work--the end result is that the actual stealing comes from both the middle and bottom making most poorer.

 

[San Souci]

AOC says she is a Democratic Socialist. And wants to spend 30 TRILLION on Global Warming. Just WHERE is the money coming from? Socialism spends OP Money on spurious projects and leaves REAL issues in the dustbin.

Recently, another thread I started got sidetracked over an argument as to whether Democratic Socialism and Communism amounted to the same thing. So, thought I'd make this thread to discuss the difference, in case anyone is still interested. The following is an excerpt from an article at time.com:

**
How is democratic socialism different from socialism and communism in the former Soviet Union and other countries abroad?
The simple answer is that democratic socialists believe in a democracy, while communist forms of government are not democracies.

“Democratic socialists believe in elections, the First Amendment — [they] want ordinary people to have more power in a more democratic system,” Kazin says. “In communist countries, the state controls everything and a small group of people control the state, a tyrannical system.”

Confusion is understandable, however, because the USSR did stand for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But for context, here’s how Kazin explains when the distinction started to be made between socialism and communism: “All communists call themselves socialists because they want it on the way to pure communism.” But, he explains, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 caused a split between those who identified primarily as communist and those who identified as socialist. In 1919, the Bolsheviks formed the Comintern (Communist International), an international organization of communist parties and groups. Those who wanted to follow in Russia’s footsteps joined, essentially declaring themselves communist, while others decided to stick with socialism.
**

Source:

What to Know About the History of Democratic Socialism in America

And how it differs from socialism and communism in other places around the world

time.com

It is STILL Oligarchal Collectivism. Keynes was an Economic know nothing. So was FDR.

I don't really know anything about Keynes (name sounds familiar though), but I really liked FDR's New Deal. Anyway, bottom line is I'm a pretty big fan of Bernie Sanders, AOC and others like them. They define themselves as Democratic Socialists, and it fits with what I quoted in the Wikipedia article. That is, it's a democratic system, not an oligarchical one.

Keyes was a socialist who was in love with Hitler who was a National Socialist . He once wrote that Hitler proved all of his economic theories before they were written. He also added that his economic theories could best be implemented via a totalitarian regime like the Nazi regime. FDR loves Keynes.

But then Hitler went and started a war and fell out of favor with Keynes and those who loved Keynes. But they never stopped loving Keynes or socialism.

You forget Huey Long. Also Eugene Debbs. All "intellectuals" are Reds. Looking for the "Perfect Society". Trouble is ,there is no such thing. Huxley wrote about this. Yet his Society was worthless.

 

[San Souci]

AOC says she is a Democratic Socialist. And wants to spend 30 TRILLION on Global Warming. Just WHERE is the money coming from? Socialism spends OP Money on spurious projects and leaves REAL issues in the dustbin.

Many numbers have been bandied about as to how much it would cost. The center-right American Action Forum apprently pegs the cost at $93 trillion. With numbers varying so widely, I think the key is to focus more on the goal and how to go about it. AOC has also commented on possible ways to pay for it. Here's an excerpt from investopedia.com on the proposed Green New Deal:

**
Edward B. Barbier, the American economics professor who wrote the report that formed the basis of the UN's Green New Deal, said that, instead of deficit funding, the government should use revenues that come from dismantled subsidies and environmental taxes.15


On the other hand, Ocasio-Cortez has told CBS's "60 Minutes" that "people are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes" to pay for the Green New Deal and suggested tax rates of 60% to 70% for the very wealthy.16


Advocates of the Green New Deal who promote a heterodox macroeconomic framework called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), including Ocasio-Cortez, believe the government shouldn't be too concerned about the cost. "The federal government can spend money on public priorities without raising revenue, and it won’t wreck the nation’s economy to do so," a group of prominent MMT supporters wrote in an op-ed for The Huffington Post.17 "The U.S. government can never run out of dollars, but humanity can run out of limited global resources. The climate crisis fundamentally threatens those resources and the very human livelihoods that depend on them."
**

What Is the Green New Deal?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's call to transform the U.S. economy away from fossil fuels and create millions of green jobs has sparked some debate.

www.investopedia.com

Only one problem. There is no dsuch thing as "Global Warming". It is a ploy to give the Gov't more control. In the Novel 1984 , "The Party" kept people scared because of the spurious War. It made "The People" accept shortages in everything. This Global Warming is the same thing. Here is a clue. The World is NOT gonna burn up in 12 years. AOC is an idiot who should be on a leash.

 

[BULLDOG]

Er..........um.................the former USSR had elections

A lot of good that did them, eh?

Elections in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

And guess what, the NAZI party referred to themselves as National democratic Socialists and seized power via democracy.

Recently, another thread I started got sidetracked over an argument as to whether Democratic Socialism and Communism amounted to the same thing. So, thought I'd make this thread to discuss the difference, in case anyone is still interested. The following is an excerpt from an article at time.com:

**
How is democratic socialism different from socialism and communism in the former Soviet Union and other countries abroad?
The simple answer is that democratic socialists believe in a democracy, while communist forms of government are not democracies.

“Democratic socialists believe in elections, the First Amendment — [they] want ordinary people to have more power in a more democratic system,” Kazin says. “In communist countries, the state controls everything and a small group of people control the state, a tyrannical system.”

Confusion is understandable, however, because the USSR did stand for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But for context, here’s how Kazin explains when the distinction started to be made between socialism and communism: “All communists call themselves socialists because they want it on the way to pure communism.” But, he explains, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 caused a split between those who identified primarily as communist and those who identified as socialist. In 1919, the Bolsheviks formed the Comintern (Communist International), an international organization of communist parties and groups. Those who wanted to follow in Russia’s footsteps joined, essentially declaring themselves communist, while others decided to stick with socialism.
**

Source:

What to Know About the History of Democratic Socialism in America

And how it differs from socialism and communism in other places around the world

time.com

Er..........um.................the former USSR had elections

A lot of good that did them, eh?

Elections in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

Not very fair ones:
**
Since Vladimir Putin became President of Russia there has been increasing international criticism of the conduct of Russian elections.[18] European institutions who observed the December 2007 legislative elections concluded that these were not fair elections. Göran Lennmarker, president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), said that the elections "failed to meet many of the commitments and standards that we have. It was not a fair election."[19] Luc Van den Brande, who headed a delegation from the Council of Europe, referred to the "overwhelming influence of the president's office and the president on the campaign" and said there was "abuse of administrative resources" designed to influence the outcome. He also said there were "flaws in the secrecy of the vote." "Effectively, we can't say these were fair elections," he said at a news conference.[20]

In February 2008 The human rights organisation Amnesty International said that the presidential election on 2 March would not be a genuine election: "There is no real opposition ahead of the election. There is no real electoral campaign battle," Friederike Behr, Amnesty's Russia researcher, was quoted as saying. In a report on the elections, Amnesty said laws restricting non-government organizations, police breaking up demonstrations, and harassment from critics were all part of "a systematic destruction of civil liberties in Russia."[21] Another human rights organisation, Freedom House, said that the victory of Putin's party in the 2007 elections "was achieved under patently unfair and non-competitive conditions calling into doubt the result’s legitimacy."[22]

The Russian government has acted to prevent international observers monitoring Russian elections. In 2007 the OSCE was prevented from monitoring the legislative elections held in December.[23] In February 2008 the European Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights announced that it would not send observers to monitor the presidential election on 2 March, citing what it called "severe restrictions" imposed on its work by the Russian government. "We made every effort in good faith to deploy our mission, even under the conditions imposed by the Russian authorities", said Christian Strohal, the organization's director. "The Russian Federation has created limitations that are not conducive to undertaking election observation".[24] The OSCE has also withdrawn its attempts to monitor the elections.

The 2011 Russian legislative elections were considered to be rigged in favor of the ruling party by a number of journalists and opposition representatives.[25] However public opinion-polls prior to the election suggested that the ruling party could count on the support of 45–55 percent of voters, which may suggest that there were no mass falsifications, despite isolated cases of fraud.[26] Nationwide exit polls were very close to the final results.[27]

In 2015 OSCE called the Russian government to respect and support the work of independent election observers, following a number of incidents where citizen observers were beaten or harassed in regional elections.[28] There is a widespread practice of increasing attendance on unpopular or controversial votes using financial bonus for everyone attending, free food, toys, etc.[29]
**

Source:

Elections in Russia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Damn. Who said anything about fair?

Was it fair that the media allowed and promoted conspiracy theories about Trump and Putin 24/7, but when it came to conspiracy theories about Biden the press not only refused to report the Hunter affair as well as allegations about Biden raping a staffer, they censored social media regarding it.

In fact, about 30% of voters who voted for Biden said they would probably not have voted for Biden had they known about them.

The democrat party are experts on herding the masses to vote a certain way, which is why they have full control of academia and the media.

How on earth can that be overcome?

That could be overcome in a minute if you start working harder for the voters than the Democrats do. Being selfish racists who only work for the rich will get you exactly where you are.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There is a big difference.

Kids embrace democratic Socialism when they are a Junior in high school. They don't embrace actual communism until they have had a year in college.

I hope that helps.

 

[Donald H]

Have Americans drawn the political battle lines? Let's put the question to the test!

Did Americans really want the 1.9 Trillion Covid/etc.relief package?
Do Americans really want the 2.5 Trillion infrastructure package?

They both represent 'social' change for the working class and that can't be said to not be 'socialism'.

But let's give the benefit of the doubt to capitalism's argument that socialism equals communism. And then Americans can ask if 'social' change is worth the risk of communism?

For Canadians, that's all quite silly to even contemplate. We choose capitalism with a 'social' responsibility toward the people being represented by government. We can still continue to trust in capitalism.

Whereas China has a huge population in which capitalism of any brand is impossible. Capitalism can't feed 1,500,000,000 hungry mouths and so China must ensure it's government's first task is to provide for the people. If government doesn't provide then revolution will eventually begin to threaten.

Does that sound familiar to Americans, post Jan.6th?

Can America's brand of capitalism be amended so that it can do the job necessary for the people's wellbeing?
Or is America's population now too large for a capitalist solution?

And that folks, is what makes this topic somewhat interesting. Not the lowlife, childish bickering on whether or not socialism is communism. That nonsense is and always has been the talking point of the very wealthy in America.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Smokescreen.
Dishonest semantics.
Democrats are evil. They believe morals only exist to use against those who have any.

Pretty sure you're joking, though with some people here, it's hard to tell .

Democrats are evil. For democrats, morals exist to be used as political weapons only.
Does that make it clearer?

 

[Donald H]

There is a big difference.

Kids embrace democratic Socialism when they are a Junior in high school. They don't embrace actual communism until they have had a year in college.

I hope that helps.

It helps because it's the talking point of the ruling wealthy class in America.
It's just a slight twist from the demonizing of social change by placing that under the 'communism' label.

Is it the right approach for America? Maybe?

It's entirely wrong for Canada and the world's other leading democracies/capitalist countries.

Canada ranked #1 country in the world for Quality of Life | News

For the fifth year in a row, Canada is ranked the #1 country in the world in 2020 for Quality of Life, according to a global ranking from US News.

dailyhive.com

We've long since been able to pass off our minor disagreements and replace them with major points on which we can agree!

Has America's population become too large for capitalism or can America's capitalism adapt to the needs of the people so that it can work for a larger population of, let's say a half billion?
Does history offer any examples?

 

[Donald H]

Democrats are evil. For democrats, morals exist to be used as political weapons only.
Does that make it clearer?

The Democratic party has a history of what I would characterize as evil. It has accepted money and bowed to big money interests for many years, because of politicians that chose to be corrupted.

The same is of course true to the other side too.

America suffers at the hands of a greedy style of capitalism. Biden/Xiden is apparently trying to change that with his massive spending, that many Americans are convinced will bankrupt America forever.

I think there is a risk! But I think there's also a risk of a real 'revolution' too if something doesn't change.

 

[dblack]

It's the worship of democracy that I find most unnerving about Democratic Socialists. They seem to think that if a government is democratic that it can't be totalitarian, that it can do no wrong, and that's just not true.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's the worship of democracy that I find most unnerving about Democratic Socialists. They seem to think that if a government is democratic that it can't be totalitarian, that it can do no wrong, and that's just not true.

And you suffer from the belief that every aspect of our government is out to get you and do you great harm. I truly feel sorry for you, but that doesn't stop me from laughing at the crazy shit you come up with.

 

[dblack]

It's the worship of democracy that I find most unnerving about Democratic Socialists. They seem to think that if a government is democratic that it can't be totalitarian, that it can do no wrong, and that's just not true.

And you suffer from the belief that every aspect of our government is out to get you and do you great harm.

No, really don't.

I truly feel sorry for you, but that doesn't stop me from laughing at the crazy shit you come up with.

Your sympathy is appreciated, but not necessary.

I just don't think making socialism more democratic really improves it much.

 

[Donald H]

It's the worship of democracy that I find most unnerving about Democratic Socialists. They seem to think that if a government is democratic that it can't be totalitarian, that it can do no wrong, and that's just not true.

I would have thought that a democracy and a totalitarian regime couldn't possibly coexist but you seem to be suggesting that it could be possible. Can we say that 'democracy' is not open to numerous interpretations? If not then can you suggest some?

What would be an example of totalitarianism within a democracy?

I'm not just automatically disagreeing with you, I'm just curious to know what you're thinking?

 

[dblack]

What would be an example of totalitarianism within a democracy?

A government that runs everything. Democratically.

 

[Donald H]

I just don't think making socialism more democratic really improves it much.

Isn't 'socialism' more democratic by definition? If not then what are you thinking of, again?

'Socialism' can only be known by it's root word that is 'social'.

 

[dblack]

What would be an example of totalitarianism within a democracy?

A government that runs everything. Democratically.

I guess I should clarify my use of the term "totalitarian", because I see several definitions on the internet that describe it in terms of its opposition to democracy. But I see other definitions that support how I'm using - a government that controls most aspects of society.

 

[Donald H]

What would be an example of totalitarianism within a democracy?

A government that runs everything. Democratically.

I see you're not to be taken seriously.

 

[dblack]

Isn't 'socialism' more democratic by definition? If not then what are you thinking of, again?

More democratic than what? The premise of the thread seems to be that Democratic Socialism is different from Communism in that it is more democratic. I'm not much of a fan of democracy, so that's not really an improvement in my view. My issue with socialism is that the government simply has too much power.