How can democracy and Socialism exist at the same time?

[titoman]

First of all, the idea that Marxism and democracy are opposites is false. The fact is that under capitalism (which is usually referred to as "democracy") there is no real democracy. Yes, you can vote every few years in the presidential and congressional elections. But look at who stands in those elections. Only those who have enough money to do so. Who finances their campaigns? The big corporations. So you do not have a REAL choice. In practice, there is democracy only for the rich and powerful - bourgeois democracy.

More important than that, the government which is elected does not really have much choice of what policies to follow. When the 3 richest people in the US have a combined wealth equal to more than 115 million ordinary Americans, they are the ones who really run the country. With their economic decisions they determine the lives of millions of ordinary people, their job prospects, their access to health care, education, etc. When the interests of these big corporations are threatened they use the government to save them. For example when the democratically elected government of Allende in Chile in 1973 decided to nationalize the copper mines and the telecomms (owned by US companies), these corporations gave millions and the CIA organized a military coup in Chile which replaced the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of Allende with the military DICTATORSHIP of Pinochet.

A more recent example is the ongoing trade war between Europe and the US over bananas. Leaving aside the issue of who's right and who's wrong, the point is that the interests of banana companies in Central America are threatened. All these companies are US corporations (Chiquita, Del Monte, Fruit Co.) who have decided and chosen the governments in the region for the last 100 years. As they feel their economic interests are threatened, they use the US government to fight against decisions of the European Union. How are they able to do that? Because they have millions of dollars invested in BOTH the Democratic and the Republican parties. Government and political parties are in the last instance a tool of big business and they are the ones who determine the policies which are implemented. These parties do not exist in a vacuum but are directly funded and influenced by the billionnaires and corporations. Therefore they do not really act in the name of "law", "truth", or "justice", but in the interests of the hand that feeds them.

Under socialism on the other hand, the economic resources of the country and world would not be in private hands, but in the hands of the majority of the population who would run and control them democratically. This would be a REAL democracy where the people would have real control over their lives. They would be able to democratically elect their representatives in government, and at the same time these representatives would have real power over the economy, to really change things. These officials would be subject to immediate recall if they did not satisfactorily do the jobs they were elected for. The people would then elect someone else who they thought would do things better. Also, these elected officials would not earn any more than a skilled worker. Unlike today where the "perks" often outweigh the salary of our "elected" officials. This will get rid of careerists and make sure that the people doing the jobs are there because they want to be there, not so they can get extra benefits from the job. These elected officials would also come from all members of society - as Lenin said, "any cook should be able to be prime minister" - it would be a truly people's democracy.

A further complication to this issue is that people generally identify Marxism with the regime which existed in the Soviet Union. As you can see there was no democracy of any kind there. We say that that was NOT socialism. It was Stalinism, that is, a regime where the economy was in the hands of the state, but the citizens had no way of participating in running it. The bureaucratic caste took control over the state apparatus, and used it in their own interests. This had nothing to do with socialism and in fact, in order to come to power Stalin had first to kill hundreds of thousands of socialist and communist militants, including most of the members of the central committee of the Bolshevik Party who organized the Russian Revolution in 1917. But the bottom line is that genuine socialism and genuine Marxism are based on the ultimate democracy - workers' democracy - democracy by and for the vast majority of people. As Leon Trotsky said, "socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."

[ricardo]

Hey titoman great thoughts but I wonder if ever really anyone has put into practice what they have preached.
History tells otherwise and seems no one is prepared to dismiss this facts except for philosophers

[titoman]

You are absolutely correct. Only Lenin followed that path, but then Stalinism came into picture. All other ЄcommunistЄ revolututions in world began where October revolution ended, in Stalinism.

[Jarema]

Originally posted by titoman
You are absolutely correct. Only Lenin followed that path, but then Stalinism came into picture. All other ЄcommunistЄ revolututions in world began where October revolution ended, in Stalinism.

Oh - but there is only one trully democratic place on Earth - you feel the power of communism and Lenin is still loved.

It is CUBA !

I wish you, from the bottom of my hart, that you move to this socio-economic paradise and give a trully sincere kiss (probably a French kiss would be the optimal solution in his case)to our Beloved Leader Fidel Castro.

[Ivans_grandson]

Democracy is not about equal results it is about equal oppertunity. Over and Over we hear the three wealthiest Americans control more wealth than what ever number of Americans is most impressive today.

The fact of the matter is Bill Gates, the richest American is a college drop out who took a chance on a computer opertaing system and is know worth billions.

The reason Bill Gates was able to do so was because inovation and risk taking are encoraged int he capitalist system. The only people who whine about how unfair it is are those eho are either to afraid to take the risk or those who have already failed.

If Bill Gates had been working away in some socialist economy, he would probably finished college and became a midlevel buerocratic in the State Office Of Technology, where his talent would be waisted and pilfered by a gov't who seeks to equalize the masses by draging down the successful to the level of the failed and incompetant.

[titoman]

Originally posted by Ivans_grandson
Democracy is not about equal results it is about equal oppertunity. Over and Over we hear the three wealthiest Americans control more wealth than what ever number of Americans is most impressive today.

The fact of the matter is Bill Gates, the richest American is a college drop out who took a chance on a computer opertaing system and is know worth billions.

The reason Bill Gates was able to do so was because inovation and risk taking are encoraged int he capitalist system. The only people who whine about how unfair it is are those eho are either to afraid to take the risk or those who have already failed.

If Bill Gates had been working away in some socialist economy, he would probably finished college and became a midlevel buerocratic in the State Office Of Technology, where his talent would be waisted and pilfered by a gov't who seeks to equalize the masses by draging down the successful to the level of the failed and incompetant.

What about 10.000 other Americans that drop out of school and finish like bums. Taking risk in capitalism is not the smartest thing.

[Ulysses]

That's an easy question. They are getting paid their market value. Sucess is not guaranteed in Capitalism, but it is rewarded if you are successful...In Capitalism, people are paid what they are worth to society.

Originally posted by titoman

What about 10.000 other Americans that drop out of school and finish like bums. Taking risk in capitalism is not the smartest thing.