Tom CravenA Rebuttal To the Arguments Against Socialism
May 14th 2008 09:52
Recently I posted an article named 'Socialism Is Not A Dirty Word By John Stirlingclick here to see the article. It has received both of praise and criticism. In this follow up I would like to rebut the arguments against socialism that were raised is comments and emails.
Firstly, I totally and equivocally reaffirm my belief that Democratic Socialism is the best system of governance and economics that we posses. There is nothing wrong with putting some of the means of production into the hands of the workers, not the owners. We must spread the wealth, so that we no poor and no rich. Everyone is equal, there is no greed, no profit rather consumption. Every man is judged by his need not his want. Capitalism has had its turn, and its failed, it is the time of the worker. It is the time for Democratic Socialism.
The above comment was made by the user 'Damo'. Firstly,John Stirling is not dead, the article was written by myself a few days ago, my name is John Stirling. Now Damo has alluded to the apparent failure of socialism no doubt in Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Eastern Europe and China what Damo has forgotten to mention is that the system in place in those countries was Democratic Socialism, it was ugly, ugly Communism. The type of Communism that was put in place was not Communism, it was a hybrid piece of Maoist/Stalinist shit. Democratic Socialism and the system of Communism in those place is not comparable. Democratic Socialism does not propose the state owning and running everything. Democratic Socialism provides for the workers through democracy to control both the economy and the country. Saying something does not work without it ever having been tested in the past and using evidence of countries that did not even have Democratic Socialism in place is just not fair. Show us a country where Democratic Socialism has not worked, there aren't any, it has never ever put in place. We should start the workers government.
The above comment was made by 'postmoderncritic'. Democratic Socialism may have some flaws but if it does they are minimalist and incomparable to the huge flaws of capitalism, poverty is testament to the failure of capitalism.
Democratic Socialism does not erode human rights if anything rights are increased, Not only do the people control the government they also directly control the economy our realm of representation will be doubled. I'm not proposing a Communist Russia, I'm proposing a Democratic Socialist system where Democratic Socialism is elected into power and the means of production are in the hands of the worker not the owner. The parliamentary checks and balance as well as the judiciary will provide the same accountability they provide today. I do not remember proposing a dictatorship in my speech, rather a system of democracy and socialism.
With Democratic Socialism the opportunity to complain remains and you can complain with your vote by removing governments from office or even voting against reform or economic decisions. Democracy will still be in the system, in fact it will be increased as the worker will have more say in the economy. You say that 'socialist countries suppress the opposition', I would rebut that by simply saying that you are referring to the wrong kind of socialism, instead you are referring to the kind of socialism that Russia had. That was communism, not Democratic Socialism, it was the worse kind of communism. I am not advocating that for one second. Give me an example of a Democratic Socialist government where the opposition has been oppressed, you have evidence of ideological nightmares like Communist Russia suppressing opposition but not Democratic Socialism. Once again it is very unfair to say that Democratic Socialism and Communism is the same thing, its like comparing an apple to an orange.
Communism slows the economy and there is a lack of motivation, I agree. Democratic Socialism does not align itself to communist economic policy. Democratic Socialism promotes the means of production meaning big companies being put in the hands of the workers so that the companies are geared for consumption not profit. This means no greed and thus a better world Workers will be the paid the same wage as today, and obviously some occupations would pay more than others. But there would be an emphasis on need not want, and since when was that a bad thing? Furthermore in we have an economy for consumption not profit, then there an no recessions and no economic downturns. Imagine never having to worry about interest rates and unnecessarily high commodities prices again!
Finally, please do not compare Democratic Socialism to the system of governance in North Korea, China or Cuba. That is not Democratic Socialism that is idiotic, ideologically incorrect communism. They are incomparable and so they shouldn't be aligned or compared. Now, I have a question for you and anyone who disagrees with me go and look at the homeless, have a look at those people that struggle to make ends meet, the families who live on next to nothing. Finally go and have a look at the starving people in Uganda, Indonesia, Peru and Afghanistan and you look at them in the eye, and say " Yes, Capitalism is working, greed does not exist in Capitalism, your misery is not caused by greed" . If you can't say that, then you must agree that Democratic Socialism (where there is no greed) is the logical ideological improvement in both representation, governance and economically.
We must unite, put the world in the hands of the workers, not those profiteering from the flaws of capitalism.
Firstly, I totally and equivocally reaffirm my belief that Democratic Socialism is the best system of governance and economics that we posses. There is nothing wrong with putting some of the means of production into the hands of the workers, not the owners. We must spread the wealth, so that we no poor and no rich. Everyone is equal, there is no greed, no profit rather consumption. Every man is judged by his need not his want. Capitalism has had its turn, and its failed, it is the time of the worker. It is the time for Democratic Socialism.
Isn't John Stirling dead?
No that was just his dream of a socialist state.
Sorry it has been tried and did not work.
No that was just his dream of a socialist state.
Sorry it has been tried and did not work.
The above comment was made by the user 'Damo'. Firstly,John Stirling is not dead, the article was written by myself a few days ago, my name is John Stirling. Now Damo has alluded to the apparent failure of socialism no doubt in Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Eastern Europe and China what Damo has forgotten to mention is that the system in place in those countries was Democratic Socialism, it was ugly, ugly Communism. The type of Communism that was put in place was not Communism, it was a hybrid piece of Maoist/Stalinist shit. Democratic Socialism and the system of Communism in those place is not comparable. Democratic Socialism does not propose the state owning and running everything. Democratic Socialism provides for the workers through democracy to control both the economy and the country. Saying something does not work without it ever having been tested in the past and using evidence of countries that did not even have Democratic Socialism in place is just not fair. Show us a country where Democratic Socialism has not worked, there aren't any, it has never ever put in place. We should start the workers government.
There's no such thing as a perfect system - all man-made systems have flaws, it's just a matter of which flaws are more acceptable, and I much prefer capitalism to socialism because socialism erodes human rights and creates a small elite that have unchecked power over everyone else. They are not accountable to anybody but themselves, and even the most well-meaning person in this position is setting themselves up to be corrupt. When you are not exposing yourself to outside scrutiny you are foregoing your morality.
At least with democracy and capitalism you have the opportunity to complain about the system and campaign for an alternative. In socialist countries they suppress all opposition and demand that you align yourself totally with their system, whether you like it or not.
Resistance preaches democratic socialism, and I'm sorry but it's impossible to combine the two. Once you have a socialist system in place freedom of expression is seriously interfered with. In theory, it's a dream; in practice, a nightmare.
Also, socialism stifles innovation - since everyone makes pretty much the same amount of money there is less motivation to come up with new ideas and concepts.
So while I admire your idealism I think it's important to do more research on this text. Better yet, go to China, North Korea or Cuba and take note of how brainwashed and mindlessly conformist the people are. This is the result of socialism.
At least with democracy and capitalism you have the opportunity to complain about the system and campaign for an alternative. In socialist countries they suppress all opposition and demand that you align yourself totally with their system, whether you like it or not.
Resistance preaches democratic socialism, and I'm sorry but it's impossible to combine the two. Once you have a socialist system in place freedom of expression is seriously interfered with. In theory, it's a dream; in practice, a nightmare.
Also, socialism stifles innovation - since everyone makes pretty much the same amount of money there is less motivation to come up with new ideas and concepts.
So while I admire your idealism I think it's important to do more research on this text. Better yet, go to China, North Korea or Cuba and take note of how brainwashed and mindlessly conformist the people are. This is the result of socialism.
The above comment was made by 'postmoderncritic'. Democratic Socialism may have some flaws but if it does they are minimalist and incomparable to the huge flaws of capitalism, poverty is testament to the failure of capitalism.
Democratic Socialism does not erode human rights if anything rights are increased, Not only do the people control the government they also directly control the economy our realm of representation will be doubled. I'm not proposing a Communist Russia, I'm proposing a Democratic Socialist system where Democratic Socialism is elected into power and the means of production are in the hands of the worker not the owner. The parliamentary checks and balance as well as the judiciary will provide the same accountability they provide today. I do not remember proposing a dictatorship in my speech, rather a system of democracy and socialism.
With Democratic Socialism the opportunity to complain remains and you can complain with your vote by removing governments from office or even voting against reform or economic decisions. Democracy will still be in the system, in fact it will be increased as the worker will have more say in the economy. You say that 'socialist countries suppress the opposition', I would rebut that by simply saying that you are referring to the wrong kind of socialism, instead you are referring to the kind of socialism that Russia had. That was communism, not Democratic Socialism, it was the worse kind of communism. I am not advocating that for one second. Give me an example of a Democratic Socialist government where the opposition has been oppressed, you have evidence of ideological nightmares like Communist Russia suppressing opposition but not Democratic Socialism. Once again it is very unfair to say that Democratic Socialism and Communism is the same thing, its like comparing an apple to an orange.
Communism slows the economy and there is a lack of motivation, I agree. Democratic Socialism does not align itself to communist economic policy. Democratic Socialism promotes the means of production meaning big companies being put in the hands of the workers so that the companies are geared for consumption not profit. This means no greed and thus a better world Workers will be the paid the same wage as today, and obviously some occupations would pay more than others. But there would be an emphasis on need not want, and since when was that a bad thing? Furthermore in we have an economy for consumption not profit, then there an no recessions and no economic downturns. Imagine never having to worry about interest rates and unnecessarily high commodities prices again!
Finally, please do not compare Democratic Socialism to the system of governance in North Korea, China or Cuba. That is not Democratic Socialism that is idiotic, ideologically incorrect communism. They are incomparable and so they shouldn't be aligned or compared. Now, I have a question for you and anyone who disagrees with me go and look at the homeless, have a look at those people that struggle to make ends meet, the families who live on next to nothing. Finally go and have a look at the starving people in Uganda, Indonesia, Peru and Afghanistan and you look at them in the eye, and say " Yes, Capitalism is working, greed does not exist in Capitalism, your misery is not caused by greed" . If you can't say that, then you must agree that Democratic Socialism (where there is no greed) is the logical ideological improvement in both representation, governance and economically.
We must unite, put the world in the hands of the workers, not those profiteering from the flaws of capitalism.
| 113 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
BTW
How can you say what version of socialism I was alluding to when I never stated it?
You just shot your self in the foot.
Comment by Tom Craven
Independent Australian By Thomas J Craven
Comment by Damo
Also we have:
The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Comment by Lucy Ham
What makes you beleive that the 'worker' is any better or morally stronger than the 'owner'?
If large firms were put in the hands of the workers i don't see how this would remove any greed! The worker would simply become the owner and self interest would once again drive the economy.
Comment by Tom Craven
Independent Australian By Thomas J Craven
If we look at our society now, the people at the bottom or the majority do the bulk of the work, but they receive the least award in terms of money,in a social democracy the majority of the people are rewarded. If people these days work to empower the people at the top, than surely people will work even harder if it directly empowers them.
Private companies are run for the benefit of the shareholders this means that the company will do anything to get ahead. Under a Democratic Socialist regime the company is run to benefit the community. This means the company's reason to exist is to benefit the community not for the profit. It's a totally different philosophy. I don't agree that there would be greed under Democratic Socialism due to the nature of everyone owning the means of production, but even if there was it would be far, far less than what we have now.
Comment by Lucy Ham
A question does arise about whether this is entirely fair. However, if people do not have the opportunity to be rewarded for their inputs into society they simply will not continue to provide them. It is not possible to induce people to produce or research (which have major benefits to society) or do most things with out the opppprtuninty to receive private benefits. For people to run a company solely for the benefit of the community and not themselves, would require complete enforcement and regulation by the government. Thus, there is no possibilty for free enterprise.
Comment by Lucy Ham