Of course no one knows what will be in 10 or 20 years. Maybe Europe will be taken over by China and then we'll have Chinese-style communism instead of socialism. — Apollodorus

By this I mean two things. First, we do not know how successful and policy or program will be. There will be unforeseen and unintended consequences. Second, I think the looming environmental crisis will serve as a major challenge to myopic notions of individualism and isolationist nationalism.

I can't disagree with that. All I'm saying is that "socialism" isn't always what believers in it think it is, as happened in the Russian revolution when many woke up to a great shock after thinking that overthrowing the imperial order would solve all their problems. If there is one lesson to learn from history is that politicians can't be trusted and this seems to be increasingly the case, for the simple reason that the world's problems are far too complex and there are too many competing interests for any politician to find the right answers. "Solutions" often give rise to new problems and politicians are often forced to take a short-term view of them which only exacerbates the already dire situation. The Covid-19 pandemic is a good example of how totally wrong things can go. It ought to be a wake-up call for all of us no matter our political persuasion.

Shouldn't the question be "Capitalism vs Socialism" instead?

Because democracy is a form of government while socialism is not, how do you compare these two?

All I'm saying is that "socialism" isn't always what believers in it think it is, — Apollodorus

Yes, on this we agree. It is used as a term of condemnation without understanding what it actually is.

It is used as a term of condemnation without understanding what it actually is. — Fooloso4

Yeah, like "liberal". So effective has the "right" been in spitting that term out like a curse that even liberals started to run from it, searching for alternatives like "progressive". Before the propaganda machine got after it, socialism was as American as apple pie. Check out history back in the 19th and early 20th centuries. That's what I hate about the left. They always cede ground until it's time to get the war on, then they go out and win it, but at what cost?

If I call someone "stupid" the right will not have a problem with that. The left will try to come up with some other term, even if it fits. The right also tries to steal Old Glory. And, by god, some on the left cede that fight too, which the right then cites as proof of their point! Jeeze!

Meanwhile, anyone who went to school (and paid attention) knows full well that every single solitary one of our founding fathers was dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

Well, check that. I guess anyone who went to school (and paid attention) knows full well that "liberal" is a position, not a person. So there you have it. Even I have taken to screwing terms because the stupid people have made their definitions the norm.

I wonder if that's how languages develop over time?

Yes, on this we agree. It is used as a term of condemnation without understanding what it actually is. — Fooloso4

I don't think condemnation is the problem. In a democratic system, opposition should be allowed.

I think the problem is that even socialists don't know what socialism really is until it's too late.

Meanwhile, anyone who went to school (and paid attention) knows full well that every single solitary one of our founding fathers was dyed-in-the-wool liberal. — James Riley

The majority of those who call themselves "conservative" are without knowing it liberal in that they ascribe to the tradition of natural rights, equality, individualism, in a word, liberalism. Perhaps if more of them had a good liberal arts education they would know this.

So, what is it that differentiates them? More often than not religious, moral, and political dogmatism.

I think the problem is that even socialists don't know what socialism really is until it's too late. — Apollodorus

Is social security socialism? If not then what is it? Those who opposed it called it socialism.

All I'm saying is that it's wrong to condemn those who condemn socialism, as this presupposes that opposition to socialism shouldn't be allowed. Socialists seem to think it's their birthright to condemn others but not for others to condemn them. Says a lot about socialist psychology really. I'm not saying it's your fault.

And no, social security isn't socialism. There was public road building, public health care, a standing army paid by the state, etc. even in Ancient Greece and Rome. Total state control over society, that's what people object to.

The majority of those who call themselves "conservative" are without knowing it liberal in that they ascribe to the tradition of natural rights, equality, individualism, in a word, liberalism. — Fooloso4

Yeah, if they read up on the Enlightenment, Liberal Democratic Theory and Radical Democratic Theory, and the merchant class and Jefferson's yeoman farmer, their mind would explode. I ain't no Liberal and you can't make me! LOL!

And no, social security isn't socialism. There was public road building, public health care, a standing army paid by the state, etc. even in Ancient Greece and Rome. — Apollodorus

Roman armies were funded by aristocrats.

To my knowledge the Roman military was funded by the imperial government through revenue from taxes, etc. Either way, the army was kept for the public good. That doesn't make it "socialism", it's just common sense for a state to have an army otherwise it won't be a state for very long. Not everything that's necessary or sensible is socialism.

I saw a guy post a meme showing Roman roads still extant, and asking why our engineers could not do that today. My simple response was, it's amazing what you can do with unlimited slave labor.

"Unlimited slave labor"? Even in Rome slaves were a minority. Plus they had to be fed, etc.

To my knowledge the Roman military was funded by the imperial government through revenue from taxes, etc. Either way, the army was kept for the public good. — Apollodorus

I guess it evolved over time. Early Roman armies were owned and operated by aristocrats who made decisions for their own interests.

saw a guy post a meme showing Roman roads still extant, and asking why our engineers could not do that today. My simple response was, it's amazing what you can do with unlimited slave labor. — James Riley

So true. :grin:

Even in Rome slaves were a minority. — Apollodorus

What? The vast majority of the populations of Greek city states were slaves. Why would Rome be different?

Unlimited slave labor"? Even in Rome slaves were a minority. Plus they had to be fed, etc. — Apollodorus

Don't argue with me.

P.S. My last was tongue in cheek.

Total state control over society, that's what people object to. — Apollodorus

Much of this discussion has been over the definition of the word socialism. Not trying to be flippant here. Is partial state control OK? If so, how much? What are the criteria for determining when there is too much state control?

Total state control over society, that's what people object to. — Apollodorus

Yes, this is the great fear. I don't know if you are in the US but in almost every election Republicans will label their Democratic opponents no matter how moderate or conservative "socialists", and that if the evil Democrat is elected that will be the end of democracy and freedom.

Total state control over society, that's what people object to. — Apollodorus

This puts socialism in the same category of political arrangement in society as Naziism, totalitarianism, Monarchy, military despotism, martial law, and -- I am sorry to say this -- American-type capitalist democracy. Each of these will vehemently not tolerate a (or any) political system that is different from it, each of these will have its own type of control that it relentlessly exercises. In my opinion the US society exercises control over its subjects by diffusing ignorance, by making the populace believe superstitious ideals so strongly, that their better judgement leaves them. The control involves the poor and downtrodden to think they are temporarily embarrassed billionaires. What else could they be? America is the land of limitless opportunities for ALL, so the reason they eat out of other people's garbage and the reason their bodies fester in hateful diseases untreated is not society's fault, not their own, but of but a stroke of bad luck.

In America, as well as it used to be in ex-communist countries, the media has complete grip over the population. There is one big difference: the lies that shape a nation was completely rejected in communist countries back then, but nobody dared to utter their skepticism out in the open; and in America, the lies are accepted and believed without any reservations. This is the ONLY difference in the public's response to the lies in the media that the ruling class forces the papers to print. In the Communist states nobody believed them, but acted as if they did; in the Western democracies everyone believes them, no matter how outrageous the lie is. "Saddam Hussein hides weapons of mass destruction under the sand of the vast deserts of his country."

the problem is that it tends to totalitarian states inevitably. A tendency that starts in democracy with some regulations of state control, usually over the market but also over social politics. For the second it must be justified, but how, usually the techniques are the use of fear or victimization. The state of fear justifies the state taking over liberties on behalf of security. Victimization is when people are said to be victims of a system and they should allow the state to take care of it. So instead of working yoy receive plans, for example. It's a complex similar to the one commonly seen in teenagers who do not want to take responsibility. But it is responsibility what is going to make yourself grow up and be free. And marxism knows that and attack it. Coming back to the regulations of the market, in principle, introducing regulations leads to more regulations. I think that's the problem, the contron is not partial really or is not going to stay partial.

I think democrats agenda is pretty socialist

Where I live, socialism is an ingredient in the local mix of isms that make up our democracy. As libertarianism, Conservatism(locally weak), nationalism(locally strong), red-green activism(locally strong) and some other isms. A pretty good system. (Guess my country...)

conservative weak but nationalism strong... interesting

Well, that seems to be part of the problem. There are many different definitions or views of socialism. Some claim that "socialism is not Marxism", however, Marxism is a form of socialism and for the most part of the history of socialism it has been the dominant form.

Given that most forms of socialism advocate some state control, we could perhaps classify them according to the degree or extent of state control advocated. Obviously, some forms of socialism advocate total state control which to most people, socialists included, is not acceptable.

This is precisely why many socialist regimes have reverted to some forms of capitalism and there is no strict socialism anywhere, even in dictatorships like China. In fact, China is more accurately described as communist-controlled state capitalism.

This puts socialism in the same category of political arrangement in society as Naziism, totalitarianism, Monarchy, military despotism, martial law, and -- I am sorry to say this -- American-type capitalist democracy. — god must be atheist

I disagree with the equation "monarchy = total state control". Constitutional monarchies are no different from liberal democratic states. In fact, most of them are liberal democracies for all intents and purposes.

But you're right about media control of mass information in capitalist society. It shows how similar capitalism has become to totalitarian socialism.

Fooloso4 I think democrats agenda is pretty socialist — Alexandros

What does "pretty socialist" mean? Examples?

The US came much closer to total state control under Trump than under any Democrat. He had his own unofficial propaganda news outlet, while condemning whatever news media that were critical of him as "enemies of the people". He suppressed official scientific reports on climate change. He attempted to overturn the election. He made frequent claims that he was above the law. The Republican Party was, and to some extent still is, so afraid of him that they dare not oppose him on even the smallest point.

If he is re-elected and gains a majority in both the House and Senate he will have dictatorial total state control.

well let's try to name some policies: higher taxes, social plans, health care, abortion, gender ideology, equality discourse, et cetera