NationStates Jolt Archive

"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." --Alexis de Tocqueville

Your comments on this? :)

Utter poppycock!

Some forms of Socialism, and there are many, work excellently with democracy.

Consequently, some would argue that the quote would work in exactly the same way for Capitalism.

I would think that my main problem with the logic of this quote is that it states democracy and socialism in black and white terms, it does not acknowledge any grey region. Additionally, how can one compare an economic system with a political system?

Ah, I love Touqeville! Equality is a word that you can't use alone, you must specify the area, for exampl if it is in human rights and capital or if it is in power and deciding.

I think that socialism, if it's ever going to work, needs to be extremely democratic. Much more than capitalism, since it doesn't have the "vote with your wallet" factor.

Tocqueville is quite correct. Socialism is inherently about servitude. The individual serves the state, and is indeed property of the state, not the other way around. As F.A. Hayek put it, it is the road to serfdom.

And anybody who says socialism works "excellently," in any way, shape, or form, is blind to reality. :-)

Tocqueville is quite correct. Socialism is inherently about servitude. The individual serves the state, and is indeed property of the state, not the other way around. As F.A. Hayek put it, it is the road to serfdom.

And anybody who says socialism works "excellently," in any way, shape, or form, is blind to reality. :-)

Anyone who labels any set of beliefs without giving the myriad of individual variations due consideration is blind to truth, and can never hope to grow beyond it.

Anyone who labels any set of beliefs without giving the myriad of individual variations due consideration is blind to truth, and can never hope to grow beyond it.

As I said earlier, though I said so less eloquently.

The problem is that there are two definitions of socialism. If you mean the common defition, then definitely, the state in state socialism replaces the corporate hierarchy in capitalism. They are both hierarchial and exploitive and overall, pretty much variations of the same thing.

If you use the original definition used by socialist thinkers in the 1800s, socialism is made primary by working class action, not the government. The government plays a big rôle in some forms (Marxism, for example), but not in others (mutualism, for example). Many forms of socialism were anarchist.

Tocqueville is quite correct. Socialism is inherently about servitude. The individual serves the state, and is indeed property of the state, not the other way around. As F.A. Hayek put it, it is the road to serfdom.
You're right that pure socialism is that the "individual serves the state, and is indeed property of the state". But remember that in pure capitalism the individual serves the company, and is indeed property of the company.

The Socialism vs Capitalism debate is really a debate about whether you want government tyranny or corporate tyranny. The best economic system is a middle way between them, so the state and private sector balance. Good examples are found in Scandinavia.

The Socialism vs Capitalism debate is really a debate about whether you want government tyranny or corporate tyranny. The best economic system is a middle way between them, so the state and private sector balance. Good examples are found in Scandinavia.

Actually, the best thing is for workers to control their own lifes rather than take orders.

Actually, the best thing is for workers to control their own lifes rather than take orders.
which will never, ever happen

"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." --Alexis de Tocqueville

Your comments on this? :)
bingo.

i'm all for giving people equal rights, but the idea of making everyone actually equal in status, comfort, success, or practical condition is nauseating to me.

which will never, ever happen

Except for thieves - they reject the system and take things into their own hands.

bingo.

i'm all for giving people equal rights, but the idea of making everyone actually equal in status, comfort, success, or practical condition is nauseating to me.

A good analogy is perhaps the comparison of everyone having the same starting point in a race, and everyone finishing at the same time.

well i tried looking the quote up on the net to see what he could have meant by that, considering that he died in 1859.

the quote was all over the net but i gave up on finding just when he said it and it what context

what kind of socialism existed before 1859 anyway?

i'm all for giving people equal rights, but the idea of making everyone actually equal in status, comfort, success, or practical condition is nauseating to me.

I think trying to quantify everything is the problem. I don't believe in people living identical lives. I believe in everyone being an individual. I think it's nauseating how capitalists get all kinds of stuff just for being born into the right family.

I think trying to quantify everything is the problem. I don't believe in people living identical lives. I believe in everyone being an individual. I think it's nauseating how capitalists get all kinds of stuff just for being born into the right family.

And you recommend what? A 100% tax on inheritance? If so, you obviously don't have children.

And you recommend what? A 100% tax on inheritance? If so, you obviously don't have children.

No, the abolition of social classes, actually.

No, the abolition of social classes, actually.

Social class is a normal component of civilization. No state, agency or individual has the power to arbitrarily banish it.

No, the abolition of social classes, actually.

Good luck! Every society which has attempted to do that has failed miserably. It's in the genetic makeup of humans to belong to a hiearchy.

At the time in Europe there were two major forms of philosophical anarchy.

One, European Anarchy, which was a big influence on a few leaders of the Russian Revolution, is a very responsible idea. It says that the problems of the world are my fault because I am not doing anything to alleviate them. It gives people responsibility for their own actions but they have to account for them.

The other, Revolutionary Anarchy, is the anarchy we know today, with the whole "destroy the government" and such, and it is downright dangerous.

Good luck! Every society which has attempted to do that has failed miserably. It's in the genetic makeup of humans to belong to a hiearchy.

I don't believe in genetic determinism or any other kind of determinism. Determinism is a coward's way of justifying an immoral system.

Both systems work!!!...and both systems have their ups and downs.....
On the one side for people to say socialsim doesnt work, they are WRONG...saying a system that has been around for decades and is still functioning in nations today doesnt work is a high miscalculation!!!....It just has some problems...well...certain kinds of socialism have problems....
And on the other side...to say capitalism is corrupt....well...I ask...What government doesnt have its share of corruption!!??!!....
I dont agree that the government should take away inheritance from people....thats stupid...What do you want them to do?...take the money away from those people and give it to you!?!....Whats the difference between you and them!?!....I believe people should work hard to get what they want...and not have a WELFARE STATE....I hate wlefare!!!....Now I do believe that huge sums of money that billionaries have should be cut down...no human being could spend that much....So why not give alot of it to society....
On the other hand....I think on the economic level, things could be a little better for capitalism.....In capitalism there is to much corporate freedom....I think the government should keep a tighter grip on corrput corporations...and that happend under Teddy Roosevelt...thats the closest America got to socialism!!!.....And also workers should be kept in line to do as they are told by their bosses....BUT in turn the bosses must be kept in line by the higher authorities.....
But in any system you can have a power struggle.....thats in any system....remember...."absolute power corrupts absolutly"....

Both systems work!!!...and both systems have their ups and downs.....
On the one side for people to say socialsim doesnt work, they are WRONG...saying a system that has been around for decades and is still functioning in nations today doesnt work is a high miscalculation!!!....It just has some problems...well...certain kinds of socialism have problems....
And on the other side...to say capitalism is corrupt....well...I ask...What government doesnt have its share of corruption!!??!!....
I dont agree that the government should take away inheritance from people....thats stupid...What do you want them to do?...take the money away from those people and give it to you!?!....Whats the difference between you and them!?!....I believe people should work hard to get what they want...and not have a WELFARE STATE....I hate wlefare!!!....Now I do believe that huge sums of money that billionaries have should be cut down...no human being could spend that much....So why not give alot of it to society....
On the other hand....I think on the economic level, things could be a little better for capitalism.....In capitalism there is to much corporate freedom....I think the government should keep a tighter grip on corrput corporations...and that happend under Teddy Roosevelt...thats the closest America got to socialism!!!.....And also workers should be kept in line to do as they are told by their bosses....BUT in turn the bosses must be kept in line by the higher authorities.....
But in any system you can have a power struggle.....thats in any system....remember...."absolute power corrupts absolutly"....

Social heirachies exist in socilaist societies as well as in capitalist societies.

Social class is a normal component of civilization. No state, agency or individual has the power to arbitrarily banish it.

that's sorta backwards. social classes are a result of certain systems of power and control, not a cause. they are created and maintained through the use of the state and state-like systems enforcing various rules and priviledges and distributions of wealth that are benefitial to some at the expense of others. we have seen repeatedly throughout history that the composition of social classes is determined by their members' relation to the means to exercise political and social power. and when there is a change in the power system, there is also a change in the make up of the class system.

but if we abolish the means by which some exercise power over others, then there is nothing to uphold the various monopolies and privileges that the upper classes grant themselves. and without their monopolies and privileges they are just like the rest of us - the upper class is not created by god, but by a particular system of societal organization. for example, without the use of the state (or state-like institutions) to uphold the oligopolistic and privileged distribution of land and resources, it would be impossible for the upper classes to make a living charging the working class economic rents for access to them. which would mean, in effect, that we had severely limited them, and have gotten well on the way toward abolishing them outright.

the challenge is to change the sturcture of societal organization to a form that doesn't create a class system. i see no reason to think it impossible, given that classless societies have existed in the past. nor do i see any reason to doubt that at least one of the various libertarian systems is at least on the right track.
(personally i lean towards anarcho-communism, but i can see argument behind mutualism too)

I don't believe in genetic determinism or any other kind of determinism. Determinism is a coward's way of justifying an immoral system.

Who the hell mentioned anything about "determinism?" It certainly was not I!

Good luck! Every society which has attempted to do that has failed miserably. It's in the genetic makeup of humans to belong to a hiearchy.

and thus do you overturn all the anthropologic data about the real world examples of classless societies. to tell the truth, i'm not terribly impressed.

Who the hell mentioned anything about "determinism?" It certainly was not I!

You said that genetics determines our society. That sounds pretty deterministic.

You said that genetics determines our society. That sounds pretty deterministic.

Ooh. Letila laid the smack down. Some experiences are once in a lifetime I guess. :D

and thus do you overturn all the anthropologic data about the real world examples of classless societies. to tell the truth, i'm not terribly impressed.

To tell the truth, I'm not terribly concerned! :D

Ooh. Letila laid the smack down. Some experiences are once in a lifetime I guess. :D

That's either a misquote or a misattribution. I said no such thing. Quote directly from my post and I'll be a bit more impressed.

That's either a misquote or a misattribution. I said no such thing. Quote directly from my post and I'll be a bit more impressed.

I quoted Letila, so how I could misquote you is a mystery to me. I'm sure you meant something else, but I sure as hell don't know what it is. All I did was make a rather unoriginal joke. :S

That's either a misquote or a misattribution. I said no such thing. Quote directly from my post and I'll be a bit more impressed.

"Good luck! Every society which has attempted to do that has failed miserably. It's in the genetic makeup of humans to belong to a hiearchy."

I quoted Letila, so how I could misquote you is a mystery to me. I'm sure you meant something else, but I sure as hell don't know what it is. All I did was make a rather unoriginal joke. :S

LOL! What ... EVER! :D

can be quoted easily....

in capitalism, simple merit and ability can change your place in the hierarchy

in socialism, i am not really sure what can change the place in the hierarchy, because in every practical application we have had, one develops...and from what i have seen of the more socialistic leaning type people, it certainly isn;t merit or ability.......

socialism, applied in its' purest state, fails everyone. capitalism, in its' purest state, lasseiz faire, benefits a minority and fails a majority. the answer is somewhere in between.......you use the free market to allow talented people to flourish, you use socilaistic ideals in government to keep the field play, to shift the burden of society to the higher earner, create as equal opportunity as humanly possible, etc....but socialism, un it's purest form is destined to always fail, or if it goes to far that way.....capitalism, in its' putrest form, will always fail a majority, and the size grows the more pure it is.......

so really the argument isn;t which works, one flat out doesn;t, one doesn't work very well.....the trick is, in modern terms, is how much to you burden the productive with the unproductive, really......

and Scandinavia works well simply because it is small and largely monocultural and homogenous.....larger societies with more diversity and more mutli cultural makes the application less viable.....

and capitalism isn't all corporate...the biggest employer in the US, considered the most capitalistic nation in the West, are small businesses, many starting as sole proprietorships......corporate oligarchies start when the worst of government legislation and corporations meet.....

btw, i am capitalist who believes strongly and can argue with great economic weight in progressive tax codes and government investment in its' peoples.....ie education.....but am not socialist in there are expectations and responsibilities laid on each individual benefiting from a gov program.....no one should be allowed to stay on a benefit program permanently, ever, unless permanently disabled....so i am a tweener, i guess.....how can anyone believe in socialism with its' track record when applied too liberally?

So many people seem to think socialism equates to social welfare, but that is not the case. True socialism works on the principal that if you are not a productive member of society, (excluding infants and young children), then society will not keep you afloat. This is strikingly similar to the capatilstic belief that the harder you work, the more you will earn. The difference is, in many capatalist societies hard work does not necessarily mean you earn more, and a lack of hard work doesn't necessarily mean you earn less, but it all depends on your status in life.

The other thing that bothers me about capitalism is the arbitrary value placed on certain careers. Why is it that a doctor is worth more in our societies than a farmer? Why is the baker or the janitor seemingly less important than the electician or plumber? We need all of these people to live the lifestyles we are used to, so why is one more important than the other?

can be quoted easily....

in capitalism, simple merit and ability can change your place in the hierarchy

in socialism, i am not really sure what can change the place in the hierarchy, because in every practical application we have had, one develops...and from what i have seen of the more socialistic leaning type people, it certainly isn;t merit or ability.......

socialism, applied in its' purest state, fails everyone. capitalism, in its' purest state, lasseiz faire, benefits a minority and fails a majority. the answer is somewhere in between.......you use the free market to allow talented people to flourish, you use socilaistic ideals in government to keep the field play, to shift the burden of society to the higher earner, create as equal opportunity as humanly possible, etc....but socialism, un it's purest form is destined to always fail, or if it goes to far that way.....capitalism, in its' putrest form, will always fail a majority, and the size grows the more pure it is.......

so really the argument isn;t which works, one flat out doesn;t, one doesn't work very well.....the trick is, in modern terms, is how much to you burden the productive with the unproductive, really......

and Scandinavia works well simply because it is small and largely monocultural and homogenous.....larger societies with more diversity and more mutli cultural makes the application less viable.....

and capitalism isn't all corporate...the biggest employer in the US, considered the most capitalistic nation in the West, are small businesses, many starting as sole proprietorships......corporate oligarchies start when the worst of government legislation and corporations meet.....

btw, i am capitalist who believes strongly and can argue with great economic weight in progressive tax codes and government investment in its' peoples.....ie education.....but am not socialist in there are expectations and responsibilities laid on each individual benefiting from a gov program.....no one should be allowed to stay on a benefit program permanently, ever, unless permanently disabled....so i am a tweener, i guess.....how can anyone believe in socialism with its' track record when applied too liberally?

Exactly! And how can anyone believe in uncontrolled capitalism when it has such dire implications for those unable to keep up?

So many people seem to think socialism equates to social welfare, but that is not the case. True socialism works on the principal that if you are not a productive member of society, (excluding infants and young children), then society will not keep you afloat. This is strikingly similar to the capatilstic belief that the harder you work, the more you will earn. The difference is, in many capatalist societies hard work does not necessarily mean you earn more, and a lack of hard work doesn't necessarily mean you earn less, but it all depends on your status in life.

The other thing that bothers me about capitalism is the arbitrary value placed on certain careers. Why is it that a doctor is worth more in our societies than a farmer? Why is the baker or the janitor seemingly less important than the electician or plumber? We need all of these people to live the lifestyles we are used to, so why is one more important than the other?

It sounds almost as if you equate importance with income, and I don't think that's what you intend.

Far too many monetary rewards go to those who have "the right" whatever ... the right parents, the right community, the right school, the right looks, etc. I think a better approach might be what some have called a "meritocracy," where everyone is compensated based on "merit." Unfortunately, this comes perilously close to "technocracy," rule by technocrat ( read: those better educated than others ). We don't ever seem to be able to escape the Orweilling paradigm ... "All are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others."

I think socialists take wrong approach....I agree with some of the beliefs but....no matter how much you try...your not going to make everyone equal....because thats just the way the world functions....there has to be leaders and there has to be followers for civilization to move forward....without leaders and order there is anarchy, where no one leads....and anarchy simply stagnates....it makes me sick!!!...
And there will always be the social pyramid....Some people talked about why is the farmer more important that a doctor or this and that....its not that they are more important because importants isnt based on income...or atleast it shouldnt be....I think that there should be a little more money in the pocket of a guy who goes to school for 10 years to become a doctor than in the pocket of a high-school drop out working at fast food....I mean the doctor worked hard to get where he was....thats not fare....But I do agree with socailism that there should be more control over perhaps amounts of money people get....Example....BASEBALL PLAYERS....GOOD LORD...they make to much money and they dont need it!!!!....I think that when people get to the place they have so much money they couldnt possible spend it all...then I think the government could take action to take a portion of it.....

I say that the government should keep corporations in line from taking advantage of workers and the government should also keep workers in line from dictating what they will and will not do!!!....Thus both sides should be controled equally to ensure equality.....and there can be a system of checks and balances to keep the government equal toward the corporations and workers!!!.....
CORPORATIONS are to not exploit the worker and the WORKER is not to exploit the corporation!!!

bingo.

i'm all for giving people equal rights, but the idea of making everyone actually equal in status, comfort, success, or practical condition is nauseating to me.

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html <-- A Kurt Vonnegut story about precisely that.

No, the abolition of social classes, actually.

Even if this were to happen, someone would complain because someone else got blue eyes and they have brown, or whatever other difference they perceived.

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html <-- A Kurt Vonnegut story about precisely that.

A textbook example of a strawman attack fallacy. Socialists never said they wanted people to live identical lives. Mr. Vonnegut apparently failed to realize that equality has more than one meaning.

"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." --Alexis de Tocqueville

Your comments on this? :)
Capitalism = servitude

"Capitalism fails when whole populations are indentured with debts, as is the case now in the United States, in Canada, and elsewhere. It succeeds when whole populations are both free and wealthy. The perpetuation of servitude will remain the real actual goal of Capitalism so long as the electorate continue to believe the propaganda -- the "representational poetry" -- of the champions of Capitalism."

So very true!!

I realize that democracy can go hand in hand w/socialism (hence the nation classification of 'democratic socialists') - however I've heard an interesting argument going something like this: democracy allows you to be as free as you want while socialism 'forces' you to be free