Poll: "US greatest threat to democracy"

[Duvniask]

How trustworthy are polls, anyways? 40% of US population supports "socialism" and 86% supports "free enterprise", bringing the total to 126%.

"Socialism" and "free enterprise" aren't necessarily opposite, if you consider cooperatives, which are both a from of socialism and of free enterprise.

I'm dead.

But to be fair, most US citizen probably understand "socialism" as "social democracy".

You're no different.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

"Socialism" and "free enterprise" aren't necessarily opposite, if you consider cooperatives, which are both a from of socialism and of free enterprise.

I'm dead.

But to be fair, most US citizen probably understand "socialism" as "social democracy".

You're no different.

It depends on what you mean by free enterprise, but you don’t need state control over the means of production to achieve socialism. In fact, if the state is not democratically controlled by the workers, having state control over the means of production is not socilaism.

[Duvniask]

I'm dead.


You're no different.

It depends on what you mean by free enterprise, but you don’t need state control over the means of production to achieve socialism. In fact, if the state is not democratically controlled by the workers, having state control over the means of production is not socilaism.

This is your brain on Wikipedia and Breadtube level understanding of socialism.

Pick up a book and do the world a favor.

[Vassenor]

It depends on what you mean by free enterprise, but you don’t need state control over the means of production to achieve socialism. In fact, if the state is not democratically controlled by the workers, having state control over the means of production is not socilaism.

This is your brain on Wikipedia and Breadtube level understanding of socialism.

Pick up a book and do the world a favor.

So what is true socialism then given that you are apparently an expert on the subject?

[Washington Resistance Army]

This is your brain on Wikipedia and Breadtube level understanding of socialism.

Pick up a book and do the world a favor.

So what is true socialism then given that you are apparently an expert on the subject?

There isn't a "true" socialism. There's a vast amount of socialist ideologies, not all of them are even Marxist.

[Kilobugya]

"Socialism" and "free enterprise" aren't necessarily opposite, if you consider cooperatives, which are both a from of socialism and of free enterprise.

I'm dead.

But to be fair, most US citizen probably understand "socialism" as "social democracy".

You're no different.

Socialism means collective ownership of the means of production - which can be done through state ownership (nationalization) or worker ownership (cooperatives). Can you please explain what you find so wrong in what I said ?

[Duvniask]

This is your brain on Wikipedia and Breadtube level understanding of socialism.

Pick up a book and do the world a favor.

So what is true socialism then

Direct production for use, meaning it is no longer mediated by the commodity form (and therefore exchange value), with society in general disposing of products. This new society has no place for commodities, capital or wage labor. It is the supersession of capitalist society and its separation of the producers from the means of production. The whole society, rid of class antagonisms, regulates production according to a common plan that serves the needs of the people. At its lower phase, this new society remunerates according to the amount of labor performed - this being done with the so-called labor vouchers; to each according to his contribution. As this socialist society develops the productive forces and more and more goods can be provided on request, it will find itself under the maxim of remuneration that is "to each according to his needs", with no need for rationing of goods in abundance.

And before I'm hit with the retardation of "but that describes communism, not socialism", it should be said that they are the same, only Lenin popularized the usage of "socialism" to describe the lower phase and "communism" for the higher one. Pretending that "socialism" is something different will generally only serve to cloak capitalism in new, bright language (unwittingly or not).

given that you are apparently an expert on the subject?

"Expertise" is a low bar to pass on NSG.

[FutureAmerica]

Have you ever heard of states called China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Have you ever heard of states called China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc?

Explain how Cuba is a bigger threat to democracy in Iraq than the US.

[NationStates Puppet]

Have you ever heard of states called China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc?

Of course, all of them had sponsored coups against democratically elected governments that they don't like.

[Kilobugya]

Have you ever heard of states called China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc?

The problem isn't so much that USA is "inherently" more dictatorial than North Korea or China. The problem is that USA is both more powerful and more hegemonic than them. So they are the greatest threat to democracy world-wide, due to the very high amount of cases in which they supported military coups, terrorism, economical sanctions, neo-nazis/fascists orgnization, or plain old military invasions, ... against governments they didn't like, including many democratically elected ones.


(PS : Cuba has nothing to do on that list, but not the subject of the thread)

[523]

Have you ever heard of states called China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc?

Explain how Cuba is a bigger threat to democracy in Iraq than the US.

Apparently, many people have been convinced that being under sanctions that prevent you from importing medical supplies make you a threat to democracy. This is the reach of the American propaganda machine.

[Awesomeland]

Despite the US attempting to portray itself as a defender of human rights, freedom, and democracy, it seems that the rest of the world doesn't see it in such a light. A recent survey of 53 nation's participants seems to suggest the opposite, with many finding the US as a threat to democracy.

They are not wrong, considering the US has a history of actually overthrowing democracies to support pliable dictatorships that further American interests.

[Wallenburg]

Breaking news: the country that has overthrown more democratic states than any other country is a threat to democratic states.

[503]

Despite the US attempting to portray itself as a defender of human rights, freedom, and democracy, it seems that the rest of the world doesn't see it in such a light. A recent survey of 53 nation's participants seems to suggest the opposite, with many finding the US as a threat to democracy.

They are not wrong, considering the US has a history of actually overthrowing democracies to support pliable dictatorships that further American interests.

Unfortunately, many Americans seem to believe their politician's lies that interests of the American state are their interests.

[Sungoldy-China]

Just consider how many dictatorships the United States has directly or indirectly created.


Just look at Iran,If it were not for the United States to fully support the Pahlavi dynasty, the theocracy would not be able to rise to power at all.

[Greater Cesnica]

It depends on what you mean by free enterprise, but you don’t need state control over the means of production to achieve socialism. In fact, if the state is not democratically controlled by the workers, having state control over the means of production is not socilaism.

This is your brain on Wikipedia and Breadtube level understanding of socialism.

Pick up a book and do the world a favor.

Yes, and numerous books written by socialists have different interpretations of what "socialism" entails. But of course you'll come back at me with some biting remark about how I know nothing about the subject.

[Ayytaly]

When the USA becomes the EEUU, it no longer becomes a threat.

[New haven america]

It depends on what you mean by free enterprise, but you don’t need state control over the means of production to achieve socialism. In fact, if the state is not democratically controlled by the workers, having state control over the means of production is not socilaism.

This is your brain on Wikipedia and Breadtube level understanding of socialism.

Pick up a book and do the world a favor.

Or maybe, gee, IDK, different socialist theorists have different ideas and definitions of what socialism is/could?

Or is that too simple an explanation?

[Amazonia-on-Themiscyra]

Now the US has become a threat to democracy? The reason is simple: the wealth the US has plundered for so long is not enough to maintain democracy in other countries, instead the US needs to start plundering wealth again to maintain its own democracy as a luxury, so that it is back on the right path.

But then the question must be raised: the US may be a great threat to democracy around the world, but has the US even been able to maintain democracy within its borders?

Yes, we have; we have a democratically elected president, senators, governors and other officials and have regular elections on all levels. Whatever threat the U.S. may be to the outside world, I don't see how anyone can argue we haven't maintained our own democracy.

As for the topic, I suppose it's understandable why other countries would see the U.S. as a threat, considering all the interventions, overthrows, subterfuge and other such things that the U.S. has participated in over the years.

[Kowani]

But then the question must be raised: the US may be a great threat to democracy around the world, but has the US even been able to maintain democracy within its borders?

Yes, we have; we have a democratically elected president, senators, governors and other officials and have regular elections on all levels. Whatever threat the U.S. may be to the outside world, I don't see how anyone can argue we haven't maintained our own democracy.

As for the topic, I suppose it's understandable why other countries would see the U.S. as a threat, considering all the interventions, overthrows, subterfuge and other such things that the U.S. has participated in over the years.

how anyone can claim the US has maintained its democracy in the present day (much less historically) when the wisconsin legislature exists is far beyond me

[Amazonia-on-Themiscyra]

Yes, we have; we have a democratically elected president, senators, governors and other officials and have regular elections on all levels. Whatever threat the U.S. may be to the outside world, I don't see how anyone can argue we haven't maintained our own democracy.

As for the topic, I suppose it's understandable why other countries would see the U.S. as a threat, considering all the interventions, overthrows, subterfuge and other such things that the U.S. has participated in over the years.

how anyone can claim the US has maintained its democracy in the present day (much less historically) when the wisconsin legislature exists is far beyond me

Meaning what exactly?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

So what is true socialism then

Direct production for use, meaning it is no longer mediated by the commodity form (and therefore exchange value), with society in general disposing of products. This new society has no place for commodities, capital or wage labor. It is the supersession of capitalist society and its separation of the producers from the means of production. The whole society, rid of class antagonisms, regulates production according to a common plan that serves the needs of the people. At its lower phase, this new society remunerates according to the amount of labor performed - this being done with the so-called labor vouchers; to each according to his contribution. As this socialist society develops the productive forces and more and more goods can be provided on request, it will find itself under the maxim of remuneration that is "to each according to his needs", with no need for rationing of goods in abundance.

And before I'm hit with the retardation of "but that describes communism, not socialism", it should be said that they are the same, only Lenin popularized the usage of "socialism" to describe the lower phase and "communism" for the higher one. Pretending that "socialism" is something different will generally only serve to cloak capitalism in new, bright language (unwittingly or not).

given that you are apparently an expert on the subject?

"Expertise" is a low bar to pass on NSG.

You may be a chauvinist for your tendency, but this is excessive. You don't have a monopoly on the terms.

[Kowani]

how anyone can claim the US has maintained its democracy in the present day (much less historically) when the wisconsin legislature exists is far beyond me

Meaning what exactly?

exactly what i said
(and we can extrapolate that to several other states if we want, wisconsin is just the most egregious)

[Duvniask]

This is your brain on Wikipedia and Breadtube level understanding of socialism.

Pick up a book and do the world a favor.

Yes, and numerous books written by socialists have different interpretations of what "socialism" entails.

People can interpret whatever idiocy they want. The answer to the questions of what socialism is, and what it is not, is in Marxism derived from the actually existing circumstances of capitalism and its mode of operation. The question of socialism can not (and could not) be answered without considering it vis-á-vis capitalism, the characteristics of which is essentially an empirical question. So why is precisely this, this conception derived from its role vis-á-vis capitalism, what we call socialism? Because opposition to capitalism has taken on that name, historically, along with communism. The fact that it came to be called that is what you may call chance - but regardless of how the term came to be, it is nonsensical to start naming people who are not, in fact, opposed to capitalism, as "socialists".

But of course you'll come back at me with some biting remark about how I know nothing about the subject.

Yes. You seem to think this is all about interpretation, which you then use as a crutch to continue advocating your petite bourgeoisie-infested pretentiousness of "socialism".