[–] I_TakeupSpace 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Then please, explain the difference between the following philosophies:
On the one hand, we have democracy - "everyone gets a vote, regardless of station or status, and every vote counts equally"
And on the other hand, we have socialism(communism) - "classes are the enemy of a free society, everyone is born the same, and it is in that natural state of sameness with his fellow that he will live"
The only real distinction I'm seeing is that the former is simply an early stage less heavy-handed version of the latter
[–] novictim ago (edited ago)
Great points! " difference between the following philosophies"
Socialism and Democracy
Well, aren't these "overlapping magisteria"? Mostly, no. Aren't these two topics dealing with different areas of organization? Yes, I think they are.
People sometimes still use the term of "Political economy" in place of "economy" but there is a reason for why we have moved away from linking the two. The market place is sufficiently different from what constitutes the nature of government that the term "political economy" is too broad. So, instead, we deal with each on their own.
That is, of course, not the case. Not everyone can vote. Voting is a right but it has limits and caveats determined ...by an earlier vote!
Let us set up the basis for society and see how voting fits into it and then you will see how Socialism is not a synonym for democracy.
What is society as managed by government? It is an agreement among individuals to relinquish some of their individual freedoms and liberties in order to create a larger structure that serves the needs of the society and its members (eg. security, safety as the primary and universal functions of any society).
A societal government that allows decisions to be made by vote, be it a democratic process that elects a chieftain or representative or a direct decision on particular issues by a plebiscite does this in order to 1) create legitimacy/vestment and, thus,loyalty to the system, and 2) to allow for ERROR CORRECTION.
Because error correction requires that people be informed and have some level of wisdom, the right to vote is very often not automatic. There is usually a qualification that must be met. That qualification changes with time. Near universally, children do not have voting rights for instance. Some societies like Rome demanded that the citizen must own land to vote because a land owner-farmer was someone who was vested in the outcome of the society and was necessarily able to plan and consider the consequences of decisions (wise).
A subset of democratic systems is the Republic which is an intermediary state where representatives trusted by the people, prove that level of trust by being elected and thus are given the right to intercede on behalf of the public in fulfilling the right to a democratic say. Etc etc
So the democratic system is there to:
1) Vest the community in the running of the state and thus give it legitimacy.
-And-
2) Allow for error correction by means of an iterated series of decision making operations spaced out over sufficient time to collect data (ie elected terms and voting).
Philosophy of a democratic system: Individualism choice and error correction. Letting the individual take ownership and control.
Socialism denies the individual and substitutes class identity as a proxy for the individual. Socialism claims to specifically strive for these disparate classes to ultimately have equal outcomes. "From those according to their ability to those according to their need." And if 100million people die along the way, oh well. Just remember that the unelected junta is dedicated to equity for all and if you don't like it they have a bullet with your name on it. So shut up or face the wall.