[CCJ]

So Socialism, in its Democratic implementation which would mean a majority, has no right to allocate wealth?

Correct. Now you're getting the picture! Democracy has been a failure. It was democracy (the all-wise majority) that allowed slavery to take place in so many countries (namely the United States). It was the majority that allowed the war in Iraq to happen (within the United States). It was the majority that put God in the pledge of allegience. It was the majority that allowed the persecution and segregation of the blacks in the 50's.

Just because the majority says it's ok, doesn't make it right.

Just as it was the majority that eliminated slavery, demanded civil rights for african americans, voting rights for females etc. Also, I don't remember the majority of Americans giving Shrub the right to attack Iraq...

[smashthestate]

They complain about how Socialism would centralize the means of prodcution when they are already centralized into the hands of the Bourgeoisie. How hypocritical of them.

Our worry is not that the means of production is centralized, but that under socialism (not pure anarcho-communism), the means of production are centralized under the government. Which is worse? Trusting the government to take care of you, or competing corporations, who each are trying to please the consumer to stay in business.

[Volkov]

They complain about how Socialism would centralize the means of prodcution when they are already centralized into the hands of the Bourgeoisie. How hypocritical of them.

Our worry is not that the means of production is centralized, but that under socialism (not pure anarcho-communism), the means of production are centralized under the government. Which is worse? Trusting the government to take care of you, or competing corporations, who each are trying to please the consumer to stay in business.

The Socialist part would be much better because it would be under the dictatorship of the Proletariat (a Democratic system, not what you are thinking), and that system would do things for the benefit of society instead of personal benefit. The Proletarian dictatorship would be much better than the Bourgeoisie having the means of production under their control.

[Rust]

Correct. Now you're getting the picture! Democracy has been a failure.

Then what do you prefer?

It was democracy (the all-wise majority) that allowed slavery to take place in so many countries (namely the United States).

You’re confusing ideas. I referred to a majority vote on socialism, not on "letting and event happen". It was the greed of the white, rich minority that brought slavery, not a majority vote of the populace.

It was the majority that allowed the war in Iraq to happen (within the United States).

Actually, if you look at the numerous polls before the war, the overwhelming number of them site the majority as opposing the war or as wanting more time.

It was the majority that put God in the pledge of allegience. It was the majority that allowed the persecution and segregation of the blacks in the 50's.

Same thing.

[smashthestate]

Then what do you prefer?

A republic.

You’re confusing ideas. I referred to a majority vote on socialism, not on "letting and event happen". It was the greed of the white, rich minority that brought slavery, not a majority vote of the populace.

Yes, an action which the government curiously supported for a long time, when it should have been ending it, and outlawing it in the first place.

Actually, if you look at the numerous polls before the war, the overwhelming number of them site the majority as opposing the war or as wanting more time.

Show me one...

[Rust]

A republic.

Republic: "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. "

U.S. Pledge of Allegiance: “… and to the Republic for which it stands.”

That's what the U.S. is, apart from an Empire. And you sited the U.S as the example…

Yes, an action which the government curiously supported for a long time, when it should have been ending it, and outlawing it in the first place

I agree. But that doesn’t change the fact that those are examples of events happening without a democratic vote. And it was a Republic when it happened. My question still stands valid. Socialism, in its Democratic implementation which would mean a majority, has no right to allocate wealth? Yet Capitalists have the right to exploit men?

Show me one...

One poll, 2 of the results:

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans in a new poll, 64 per cent, said they want the United States to wait for UN approval before launching a military strike against Iraq. "

"Three in 10, 31 per cent, said they thought the US should act now against Iraq, according to the CBS News poll released this week"

Meaning 69% of the population didn't want the war, or wanted to wait.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/ ... 69166.html

[Edric O]

It was democracy (the all-wise majority) that allowed slavery to take place in so many countries (namely the United States).

FALSE. For two reasons:

1. Slavery was not created by majority vote. In fact, it was created as a natural consequence of capitalist "property rights".
2. The democracy at the time was a very limited one. Blacks and women were not allowed to vote. So, in fact, all decisions were taken by a minority - so this system could hardly be called a "democracy". It sounds closer to your ideal "republic".

It was the majority that allowed the war in Iraq to happen (within the United States).

FALSE. The majority was opposed to a war in Iraq without UN mandate.

It was the majority that put God in the pledge of allegience. It was the majority that allowed the persecution and segregation of the blacks in the 50's.

FALSE and FALSE. No votes were ever held on those issues. No one asked the majority what it wanted.

Make them? How? You mean physical force? The use of physical force is banned from all social relationships in a laissez faire capitalist society.

But blackmail is alive and well: "Do as we say or you starve to death."

However, under soialism, you aren't free to pursue your own view of happiness...

Yes you are. In fact, socialism gives you far more freedom to pursue happiness than capitalism does, because in socialism you no longer have to worry about your job security, your health insurance, your kids' college money, etc.

Which is worse? Trusting the government to take care of you, or competing corporations, who each are trying to please the consumer to stay in business.

Excuse me, but this is a DEMOCRATIC government we're talking about. You don't "trust" it with anything. If it's not doing its job properly, you can vote against it in elections. You have competing political parties, each trying to please the citizens in order to gain/keep political power.