Category : Books-Non-Fiction

Sub Category : Politics

Forget everything you know about Socialism, because Democratic Socialism isn't like Socialism, it will work, and it won't be corrupt, will only 1 thing I said is true. Democratic Socialism is different from Socialism, but it's not that different, and it still has the same results. 

The definition of Socialism is the state owns the means of production, and everything is publicly owned. The goal of Socialism is for there to be equality amongst the people. The definition of Democratic Socialism is that there still a market, but it's heavily restricted. The goal of Democratic Socialism is for there to be equality amongst the people, but in a democratic way.

Democratic Socialists, as of 2020, are arguing that the wealth of the 1% should be distributed, they want the 1% to be the 38%, and all the wealth that was taken to put them in the 38%, to be given to the people. Another important thing to note is that Democratic Socialists are arguing that the workers should vote for who's the ceo. Lastly Democratic Socialist want to nationalize big corporations, but they don't want to nationalize smaller corporations. They don't argue this for health care, they want to nationalize the healthcare industry, and make healthcare 100% free for all. Lastly they argue for free college; however not by nationalizing colleges, but by cancelling college debt. There demands aren't limited to this, someone argument for a wealth tax, others argue for a basic income. 

Those who argue for Democratic Socialism, are just arguing for Socialism. There fine with completely nationalizing healthcare, this means they're fine with nationalizing every industry if given a reason to. "Abolishing predatory pharmaceutical companies." Can just as easily be turned into. "Abolishing greedy gas stations." As candidates look for votes, there gonna promise more free stuff. Making the 1% into the 38% will turn into 1% (which is the 38%) into the 38% (which is the middle class). As Democratic Socialism turns into Socialism, with elections, the results will be the same, as in Socialism. 

My point has been proven in Venezuela. Small businesses were nationalized infront of adorning crowds. The president had to spend money the government didn't have, not to improve the economy, but to buy votes. The worst part is that unlike the Soviet Union, which was a backwater country before Socialism, Venezuela was rich before Socialism. 

You may argue that no one would argue to nationalize the pop industry, but imagine that is like of a caveman imagine a motorcycle. Alot of terrible regimes were put in place because they promised equality. In Venezuela they banned guns to lower the crime rate, now a country that should be in the middle of a capitalist revolution, is just in civil unrest. As candidates centralize industries, the idea will come to nationalize the news industry, and turn the news into propaganda for that candidate. Democratic Socialist countries often fail faster then if they were to have a dictator, because the dictator doesn't have to ensure votes. 

Majority of the times Socialism fails because of bad planning, but would it work if there was no central planners, and workers just elected the owners? No, this is flawed for many reasons. You can't have a market without private property, and you can't choose who makes decisions without owning it, this means it would need to be state owned, which means it's possible for central planners to work there way into the profits. Secondly workers would elected based on promised wages, that the point; however this means someone can be under qualified, but they can still win if they promise wages that the company couldn't afford if they doubled the profit. The last problem is that no one would invest into companies if they don't to ensure that the companies make a profit. Imagine giving a company 300$, only to find out that someone got elected, and is now giving 80% of the profits to the workers. 

Some argue that the companies profits should be shared with the workers. Is that any better? No, it's probably worse. We have to discuss how much the workers get, and how much the owners get. If the workers earn the same amount as the owner, then you've destroyed any reason to take risk, and any reason to start a business. If you haven't destroyed any reason to take risk, then you've slowed down growth because the owner can't buy what he needs for the business. 

Socialism is a rabbit hole, you can't stop at workers voting for the owners, you have to have those businesses state owned. What ever doesn't directly require for the state to grow, will soon cause the state to grow because of the demands of socialist. Then eventually Socialism will become Communism, because of communist demands.