Is the present democracy and socialism things that can exist together, in a same nation?

Question

I mean: the social system named Socialism and the idea of the today Democracy can't be found in a same country and in a same epoc? Is there a possibility of both things existing together? Or are they "opposite" things?


Please, only answer here the ones which have a minimum clear idea of what both concepts are (Socialims and emocracy)... a mininum notion, ok?

Democracy: where the poeople choose their representants and these last ones have e determined period to govern;

Socialims: a socio-economical-political system where the governamental decisions are taken, scatologically, for the good of people, not for the necessities its market.


Ie - B r a z i l

Answer 1

Well, leaning on your definitions, I do believe there are Socialist governments that are elected democratically. I think France has this tradition, that the people own the government, and the government often behaves to satisfy the wants and needs of the people (usually the immediate needs and not necessarily the long term ones).

I think that when you try to divide people from 'the market', you are going to end up in some thick brush. People drive politics, economics and ultimately the peace or war one nation finds itself in. We are often fond of the notion that governments, once elected, use their power and influence to satisfy the needs of the few, rather than the many, and that the electorate is rarely satisfied with the quality of representation. What is more the fact, is that governments, when freely elected, owe tremendous debt to both their financial sponsors (corporations, committees, etc.) and their political sponsors (voting blocs- rich/poor, ethnic, issues-based, etc.). One man or woman cannot be everything to everyone, but whoever leads a democratic nation knows first, last and foremost their debt to the people and government's role as the people's servant.

Where socialism becomes a subversive trend within a democracy is when the apparatus becomes an artificial wealth reallocation mechanism. This innately discourages individuals from being as productive, contributive and successful as they can possibly be, because so much of their livelihood is augmented, supported or guaranteed by state programs. The ill there is the individual loses the concept of the COST of his/her livelihood and focuses more on government's ability or inability to maximize their personal pleasure (something that is more the responsibility of the individual, particularly in a democracy, than anyone else).

I think true patriots, who understand and believe in democracy, also understand and believe in the nature of man. Some subset will require the assistance of society, and a good society will assist all those in need. In a truly socialist state, almost everyone falls into the category of 'someone in need', or, conversely, the needs of the individual that are satisfied or augmented by the state are so great in number or cost, that the individual benefits received from the state become an onerous burden upon the state, and the quality of life surely diminishes.

Where individuals have incentive to be productive, self-sufficient and philanthropic, you will find democracy and socialism excel, because everyone has a vested interest in their voice being heard AND more of the population will have the personal ability to assist those TRULY in need, thereby lifting some of the burden of socialist programs from the state, who, in a democracy, must be accountable to ALL people, not just those who have a need that is satisfied by the state. For both to succeed, a nation must stand unified, where rich and poor support the concept of freedom, democracy and the common good. When one subset of society pits itself and its interests against another subset, the social and patriotic fabric of a nation begins to fray, and no amount of governmental engineering or social programs can coax either side to abandon their selfish interests for those interests that benefit the nation as a whole.

Lastly, there's a reason many people from around the world emigrate to the U.S.; there is ample support for those in need, there is ample support and encouragement for those who are enterprising, and there is ample support to help those in need become those who are enterprising. The market is the people, and as varied and complex as that market may be, the government's job, if it is a legitimate government, is to satisfy that varied and complex market to the best of its ability. That task is made all the more easy and successful, if a system of government exists that empowers the individual, rather than imbeds into the individual's mind that the state, not the individual, has ultimate responsibility for the individual's well being. I think where socialism alone fails, is not asking MORE of the individual, in return for MORE state support. It's a dangerous thing to maintain in the long term, and compromises a nation's international standing severely, if not adjusted properly.

Answer 2

Read the book - First Democracy - The idea of democracy first established by the Athenians was socialistic. They unified for just about everything from voting to war to grain trade (If you were a male citizen of course). Modern 'democracies' usually aren't that democratic. Also many highly democratic type nations in Europe, such as Ireland and Germany, have huge socialist programs. Socialism isn't exclusive of democracy and vice versa. However the power regimes that flock to power everywhere don't stay in power if both naturally and successfully flourish those notions in a nation. This makes the actual application of the forms of rule very hard. Human greed and selfish nature wins out and only fragments trickle down or are bastardized into current governance which label themselves as 'democratic' or socialist. So it isn't impossible but very very hard to find.

Answer 3

Socialist-Democracies such as the UK, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Austrailia have:
a) better economies
b) better healthcare (although worse medicaiton)
c) high taxes :(

Answer 4

yes they can. Its called canada. Where the goverment supports its people. (AKA giving somthing back). Also you are thinking of a representative democracy.

Answer 5

It sounds like you are wanting us to do your homework for you.