Socialism does not mean democracy. It can be democratic, but you aren't allowed to redefine the word just because of you don't like the historical results.

Socialism could in theory be combined with democracy. In practice, this has never worked out.

How can socialism which is by definition ownership of the means of production by the people be anything else?
If it's a dictatorship it's not socialism, that is a state seizure of the means of production.

"no true scotsman socialism"

Tell me how someone like saddam hussein or vladimir putin seizing control of the countries resources for their friends and family is the people owning the means of production?
Its different people owning the means of production but not the people, the workers are not getting control of the factories and the proceeds thereof.

Who is using Iraq or Russia as examples of socialism, lol?!?

Would Venezuela under Chavez/Maduro qualify as socialism according to your definition?

The state is the vehicle by which the means of production are maintained for the people. Whether this is the people voting directly, or indirectly for leaders, or a revolutionary like Mao seizing the reins of the state is irrelevant to the definition. Cuba is a socialist state, it is also not a democracy.

Ownership of production requires a steward. The steward of that power is handed almost limitless authority, and quickly develops into an oligarchy, aristocracy, stratocracy, or one of the myriad of other forms of elite rule; rule made all the more oppressive by the total extent of his/her/their power.

China has followed this path exactly. Mao was a communist and a socialist, and the CCP's early reign reflects it. The party only abandoned socialism when it became clear and obvious that socialism would not result in economic success.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Jan 20 2020 01:17pm