All of us seem to be getting a political science info boost after witnessing Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic Party Chair, not answering the question: What is the difference between Democrats and Socialists?
We've seen some elegant footwork at Bloomberg News saying that there is a vast difference because there is no advocacy for the ownership of the means of production by government by the Democrats.
Here's the answer. To find out who said it click on the quote.
We've seen some elegant footwork at Bloomberg News saying that there is a vast difference because there is no advocacy for the ownership of the means of production by government by the Democrats.
Here's the answer. To find out who said it click on the quote.
'State socialism' is willing to act though state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the states socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.
Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.
RSS Feed