What happens if the people vote in capitalism in a democratic socialist society?

?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sark#Transition_to_new_system_of_government
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Obviously, that means we lose. The transition period before democracy would simply have to be long enough to get the new system running smoothly enough to convince the majority that they don't want to go back to the old way.

It would be against the constitution as a fundamental principle.

Why not just put socialism in the constitution?

Well, sure, but the Constitution has be movable otherwise it's not really democratic. That said there could certainly be a 66% or 75% or whatever standard to change it.

You've just discovered one of the main reasons that it's dumb to elevate democracy to the level of principal.

This

I told you about states

You're right, let's elevate another Stalin instead

At least we do things. I warned you about statelessness.

wew

Gulag them.

Better yet, we elevate Socialism. Though this is unthinkable to many considering half of this board are little more than bourgeois-democrats.

Capitalism would be banned as well as any parties that supported capitalism.

This is exactly what capitalism did to assert its dominance over feudalism. For instance, to this day there's a clause in the United States constitution banning titles of nobility, and another banning all non-republican forms of government.

This.

And if people really want capitalism then they will need to start a revolution to achieve it.

Who gives a shit? Everyone calls America a democracy even though its constitution is reactionary as fuck, and required a fucking civil war to change so slavery was illegal. Give us a socialist constitution, just add a few amendments providing for the future transition to communism.

This is why we dont do democracy

Yeah except we know that America is not democratic and is a totally broken system, I'd rather not replicate that.

Assuming the society was genuinely socialist and not MarketSucc/SocDem bullshit, humanity will have proven itself to stupid to deserve life. I'll watch the climate be destroyed and the people starve as oligarchs hoard all the wealth with great pleasure.

Don't be a dumby,
We've had this discussion before so many times on this board;
Two different definitions of state
(Unless the poster is a nihilist)

Yeah, there's the real definition and the anarkiddie definition

The clear lack of education in this thread is shocking. Come on guys, get it together and read a few books.

What the fuck would "voting in capitalism" mean? How can you "vote in" a socio-economic system? This question - and most of the responses - demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of a) what capitalism is, b) what socialism is, c) what a revolution is and d) how human societies develop politically and economically.

Start with Engels - Origins of the Family, State and Private Property, for the answers to these issues. Once you've read that, you won't ask dumb questions like this anymore.

many countries did not require a revolution to go from feudalism to capitalism

Yes they did.

The transition from feudal political structures to bourgeois political structures was a revolution. Political power was transferred from one class to another. Economic transitions are never revolutions in of themselves; the political change of class structure is a revolution, and this revolution becomes necessary due to economic transitions.

This is what I mean; I don't think you understand what a revolution is.

No, I simply don't buy into such Marxist language. If there is not violent usurpation, it's not a revolution. What you just described, the word transition is much better suited.

But it always is a violent usurpation you dumbass.

This is what a revolution is:
1) An economic transition, always occurring in any society is taking place.
2) At a certain point, the political structures created by that society (i.e. the class structure of that society) reaches a point of contradiction, where they no longer make sense with the economic base of that society.
3) A political revolution occurs, to correct that; the political structures (i.e. the class structure of society) more closely reflects the reality of the economic base.

Phase 3 has always, historically, been a violent usurpation.

...

What is everyone votes that they want to own their own capital

No one ever votes in an economic system you tard. That's not how it works

What do you think will happen?

Sure, we elevate socialism, but what process is used for decision-making? Autocracy failed miserably, and as for a half-assed people-can-vote-on-small-stuff-but-the-enlightened-elites-call-the-shots, well I'm afraid to say, it's exactly what we have now.

Really? Because in Britain, phase three was brought about through "the glorious revolution", a peaceful transition of power.

Not to mention, the last feudal state of europe, Sark, had its feudal system reformed away peacefully. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sark#Transition_to_new_system_of_government

...

The "glorious revolution" was a piece of showmanship at the end. The transfer of political power from the House of Lords to the House of Commons (i.e. the political transition from feudal power to bourgeois power) happened in the English Civil War.

It would have to be a big majority with wide popular support if socialism was in the Constitution
In which case you lost, try again next time.

Found your problem

Avoid it by having a two party duopoly, the left wing party would be ultra-left ancoms and the right wing party would be state-socialists with traditionalist values (be against abortion and etc to better capture the whole populace)

god that sounds cancerous

This is fucking idiotic. The Left in the US has almost no power. Main task now is to build the socialist left in electoral and non-electoral arenas. Eventually revolution will come that will change the economic system, but that is so far ahead it's autistic to focus on it.