Isn't the basic, guiding principle behind democracy and socialism the same?

Absolutely NOT.

Stalin bragged that the USSR (Union of Socialist Replublics)

was more democratic than the USA because 99% of them

voted and in the USA only about 50% voted.

But--big difference--they had only the one party to vote for.

Life could be difficult for those who failed to vote, if able.

Millions sacrificed and struggled to get to the U.S.

Untold numbers escaped socialist dictatorships. I talked with

a few in and just after WW2. Some of them described

socialism as a boot, stomping on a human face, forever.

Check out www.victimsofcommunism.org

Just a year ago the US established a memorial in

Washington for the approx. 100 million the socialist

nations murdered of their own citizens during the past

century.

Socialist professors are guilty of crime against humanity.

The People are oppressed by the government under tyrants, but an authoritarian government does not have to be tyrannical, the can be such a thing as a good king.

Socialism is about the redistribution of wealth from the higher classes to the lower classes, this can co-exists within democratic governments.

Democracy, however, means government is the will of the People. The bottom line in a truly democratic government is that the People are the government. This in its purest form is called direct democracy.

You ask to correct you if you're wrong, so here goes:

Let's start with your first assertion: that "both systems hold the will and best interests of the majority of The People as the foudation (sic) for any and all government decisions."

In order to make any statement, especially one as outrageously incendiary as yours, you have to define your terms. What do you mean by Democracy? If you mean "one person, one vote," then you are essentially saying Democracy means "mob rule." The Founding Fathers of the USA recognized this and set up a republic instead of a democracy to prevent such mob rule.

After all, your namesake, Socrates, was put to death by majority rule (i.e., pure democracy). But the republic of the USA was set up to protect the rights of the individual, both from despotic rulers and from the "tyranny of the majority."

So, if you are talking about a pure "democracy" in that sense of the word, then you must know that the will of the best interests of the majority of the people is not always what is best for the nation and its individuals.

Now, as for your assertion that socialism holds the will and interests of the majority, that assertion is historically false. The very mechanics of socialism are antithetical to those of a democracy.

In a democracy, you can change leadership by vote. However, in order to conduct the economic planning necessary to run a socialist state, you need to be able to make long-term economic plans. So when one regime takes the reins and institutes economic plans, if another one comes in four years later, the first plans will never come to fruition. So none of the long-term economic planning will ever "work" or even get to a point where its effectiveness can be judged. Therefore, the leadership under socialism has to be "protected" from the will of the majority, i.e., must be immune to the possibility of being replaced by majority vote.

Therefore, those who are avid socialists tend to be anti-democratic, even if they don't admit it.

I agree with Alexandrov that you should read "The Law" by Bastiat. It gives an excellent overview of the disconnect between democracy (and, by extension, freedom) and socialism. You might also read "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman or, if you have the attention span, "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises.

As for your comparison of Bush with Stalin, this is an insult to anyone who had to live under the yoke of Stalinist communism. I personally have known people who survived the Stalin years who have no family left from that time. All would be appalled to read such an ignorant statement, and it merits no further discussion.

I could go on, but in short, no I would not agree that government in service of "The People" might be used to describe socialism or democracy. I agree that The People in service to the government is tyranny, but that is exactly what socialism is...production by the people in service to the government, as opposed to in service to their own pursuit of happiness.

EDIT: Instead of just a simple "thumbs down," how about an attempt at a reasoned refutation to any one of points that I made? If you don't like my answer, prove me wrong...if you can.

Socialism, although may disguise its intentions as "the best interest of the majority of the people", it (unlike democracy) gauges this by what the government assumes is best interest and majority. While Democracy uses the majority opinion of the people to determine best interest. There is a clear difference between establishing a government based on 'best interests of the majority' and 'best interest based on majority opinion'.

Also, your view regarding totalitarian oligarchies is foolishly misguided. I would be interested to know who planted this seed of deception in your mind. To compare the totalitarian government of Stalin and Bush is pure ignorance. Bush has as much control as the congress (controlled by democrats). Hence, to assume he has some sort of dictatorship role is an improper statement. You need to spend more time understanding history prior to placing rulers you dislike in categories they don't belong.

I suggest that you even attempt to tell someone who survived rule under Stalin that Bush is anywhere near totalitarian. You may get shot, but it would teach you a lesson. I suggest that you examine what politics are before making such an obscenely rude comment.

Socialism is communism that pretends to give the people the right to vote. Democracy is a system that lets an entire community determine the fate of one of its members. Neither int heir pure states are effective systems, but, no, socialism is not a democracy. Hitler wanted the best for the people, does this in your mind mean that he ruled in a similar way as a democracy?

I suggest you read a book by Bastiat entitled "The Law." Socialism does serve the majority of the peoplem and throughout history, the majority of people are poor. Socialism allows the poor to plunder the wealthy and take what is theirs. Then, everyone is poor and the nation is weak, because there is no incentive to succeed, because everyone knows that whether or not he goes to work, school, etc. he will recieve exactly what the laziest person he knows does. Socialism is a breeding ground for laziness an inefficiency. While our government is out of control, Socialism is NOT the answer.

Socialism is an economic model and democracy is a model of government structure.

Both are seperate in what they define although a socialist government can be a democracy.

Absurd, there has never been a "socialist" government that was in service to the people.

Democracy is about the people designing a government, socialism is about government trying to redesign people.

Your other statements are not worthy of response.

Ideally, a sociolist society would be a democratic one. They are seperate ideas that can be combined. I agree with you on your other points. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"-- really? That sounds like something the USSR might say. Probably the quote of a fascist communist.

You're right 'on the money' with the opening part of your Q.