Socialism vs. Capitalism

[TheReasoner]

That's because they're not really socialist, regardless of what they call themselves.

Do you define what socialism is? It appears you think you do. You have denied the existence of christian socialism, and pre/non-marxistic communism, have you not? Yet such exist, communism and socialism are not new nor were they made by Marx.

True. Greed and lust for power is just as rampant, if not more so, in socialism/communism as in "capitalism".

I see your text, and read it - but I do not see any indication of this being true. Can you cite any sources on this, or is it - as I suspect - just your opinion - without any factual basis?

 

[UnamSanctam]

It's in bad taste to reply to someone you know has you on ignore, so he can't reply, "faith"

 

[TheReasoner]

It's in bad taste to reply to someone you know has you on ignore, so he can't reply, "faith"

I did not know you have me on ignore, Unam. Not surprised though. However, I don't care. If you block me, that's your thing. You make false claims and I might address them. You make unsubstantiated claims and I might address them. Someone else might read your posts and not really think to question them. They should, because what you say is not something I think has support in real life. In your head? Sure. It would seem so. If addressed to Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism much of your criticism holds. But if addressed to Ubuntu or Christian Socialism, Social Democracy, Chirstian Communism or Communitarian systems of different sorts - which you DO - your position does not hold. Even though you attempt to make it work by sophism. It is dishonest and not befitting for a man of the faith.

I suggest you see your priest about your position though. You're WAY off the deep end. I have called you out on it before, and I ask you again: How can a Christian neglect and ignore Christ's teachings in one area of his life? You admit to your political position being - if applied on an inter-human level - in direct opposition to Christ's teachings, do you not? So why is it OK in politics for a Christian to hold them?
My question is as ever, do you believe and follow, or are you one of the cultural Christians on the extreme right?


You KNOW that your supposed 'socialism' is a constructed straw man. So why are you not a man enough to shed the straw man and address the ideology as it really is, and not as you wish it were in your simplified version of reality?

 

[gluadys]

But let's talk about what Socialism actually entails.

Regardless of who you talk to, there are some basic fundamentals of Socialism that most Socialists could probably agree on. The first is the common ownership of the means of production.

Yes. Note that this is not necessarily state ownership--though they are often confused. Anarchist socialism (which holds there should be no state in the first place) envisions a network of cooperatives in which each enterprise is owned by those who work for the enterprise. IOW there is no separation between owners and labourers. The labourers are the owners. They provide both the capital and the labour. This is no different in principle from a self-employed businessman or partnership. It just involves a larger circle of self-employed owners.

Another would be ownership of local enterprises by local municipalities rather than by a national state. Or rather, all the citizens of a local town or city would be members of a cooperative which owned some local enterprises.

One place where this sort of socialism is currently being practiced with success is the Mondragon network of cooperatively-owned enterprises in Spain.

The advantage of worker-ownership is that workers who own the enterprise they work for are not likely to underpay themselves or force themselves to work in poor conditions.

This would require a radical re-adjustment of property rights;

Yes, just as in the early church, one would need to get back to the biblical idea that there is really no such thing as private ownership, for all belongs to God. We are tenants on God's property, stewards of God's creation, and responsible to God for how we apportion the fruits of the earth God has given us. That is why they chose to own all things in common.

for example, factories would need to be seized by the government in order to bring it under communal ownership. This is a big problem from a Christian perspective.

Actually, state intervention is not necessary to bring many enterprises under communal ownership. In Argentina, when many foreign investors abandoned their factories, the workers set up cooperatives and kept them running. In Canada when a US company decided to close down a pulp and paper mill, the union took over the mill and ran it as a cooperative with good success.

If the state takes over a business and then keeps the profit for itself rather than turning it over to the workers, that is a sham of socialism.

After all, doesn't the Bible say that we shouldn't steal?

Indeed, and is it not stealing when a rich corporation takes its marbles (dollars) out of the game and leaves people without employment rather than pay a decent wage or contribute to a pension plan?

Jeremiah had something to say to a king who coerced people into building a palace for him and then held back their wages.

And is it not stealing when financiers gamble with the investments people have made in their homes and after the banks have lost their money, they foreclose on those mortgages and turf people out of their homes?

When is someone going to be charged with that rash of thefts in your country?

How do you reconcile the need for a Socialist government to take (by force) the property of others with the Biblical commandment against theft? Redefining ownership doesn't make theft any more palatable.

How would you feel if someone came to claim your house and land because their grandfather owned it 50 years ago? Would you not call that theft?

Yet in Israel this is what God commanded.

How would you feel if you loaned someone money and after seven years they claimed they don't owe you anything any more? Would you not call that theft?

Yet in Israel this is what God commanded.

Maybe what we need is to redefine ownership more biblically.

Once a Socialist government is actually established, order must be kept. Socialist countries tend to adopt authoritarian policies because Socialism cannot work without authoritarianism.

You are cherry-picking evidence. There are many examples of socialist or social democrat governments which are not authoritarian. All governments have to keep order and have the authority to do so. All governments can be tempted to misuse that authority. Many governments, both socialist and non-socialist have misused that authority.

I think that a more Christian system would encourage strong social bonds and freely-given charity.

So far, so good. But the bible does not limit our obligation to providing charity. It also demands that we do justice; it particularly demands that those who hold the reigns of government (kings, judges, elders -- and in ancient Israel--priests) uphold and defend the rights of the poor.

So tell me less about charity and more about justice. Charity comes from individuals, but what is required at a government level--from local to national to international--is justice for all, protection of the weak from exploitation by the strong.

How would a Christian system ensure that everyone receives the justice of enough food and clean safe water for life, clothing and shelter, medicine and medical treatment as needed, education for the young so they can prepare to be responsible citizens, and training and retraining for those with disabilities or displaced by new technology---not to mention adequate time to spend with family and friends and to nurture their spiritual relationship with God. Are these not the minimally necessary things for a human life?

How, in your view, would a Christian system of government assure than no one is denied these things?

If the government mandates, at the threat of jail time, that you give all your money to the poor... is that as morally praiseworthy as giving money by your own free will?

A government cannot mandate charity. It can, however, forbid oppression and injustice. And it can use legal taxation (approved by the citizens) to implement programs to see that no one is deprived of their right to live in dignity.


It is by this criteria that God judges the nations: when many people are poor and hungry and without homes--that nation is not meeting God's standard of justice and will be so judged.

Cannot the richest country in the world meet this minimum standard of justice?

 

[Johnnz]

The two categories are now redundant. History has moved on.

Historically most socialist governments have adopted a mixed economic model. Western nations have never collectivised industry, although socialist governments have been in power for much of the last century. Even China, a one party state, has more recently adopted many capitalist or free market policies. Mention of collectivism reveals a basic ignorance of the last century of political and economic practices that have been widely practiced. It’s an outdated skeleton in the cupboard argument now.

Two underlying aspects of modern economies are greed as a prime motivator and personal freedoms as a lifestyle. Both conflict directly with biblical values.

There is much in Scriptures about wrongly acquitted wealth, especially when it leads to disadvantage and injustice for the less fortunate. The modern belief in individualism is in direct opposition to the biblical concepts of community. In the ancient world, and in many cultures still today, people see themselves as part of a extended set of relationships, including their tribal and family heritage, and an extended family. Their responsibilities are corporate, not purely individualistic. We are to live with and for others, the second commandment.

This is why Paul could write:
Eph 4:28 He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. NIV
Each person was expected to share with others in the new community.

Ancient kings and rulers had the same responsibilities and many functions of today’s governments, to rule wisely and well for the benefit of their society. The prophets and Jesus railed against those who did not fulfil those functions. Social justice must be addressed by Christians.

I often wonder how many Christians who oppose collective responsibility for the less fortunate belong to churches who have functioning programmes for the needy and disadvantaged, who ensure their own members share freely according to need, and who speak out against the increasing levels of evil out there in the marketplace. Only if they do would they then have any credible mandate to suggest less governmental involvement in social endeavours. But if their protests merely mask consumer driven hedonism, self indulgence and indifference to many around them in their local communities they canny claim a biblical basis for their protestations. Salt without savour was how Jesus stated it.

John
NZ

 

[Christ is Love]

@Johnnz - The definition of Socialism includes the common ownership of the means of production. Every scholarly source agrees with me. I would challenge you to find one reputable scholarly source that claims that you can have Socialism without the common ownership of the means of production.

With that said, even the most far left capitalist governments are not socialist just because they have policies like nationalized health care. Capitalism means that private parties own the "capital." Again, I didn't make up these definitions. If you can find anything that refutes these definitions, I'd be glad to hear it.

@faith guardian - I'm not sure who you're responding to, but you addressed several points that I didn't make. I never said taxation was theft, so I don't know why you responded to (and bolded) that statement. I'm talking about how, in a truly socialist nation, the means of production must be seized by the government.

You also claim that I would call certain countries (like New Zealand) "socialistic." Nope. I would only call a country socialist if it meets the definition of socialism, as I explained above.

I see countries like Norway, Sweden, NZ, etc as being far left capitalist countries. The means of production are still privately owned, it's just that they have heavy taxation and redistribution policies.

You also claim that I said that "the US is so charitable." I don't ever remember making that claim, could you point it out for me?

You also said: "please tell me why you keep telling us left-leaning Europeans that we're stingy and authorative and praise yourselves for being charitable." I never said that.

So, in short, you raised a bunch of points but unfortunately none of them were in response to what I actually said.

@gluadys -

I'm glad that you pointed out that in a socialist society, the means of production can be owned communally. I agree. My point, though, is that for a country to truly be called socialist, there must be communal ownership of the MOP. Whether that's through a government or through cooperatives, MOP must be communally owned. That's why I don't consider NZ/Norway/Sweden etc to be socialist.

I understand your point that we have to get back to the idea that all belongs to God, but what do you do with people who don't agree? That's the problem. I'd feel VERY uncomfortable with sending in the police to take someone's property if they disagree with this statement.

It is true that force isn't needed to bring businesses under state ownership, but the only examples you gave were cases where someone willfully gave up their property or abandoned it. What about the case of the paper mill owner who says, no, I want to keep my paper mill?

I think that justice is the responsibility of the society. I don't like to involve the government because, as we all know, governments do terrible things and they often do it through force. It is better that people are free to be charitable without having the threat of jail time keeping them good.

 

[Johnnz]

@Johnnz - The definition of Socialism includes the common ownership of the means of production. Every scholarly source agrees with me. I would challenge you to find one reputable scholarly source that claims that you can have Socialism without the common ownership of the means of production.

With that said, even the most far left capitalist governments are not socialist just because they have policies like nationalized health care. Capitalism means that private parties own the "capital." Again, I didn't make up these definitions. If you can find anything that refutes these definitions, I'd be glad to hear it.

I see countries like Norway, Sweden, NZ, etc as being far left capitalist countries. The means of production are still privately owned, it's just that they have heavy taxation and redistribution policies.

I'm glad that you pointed out that in a socialist society, the means of production can be owned communally. I agree. My point, though, is that for a country to truly be called socialist, there must be communal ownership of the MOP. Whether that's through a government or through cooperatives, MOP must be communally owned. That's why I don't consider NZ/Norway/Sweden etc to be socialist.
/quote]

Any dictionary based definitions will include historical meanings of a word, but they may not be that relevant in later times. Here in NZ our Labour Party is the left learning one and proudly wears the socialist label, as to the Labour parties in the UK and Australia. Having some left leaning policies does not mean eventual state control. Modern Labour governments, as for the Democrats in America, freely espouse private industry, as do all the socialist parties of Scandinavia, France and Germany.

You are totally wrong on NZ. Both major parties hold a right or left leaning centrist position. When either strays too far away from a centrist position it generally looses the next election. Our taxation is pretty average compared with many countries, including the USA.

I hold to what I have stated in previous posts. Pure socialism is very rare these days. The real issues are not those of a left/right position. Many Western countries are left or right leaning capitalists, with most industries in private ownership. Greed power and social justice are the key issue we should be focusing on.

John
NZ

 

[Christ is Love]

Johnnz, my problem is that I think that most people here are advocating something that could be called Christian Capitalism, not Christian Socialism.

 

[gluadys]

I'm glad that you pointed out that in a socialist society, the means of production can be owned communally. I agree. My point, though, is that for a country to truly be called socialist, there must be communal ownership of the MOP. Whether that's through a government or through cooperatives, MOP must be communally owned. That's why I don't consider NZ/Norway/Sweden etc to be socialist.

Then you are just quibbling over definitions. Obviously there are gradations on a spectrum. And as Johnnz has said, we don't even really have a linear left/right spectrum. The New Democratic Party is the closest we in Canada have to a socialist party (it is more social democrat than classic socialist, but that's just drawing lines on a chart), and like most left-leaning parties, it is comfortable with a mixed economy.

I understand your point that we have to get back to the idea that all belongs to God, but what do you do with people who don't agree?

Educate their children in public schools. Then we get a next generation that understands and cooperates.

That's the problem. I'd feel VERY uncomfortable with sending in the police to take someone's property if they disagree with this statement.

Oh, come on! What if people don't agree to stop at a red light?

Capitalists use government and police (and sometimes even armies) to expropriate property that people don't want to give up. Usually, the neighbourhoods they choose to do away with are poor ones--cleared to make way for a highway or dam or shopping mall.

If you really feel uncomfortable about having police enforce an eviction order, maybe you should begin defending people facing mortgage foreclosures.

Why is it that business gets a break when it is the homes and livelihoods of the poor that are impacted, but there is so much squeamishness about treading on the toes of private property when there is a fancy gate and wall around it?

I would be much more impressed if the concern was more impartial.

It is true that force isn't needed to bring businesses under state ownership, but the only examples you gave were cases where someone willfully gave up their property or abandoned it. What about the case of the paper mill owner who says, no, I want to keep my paper mill?

I was giving examples of non-state communal ownership. I don't doubt that if people were angry enough, they would take over the paper mill whether or not the mill owner wants to keep it. Especially, if the owner has been allowing the effluent to pollute the waterways, refusing to recognize a union, demanding unreasonable working hours, and so forth.

If a mill owner takes government subsidies, lobbies for lower taxes on his business, donates to parties and candidates who promote tax cuts, subsidies and oppose minimum wage laws, pension plans, pollution controls, etc.---is he/she really THE owner? Or has he/she already involved the government?

People seem to forget that workers invest as much in a corporation as owners do, and often much more than share-holders who know nothing other than they are getting a dividend cheque.

We need to think more in terms of stakeholders than shareholders (and most mills are co-owned by many shareholders, not by an individual or even a single family.)

I think that justice is the responsibility of the society. I don't like to involve the government because,

A contradiction in terms. Government is the means by which society exercises its responsibility.

I noted earlier this curiosity of the American psyche that talks about its own government as if it were an alien overlord. God knows, in history, we have seen many governments who were alien overlords---ask the people of Asia and Africa who suffered under European colonialism. Ask the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

But there is no excuse for divorcing society and government in a democracy. That is what your Founding Fathers gave you: a government which you as citizens direct, not one that can act against your combined wishes.

To me, it seems that the current corporate rulers of America are selling you this line of thinking--that government is your enemy--to keep you from waking up to your power. They fear government of the people, by the people, for the people (as good a definition of socialism as ever penned). So via control of the media they paint government as a big, bad bully you have to fear and resist instead of use in the way the constitution gives you the right to do.

When people wake up to the fact that they are not just consumers and not just taxpayers, but citizens, and feel the full power of being citizens, you will see society and government as the same thing again. When citizens take control of their own government, they have the freedom to shape their lives as they like.

 

[TheReasoner]

@faith guardian - I'm not sure who you're responding to, but you addressed several points that I didn't make. I never said taxation was theft, so I don't know why you responded to (and bolded) that statement. I'm talking about how, in a truly socialist nation, the means of production must be seized by the government.

Ah. Apologies, I have heard the same old 'taxation is theft' rant so many times my response was automated.
In that case, how is that automatically theft?
Consider if you will waterfalls here in Norway. When many were converted to power plants the people who built them and ran them already knew - 60 years. They would own and run them for six decades after which the plant would be nationalized. It was part of the permit to build. Is that theft?
Nationalization may not be theft, just as private ownership may not be. But both could be, depending on how said undertaking is... Undertaken. It depends on how it is done whether it is morally justifiable or not. And I would say the laws here are justifiable. If you know you can run it for 60 years when you start the contract, well... Then you shouldn't complain when you lose the plant in 60 years IMO. In the same way, if businessman A mistreats workers and utilize corruption or hired goons to keep his workers in line and maximize his profits it is my honest opinion that businessman A should be imprisoned and his business seized by the government and subsequently nationalized. Such crimes should not be excused and should be punished severely.

You also claim that I would call certain countries (like New Zealand) "socialistic." Nope. I would only call a country socialist if it meets the definition of socialism, as I explained above.

I see countries like Norway, Sweden, NZ, etc as being far left capitalist countries. The means of production are still privately owned, it's just that they have heavy taxation and redistribution policies.

You're quite right on some cases. I wouldn't say the countries are necessarily capitalist though, but strictly speaking somewhere between. In a grey zone you might say. However many Americans would consider them socialistic. After all, quite a few consider Obama to be a Marxist. It's brain dead, but there it is.

You also claim that I said that "the US is so charitable." I don't ever remember making that claim, could you point it out for me?

Open mouth, insert foot. Epic fail from my side, once again replying in an automated fashion. I do apologize. It was not proper of me to respond to you that way.

You also said: "please tell me why you keep telling us left-leaning Europeans that we're stingy and authorative and praise yourselves for being charitable." I never said that.

So, in short, you raised a bunch of points but unfortunately none of them were in response to what I actually said.

True that. And I can only be embarrassed about it and apologize while blushing.

 

[elahmine]

Uh neither...A proper society should reward those who work hard and so doing have good achievements. On the other hand, a proper society should not penalize by lack of wealth those who try and fail or do not have the same opportunities that some people have. A proper society should not trample on those who have made mistakes but restore them when they try to do better. However, I do not think that human governments right now are equipped to create a completely just society, and therefore what ever economic system we follow will ultimate fail people.

 

[gluadys]

Uh neither...A proper society should reward those who work hard and so doing have good achievements. On the other hand, a proper society should not penalize by lack of wealth those who try and fail or do not have the same opportunities that some people have. A proper society should not trample on those who have made mistakes but restore them when they try to do better. However, I do not think that human governments right now are equipped to create a completely just society, and therefore what ever economic system we follow will ultimate fail people.

True that. All human governments are human and therefore commit human sins and errors. So vigilance is always needed under any system. No system is incorruptible. We have seen horrendous atrocities committed by pro- and anti-capitalists, pro- and anti-socialists.

I agree with your characterization of a proper government. There is no need to encourage envy of the rich or discourage enterprise. But there is a need to make sure that no one is deprived of basic necessities.

Psychologically, we need to do what we can to discourage the sort of pride and arrogance which devalues people living in poverty and casually dismisses their needs as not worthy of attention. We need to do what we can to discourage the "us vs. them" attitudes that foster fear and division and conflict and see suffering as "what they deserve". And we need to encourage the empathy and compassion and solidarity that says "There, but for the grace of God, go I" and implements the Golden Rule on a social as well as individual level.

If we do that in all things, it won't really matter if the formal definition of the economic system is capitalist, socialist or mixed or something else altogether.

 

[Partiasn]

I would say look into the view of Leo Tolstoy he was a christian and wrote some good views on such things.

Although he was in fact an Anarchist.

 

[Farandaway]

.

 

[vortigen84]

Which do you think is better? Which is moral? Do you believe that Christ supports one or the other?

I am a Christian Socialist, so I believe in socialism. I see capitalism as cruel and unjust. I also believe that the Bible supports socialism.

Acts 2:44-45:

Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

Acts 4:32-35:

Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.

How do those passages you quoted apply to government? Why should they be interpreted as such?

 

[Bubblies]

I picked Socialism, but in reality, a nice mixture of both is best.

I think pure capitalism is rotten.
But with freedom, capitalism is inevitable.

I'm quite happy with the way my country works. We have capitalism. For sure. But we also have some socialistic policies and practices.

 

[UnamSanctam]

I picked Socialism, but in reality, a nice mixture of both is best.

I think pure capitalism is rotten.
But with freedom, capitalism is inevitable.

I'm quite happy with the way my country works. We have capitalism. For sure. But we also have some socialistic policies and practices.

So you imprison political opponents in slave labor camps to work them to death from exhaustion and starvation, nationalize property, and think of humans as mere wheels in the machinery of state and in the service of the Party?
That's a different Australia than the one I've heard of......

Maybe you're thinking about not letting people lie and rot in the streets, for instance. That has nothing to do with socialism specifically (agreed - neither does the slave labor camps I mentioned...the rest is accurate though), but is a classic trait of Conservatism.
You DO know what the first welfare-state in the world was, right?

 

[gluadys]

So you imprison political opponents in slave labor camps to work them to death from exhaustion and starvation, nationalize property, and think of humans as mere wheels in the machinery of state and in the service of the Party?
That's a different Australia than the one I've heard of......

That's not the socialism I have heard of either.


I think a lot of the problems with a poll like this is that is does not allow for the fact that people have very different ideas of what socialism and/or capitalism are.

If people think the paragraph above describes socialism, of course they are against it.
But that is not the socialism people defend. The socialism people defend is much different.

Maybe you're thinking about not letting people lie and rot in the streets, for instance.

And if people think this describes capitalism, of course they are against it.
But that is not the capitalism people defend. The capitalism people defend is much different.

That has nothing to do with socialism specifically (agreed - neither does the slave labor camps I mentioned...the rest is accurate though), but is a classic trait of Conservatism.

No, none of it is accurate. The notion that people are mere wheels in the machinery of the state and the Party is not at all a good description of socialism.

Nationalism and one-party states are not essential characteristics of socialism in general. Perhaps of National Socialism as in 1930s Germany, but that was a perversity of socialism. Not a genuine model.

Also, many socialists have always opposed the Leninist/Maoist model of the Party as the vanguard of socialism and the imposition of a dictatorship to implement socialism.

In genuine socialism, people are not wheels in service to the state; they are the people who move the wheels of the state. And the essential difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism puts the state at the service of capitalists, while in socialism both the state and capital are servants of the people. Civil, social AND economic matters are all decided democratically. The economy is not exempt from democratic decision-making as it is under capitalism.

 

[gluadys]

How do those passages you quoted apply to government? Why should they be interpreted as such?

The church was to be the model of the Kingdom of God and the apostles were its first governors. So the model they set up is a micro-model for all governments.

Remember, in those days, no one thought in terms of separating church and state. So the model church was also a model state.

 

[UnamSanctam]

That's not the socialism I have heard of either.

There is no "easy going" way to say this:
Then you plain haven't been paying attention to the world around you, and to history.

I think a lot of the problems with a poll like this is that is does not allow for the fact that people have very different ideas of what socialism and/or capitalism are.

But that is not the socialism people defend. The socialism people defend is much different.

Then they have a false/watered down view of what socialism is.
I'm not saying that all who call themselves socialists are as eager to establish KZ-camps as the communists are, but that only means they're naive, and haven't learned from history.

No, none of it is accurate. The notion that people are mere wheels in the machinery of the state and the Party is not at all a good description of socialism.

So - what? That whole "dictatorship of the Proletariat"-thing was just something Marx threw in for feces and giggles? He didn't REALLY mean that the Workers and Peasants should violently overthrow the states, and that the desires of people to maintain what was theirs should be trampled by the "Workers and peasants", and society re-organized along collectivist lines, until the Great Classless Society could be established?

Nationalism and one-party states are not essential characteristics of socialism in general. Perhaps of National Socialism as in 1930s Germany, but that was a perversity of socialism. Not a genuine model.

LOL
Try the USSR, the entire Eastern Bloc of the Soviet Empire, Cuba, North Korea, etc.

Also, many socialists have always opposed the Leninist/Maoist model of the Party as the vanguard of socialism and the imposition of a dictatorship to implement socialism.

I know that many who call themselves socialists have taken this position. What I'm not willing to admit without further proof, is that they can do this and remain socialists. Socialism isn't just some ivory tower of altruism, and you can't just say: "Socialism simply means being nice to others" as the prevalent definition seems to be in threads like this - at least amongst those who call themselves socialists.

In genuine socialism, people are not wheels in service to the state; they are the people who move the wheels of the state. And the essential difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism puts the state at the service of capitalists,

No, the state allows people to make their own businesses where they can produce goods or services that others wish to purchase, and in order to deliver, they need to hire workers, who then get paid, so they can buy goods and services, etc.

while in socialism both the state and capital are servants of the people. Civil, social AND economic matters are all decided democratically. The economy is not exempt from democratic decision-making as it is under capitalism.

No, in socialism the government confiscates all you have, and graciously allows you a meagre part of it back as a courtesy. There is no democracy in socialism, and there can BE no democracy in socialism, because no socialist state would ever tolerate a people saying: "Hey....we actually think we can make better butter/bread/TVs/cars/etc than the government". And it will not tolerate any attempts to break the monopolies of government.