Democracy or Communism?

[edyzmedieval]

What do you prefer?!

Democracy or Communism?!

I thought about this and even the evil communism has some advantages. Criminality rate, for example, was much reduced in communist countries because of the strong fist that the police had.

[Ser Clegane]

Strange question - actually - ideally - Communism and Democracy should not be mutually exclusive.

Considering the answer you give, your question should rather be
"Democracy or Dictatorship" shouldn't it?

[edyzmedieval]

Yeah. Let's make it this way.

[Lazul]

Since the question is Democracy vs Dictorship i have to go with Democracy.

I like to think for myself and say and write what I want! :bow:

[cegorach]

I thought about this and even the evil communism has some advantages. Criminality rate, for example, was much reduced in communist countries because of the strong fist that the police had.[/QUOTE]

If you don't mind the whole communist party beeing a band of criminals themselves, of course... ~:eek:

[Idaho]

Bit of a dumb question. Who is going to choose a dictatorship?

[Moros]

communism doesn't mean dictatorship, or is my Engrish really that bad?~;)

i choose a pseudo-communism democracy.

[Al Khalifah]

Bit of a dumb question. Who is going to choose a dictatorship?
Everyone would choose a dictatorship as long as they got to be the dictator.

[Ser Clegane]

Who is going to choose a dictatorship?

People who turn to the Dark Side and have their dialogue written by George Lucas ~;)

[Aenlic]

Many people are lazy when it comes to such things. It is much easier, and less stressful, to let someone else think for them. As long as they are told things that are easier to believe than the truth, then it is relatively easy to control the mob. Why do dictators even bother to hold so-called elections? It's all part of the process of controlling the masses who willingly let others do the hard work of thinking about politics. How do you suppose people like Hitler become Chancellor in the first place. It's just easier to let it happen then not. It's easier to believe the pablum being fed to them than to think for themselves.

And democracy, by itself, doesn't stop it from happening. Apathy can bring on dictatorships. When most of the people don't even bother to engage in the process, not wanting to be bothered or just not caring, then they've already given up their only real power. When the majority doesn't even bother to vote at all, in a democracy, then the wolves come out to play with the sheep.

[Idaho]

Everyone would choose a dictatorship as long as they got to be the dictator.

But I wouldn't be a dictator, think of me more as a brother-leader.

Now get back to work peasant!

~;)

[Advo-san]

Communism and democrasy can both be fine systems, depending on the "economical and social situation" of a nation.

Communism is a fine system for an agricultural, early-industrial society with a poorly educated population. In these situations, a democratic regime would be like a loaded gun in the hands of a four-year old. Communisme is the perfect system for wealth reallocation, and wealth reallocation is number one priority in low-wealth societies, such as the above-mentioned.

Democracy (in its modern, western, capitalistic form) is the perfect system for semi-developped and developped states vis a vis late-industrial and information-services-oriented states. Modern democracy is the best system to increase wealth production, even though its results in wealth reallocation are rather poor. But in an already developped state, people want to increase the wealth that they are already producing, thus making democracy a formidable system.

The problem with communism is that once you get it, you can't get rid of it.

[Redleg]

Democracy by its nature is better then a dictatorship.

Democracy in history has been better then Communism has been. I am not speaking about the concept of communism - but the application of communism to several nations in the recent past.

So between the forms of government out there in the world - I would rather live under a democratic form of government then anyother form.

[Advo-san]

Now that I get to think of it, the ideal would be: 20 years of democracy followed by 5 years of communism and so on and so on.......

[bmolsson]

Communism and democrasy can both be fine systems, depending on the "economical and social situation" of a nation.

Communism is a fine system for an agricultural, early-industrial society with a poorly educated population. In these situations, a democratic regime would be like a loaded gun in the hands of a four-year old. Communisme is the perfect system for wealth reallocation, and wealth reallocation is number one priority in low-wealth societies, such as the above-mentioned.

Democracy (in its modern, western, capitalistic form) is the perfect system for semi-developped and developped states vis a vis late-industrial and information-services-oriented states. Modern democracy is the best system to increase wealth production, even though its results in wealth reallocation are rather poor. But in an already developped state, people want to increase the wealth that they are already producing, thus making democracy a formidable system.

The problem with communism is that once you get it, you can't get rid of it.

A democracy where the majority doesn't work or contribute would very soon lean towards socialism and it will destroy the capitalistic free market. The government will interfere and soon you have at least a socialistic system, with communistic leaning, "the dictatorship of the majority"....... :help:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All true democracies (e.g. Athens) have failed.

No true communism has ever been established.

Dictatorship can work fine, but the number of enlightened despots is small.

Sadly, the only governments that ever seem to persist are bureacracies, where the red tape manages to self limit the government enough to let us ignore it and go about living our lives.

Seamus

Sorry, had a brief moment of self-indulgent, cynical nihilsm just then. I'll pull through shortly I expect.

[Kagemusha]

If i have to choose between democracy and communism.I choose republic. ~;)

[Stefan the Berserker]

The Question I find mostly interessting, is the fact that there are de facto example of mixing pooled-property and Democrathy. Creating some kind of "Democrathic Communism", which is mostly the opposite of Leninism.

Well examples (in English) to read are:

- Hutterite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite)

- Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative)

- USFWC (http://www.usworkercoop.org/)

- Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Raiffeisen)

However, also the Solutions of Ferdinand Lassalle are also interessting to read...

[King Henry V]

I don't mind dictatorship, so long as the views I hold are the same of the dictator.

[ah_dut]

I don't mind dictatorship, so long as the views I hold are the same of the dictator.
What he said...

Not all dictatorships are bad per se. Though of course, the majority are complete disasters. Sometimes a good dictator is better than a democracy with no direction

[yesdachi]

Of the two I would have to choose democracy.

Communism, because of mans greed will never work. But democracy has some serious flaws too. I hate the fact that everyone has the same amount of voting power. If one person has all the facts and has done the research and is only voting after careful consideration, some idiot who doesn’t like the better candidate’s hair can trump that vote. Republic is no better because it is still swayed by public opinion and corruption. Giving the people what they want is what democracy is all about but when so many of the people are idiots it makes me (edit out 15 minute long mad rant about stupid people) frustrated.

If a better system of earned or qualified voter eligibility were in place it might be a superior democracy floor plan.

[Aenlic]

Most of the original Kibbutzim in Israel were founded by socialist and communist intellectuals. Many are still run on a cooperative basis that is essentially communism in most respects - internally. Decisions are communal, wealth and property are shared, etc. They are functioning examples of small scale communism. They interact with the outside world in a capitalist system, selling products; but internally they are still communal. One even makes and sells military scout vehicles.

From 1936-1939, Barcelona and most of the surrounding areas of Catalonia were run as anarcho-communist cooperative. They operated in direct opposition to Stalinist pseudo-communism. Because of that, they managed to piss off both Franco's Falangists and the Stalinist Republican Army and ended up literally caught between the hammer and the anvil. Read George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. He fought in the Spanish Civil War, first for the Republican Army, and then for the Barcelona forces before being wounded and captured. He was in Barcelona during the great experiment.

[Papewaio]

Bit of a dumb question. Who is going to choose a dictatorship?

Singaporeans...

[Soulforged]

Wow this question is really biased for the modern views on democracy. Various authors have proved tha socialism-communism and formal democracy can work just fine, the same with capitalism. The real question is why...Well as someone said above there's no democracy, there's representative system (that means republican btw) and illusions of public decitions. The only way to achieve true democracy is to all know how to do it (know the making of laws and how to take executive actions) and to have no state as a third party (as it's actually). When the state is in general terms distributed between all then it would be democracy.
And some definition of communism out there (from Advo-San) is perhaps true, it was created for early industrials societies. But actualice yourself man, all things evolve, the teory of communism is not the one that was a 100 before. And as i see it (because it needs a little bit more of deep analisys) it's one of the best to achieve democracy. Hegel said that revolutions in all fields happened this way: Tesis + Antitesis = Sintesis. In socialism we've the despotism this is the antitesis to make differences of classes disappear, is only one by Marx, but it's worthy of attention. You've to think of it like a Machiavelo thing, "do what you have to do, but do it fast". Politics and society progress is not a thing for conservatists or weak of "heart", nor for the moralists. Again i'll repeat a simple and old frase that still aplies "the end justify the means".

[|OCS|Virus]

I would vote for what I have dubbed a "virtual democracy" which is now actualy possible due to the new technology and the internet. In said virtual democracy, I would open up a forum for people to debate {much like we have here} and where elector efficials, would be able to post polls registration would require a valid social security number, and proof of age via a birth certificate. The possitives to this are that everyone who had an internet connection could vote for themselfs, and making voting a much lazier thing to do, so I suspect more people would do it.

There is however one major downside to this, if the system was ever hacked or the admin {president\state governor would be the admins} where to get in and change the vote numbers the result COULD be catastrophic. But given the risks I would heavily support a virtual democracy.

[Soulforged]

I would vote for what I have dubbed a "virtual democracy" which is now actualy possible due to the new technology and the internet. In said virtual democracy, I would open up a forum for people to debate {much like we have here} and where elector efficials, would be able to post polls registration would require a valid social security number, and proof of age via a birth certificate. The possitives to this are that everyone who had an internet connection could vote for themselfs, and making voting a much lazier thing to do, so I suspect more people would do it.

There is however one major downside to this, if the system was ever hacked or the admin {president\state governor would be the admins} where to get in and change the vote numbers the result COULD be catastrophic. But given the risks I would heavily support a virtual democracy.

No. There're others great downsides. Like for example, how would you do to agree with the great majority in a period of superavit to decrease employement, to keep inflation on the place, when they say not. The great majority will not understand, and this is pretty simple. The only way will be instruct everybody on political affairs and do some oficials referendums periodicaly on important themes. But no one can asure you that they'll understand it, or that they'll be disposed to do so. Altough i agree with the term "virtual democracy". ~:cheers:

[Zalmoxis]

A ghost government that has less rules, but more eficient police would be good.

[|OCS|Virus]

No. There're others great downsides. Like for example, how would you do to agree with the great majority in a period of superavit to decrease employement, to keep inflation on the place, when they say not. The great majority will not understand, and this is pretty simple. The only way will be instruct everybody on political affairs and do some oficials referendums periodicaly on important themes. But no one can asure you that they'll understand it, or that they'll be disposed to do so. Altough i agree with the term "virtual democracy". ~:cheers:

You'll have to rephrase the question for me to better understand, I can't sort out the arguements that you have stated. Though it sounds interesting, I'm not sure I understood that.

[bmolsson]

Singaporeans...

~:cheers:

[Csargo]

Ideally Communism is a better government if run correctly which it could never be done it is impossible because of mans greed so in the real world Democracy is better that Communism.

:bow:

[Soulforged]

Ideally Communism is a better government if run correctly which it could never be done it is impossible because of mans greed so in the real world Democracy is better that Communism.

:bow:

Communism is an economic teory. Democracy is a teory on government. Communism not different from Democracy :wall:. In fact one of the ways to achieve democracy is through communism.

[Aenlic]

Part of the problem, Soulforged, is years of propaganda in the U.S. focused on the pliant minds of children. Children in the U.S. are taught that democracy and communism are mutually exclusive; because they are taught that communism is the word for Stalinism and totalitarianism. The excuse usually given for such a ridiculous leap of logic, is that the Stalinists call themselves communists; so, therefore, Stalinism is communism. Those who promote such illogical silliness quite obviously forget that mainland China calls itself a republic, too; and, so following their own logic, republics must be communist. But, they conveniently ignore things like this.

Almost a century of anti-communism propaganda in the U.S. from things like the Red Scare in the 1920's through to McCarthyism and the Cold War and Reagan and the birth of the neocons. The anti-communism rhetoric and twisted propaganda in the U.S. directly paralleled the anti-imperialism rhetoric and anti-U.S. propaganda in the Soviet Union. Two entrenched mindsets battling for hearts and minds, and completely disregarding truth in the process.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"A" form Austin:

Nice post.

I still think the communist/socialist approach falls apart -- I have never accepted some of the stated and implicit "givens" of the Marx Engels argument and even believe the better-argued Frankfurt School falls short of justifying this approach -- but you concisely summarize the "demonization" approach taken by the USA. Thanks for pointing out that both parties were playing the same game, too many critics forget to note that.

Seamus

[Aenlic]

Marxism and later interpretations of the Frankfurt School under Marcuse and the rest are not the only versions of communism.

You should perhaps examine the direction taken by the other, forgotten school of communism and socialist theory which was buried under the rhetoric of Marx and then Lenin and finally the abomination of Stalin. It was the approach taken by Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War.

Look for works by Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and others who were contemporaries of Marx. Bakunin was clearly worried about the role of the state in communism. He once wrote, "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself." Prince Kropotkin was a member of the boyars, tracing his line back to Rurik himself, and was a member of the Corps of Pages in the Imperial household during the reign of Alexander II. He encountered radical socialism in travels to Switzerland and learned from the Jura Federation. His works on the melding of anarchism, democracy and communism such as The Conquest of Bread are probably the best for the time. He helped advise Kerensky in Petrograd; but became disenchanted with what was happening when Lenin and the Bolsheviks took power.

More modern authors such as Murray Bookchin and even Noam Chomsky, also have much to say on the matter.

Perhaps I should change my forum name to Denis and add a signature line of "Help! Help! I'm being Repressed!"