Communism & "Democracy"

[FleasTheLemur]

1) Could one compare rise and fall of the First French Republic to Communism in the USSR and get by with it? Could the 'revisionist' aspect of communist China be comparible to the restoration of the English king to the throne?

2) Is there any other examples of "democracy" not taking hold in other nations or being so twisted and deformed that one could hardly call it a democracy? That my sound like a silly question to ask, but I am curious and do need some help making a point.

3) ..and finally... Is it safe to compare Cuba to say... the United $nakes on these same things we've been discussing? I mean... it doesn't take a far look back into history to see that there was only one "democratic" nation on Earth.

[enigma2517]

The French Republic was a bourgeosie revolution.

Communism should be a proletarian one.

The closest thing to a proletarian democracy would probably be the Paris Commune or the various anarchist collectives in Spain during the civil war.

Cuba is probably the most democratic socialist state in existance today.

[slim]

What about the republic of Munich?

[OleMarxco]

Hmmm.... I beg to f'in' differ, jedday ;)
*draws red lightning saber*
Okay, now THAT was politically meant, not good-evil axis, meant.
But perhaps banana-bent! (Chiquita -trademarks!-)

Back to topic.
Now you're tellin' ME that the FRENCH REPUBLIC was a -MORE- burgerouise than standard's at that time!? I can't hear ya, say it again, will ya? It was, ipso factos, WAY - and I mean -WAY- beyond it's time. So go figure :castro:

[FleasTheLemur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:48 PM
Hmmm.... I beg to f'in' differ, jedday ;)
*draws red lightning saber*
Okay, now THAT was politically meant, not good-evil axis, meant.
But perhaps banana-bent! (Chiquita -trademarks!-)

Back to topic.
Now you're tellin' ME that the FRENCH REPUBLIC was a -MORE- burgerouise than standard's at that time!? I can't hear ya, say it again, will ya? It was, ipso factos, WAY - and I mean -WAY- beyond it's time. So go figure :castro:
Despite the fact I barely understood what you said, you're right. Proclaiming that the First French Republic was even MORE bourgiose than the super bourgiose than the French monarchy is well.. a little odd.

Of course, however, I do realize that a lot of these revolutions, including America's own revolution was fueled by the wealthy men of those times and the consitutions of that era reflect this. However, you also must realize the context of those revolution. They was a step in the right direction and indeed, they adhere to some things that at the very least I believe in and at the most a lot of people believe in. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc. Of course, before you get your balls in an uproar, I do realize the dire need for material rights as well, such as clean water, healthy food, decent shelter, education, public safety and health care.

The reason I want to compare those communist revolutions to the revolutions that took place roughly during the 1600-1700's is that a couple of those 'failed' or at least was deformed signifigently. Like the First French Republic and how eventually made Neapolean the dictator of France. It seems somewhat comparible to the October Revolution eventually leading up to Stalin taking power.

Of course, this all leads back to square one. Would that be a fair comparison?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it's safe to say that upheavels and uprisings are frequent in history, but sucessful revolutions are less frequent. It took 100s of years of wars in Europe to turn feudalism into capitalism and sofar we've only had about 150 years of resistance to capitalism.

I guess there could be a case made of similarities between the worker's Russian revolution and the bourgeosie French Revolution; I don't know enough about the french revolution.

[STI]

I think a quick history lesson is required...

When people say "bourgeois revolution", they're referring to the overthrow of feudalism (rule by the nobility class) by the merchant class (bourgeoisie), who then go and establish capitalism and all that. This is historically progressive, and a good thing.

This started in Europe in 1789 with the French revolution, and continued for quite some time.

There are those who claim that a Leninist revolution (ie: Cuba, USSR, China), is, in practical terms, a bourgeois revolution. They always start in pre-industrialized nations, and, after the vanguard takes power, they will industrialize very quickly and stand up, for a while at least, to foreign imperialists. This is also historically progressive, and a good thing. But, it always ends up with the party elite, over time, becoming the bourgeoisie, and the establishment of advanced capitalism (as we've seen pretty clearly in China, and we're beginning to see in Cuba). I happen to fall into the camp who claims this.

So, I think that, like FTL pondered in his original post, the French revolution is comparable to the USSR.


I don't think it's really fair to compare Cuba to the US. The two societies are at very seperate stages in their historical development. A better comparison would be, say, Cuba and the Dominican Republic or something.

[enigma2517]

Heh thanks I was about to explain then i saw this post.

Yeah its not the same bourgeois. Well it is, but they weren't in the same position. They were the merchants that owned the means of production of modern society so ultimately they took over.

[Scars]

<<1) Could one compare rise and fall of the First French Republic to Communism in the USSR and get by with it? Could the &#39;revisionist&#39; aspect of communist China be comparible to the restoration of the English king to the throne?>>

Can&#39;t comment on the first one, France isn&#39;t my strong point, however the second- no. They happened for different reasons. Charles II came to power because the Parliamentarians could not form a stable and productive government to lead the country. Atleast with a monarchy they had some sort of stability. Cromwell, the only person who could balance all the parties involved (civil, military, religious), dying did not help either.

<<2) Is there any other examples of "democracy" not taking hold in other nations or being so twisted and deformed that one could hardly call it a democracy? That my sound like a silly question to ask, but I am curious and do need some help making a point.>>

Depends on what your definition of democracy is, really. Yes, no and maybe.

[FleasTheLemur]

Interesting.. of course, now I feel like a dumb ass to some extent. =&#092;

[STI]

No way&#33; The fact that you knew to ask, and that your questions led to some good discussion shows that you&#39;re a smart person, you just didn&#39;t happen to know the answer to a question that is under a lot of debate (ie: nobody can agree on the answer). It&#39;s good stuff&#33;

[enigma2517]

Yes. Excellent indeed&#33;

This brings up a point tho. People ask good questions but they all get lost on the board.

If you&#39;ve been here long enough you&#39;ll know that the same stuff keeps coming up in the learning forum. I think more extensive sticky use is required.

[STI]

We discussed something a bit like that about a year ago, but the general consensus was that it lacked any kind of personal attention. Instead of answering a person&#39;s question, we&#39;d just end up saying "here" and giving them a link. We figured this would turn some people off, so decided not to go ahead with it.

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:05 PM
Interesting.. of course, now I feel like a dumb ass to some extent. =&#092;
Why? Asking questions, seeking knowledge and having a desire to learn are some of the greatest traits that one can possess.

[Guest1]

I actually think you&#39;re right. Stalin very much represented the Napoleon of the Russian revolution in my view, the deformation of a class revolution, a weakening of its position as the dominant force leading to its most radical reforms and demands being thrown overboard. Most of all however, its revolution not being entirely undone because the Bonapartist regime still requires the leverage of its parenting class to continue to exist.

[mov.julio26]

I would like to know if communism can coexist with democracy? What I mean by this is that can a country that is communist have elections and not what is percieved as a dictatorship? thank anyone for an answer to these questions. i am new to communism so i dont really know. thank you

[Guest1]

Well, communism is meant to be an expansion of democracy.

Capitalism is democracy for the bosses and landowners, Communism is democracy for everyone else. Taking democracy to the workplaces, placing all of society under the democratic control of everyone. That however, also means dictatorship. A dictatorship of the majority, as we&#39;re not gonna care what a handful of millionares say, but what the vast majority of society wants, a rational economy and an end to poverty and hunger.

[mov.julio26]

Your answer makes sense Che y Marijuana. What do you guys think about people who oppose the communist party in a communist state? Should they be imprisoned? What about freedom of speech?

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:57 PM
Your answer makes sense Che y Marijuana. What do you guys think about people who oppose the communist party in a communist state? Should they be imprisoned? What about freedom of speech?
There is no state in communism.

[mov.julio26]

^ a communist country

[Guest1]

You mean a country on the road to communism? No, but class enemies are of course going to be attacked. People like Bill Gates will try to fund a counterrevolution, and they will have their assets seized and be either expelled or imprisoned, possibly even killed by an angry mob.

They can hold an opinion against the revolution (I don&#39;t like the idea that there would be only one party involved), but we won&#39;t let them actually work to sabotage it.

They can vote as they wish, but taking up arms must not be tolerated.