DEMOCRATIC COMMUNISM: Real Communism - The only real Communi

[RED RAGE]

I have a theory. A theory that has been shot down many times, but everytime I have prooved my theory to be correct. My theory is that the only Communism that is true Communism is Democratic. WHAT IS THE POINT OF A COMMUNIST DICTATOR? COMMUNISM HAS FAILED IN EVERY PREVIOUS ATTEMPT! The only way Communism can prevail is if the people really DO have the power! The only way this is possible is to have a system where people vote for a leader to represent them and have elections every few years, like in capitalist democracy now. These different people would have different views on how the communist society should be run and therefore all would be communist, but, would have diferent view on things. ie, education health etc... My theory in detail is much longer and complex than this altogether, but this is the basic theory. Comments? If u want to comment personally email me at [email protected]

[Blasphemy]

any communist country which is lead by a dictator will slowly degenerate into an elitistic-run country. a dictator takes all the power and concentrates it into his own hands, leaving almost no power to the people. the power should not be concentrated in the hands of any man. it must be left to the hands of the people, who will elect their leader on a permenant basis.

[redstar2000]

Well, yes, Red Rage, you're right. The real meaning of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is that the working class must have real control over the "levers of economic and political power".

Regular elections contested by a number of communist parties is one way to do that. There are others.

Building up a society-wide network of trade unions and dispensing with all the old governmental instututions is another.

The role of "direct democracy" cannot be overlooked...it must be instituted wherever possible and as much as possible...even at the cost of some "inefficiency".

The right to criticize the "leaders" must be iron-clad and absolute.

The possible shapes of future communist societies is, to me, a fascinating topic. The fact that people are slowly beginning to break with the old models of (Leninist) communism is enormously encouraging to me.

It is no "betrayal" of 20th century communism to admit that we must do better than they did...any more than Einstein "betrayed" Newton.

Let the dead no longer oppress the living!

:cool:

[Just Joe]

what you support, red rage, is basically original social-democracy; electing leaders to implement Socialism rather than revolting and forming the 'dictatorship of the prolateriat'. unfortunatly for you, this has also failed. most SD parties drifted to the right to the stage where they now support neo-liberalism.

[RED RAGE]

Im glad to see I have got a positive respose. Your points of view are interesting. Basically what im trying to say is that having a dictator is the exact opposite of what communism represents. It therefore makes the point of communist society a waste of time and completely void. I like the idea redstar2000 said about "Building up a society-wide network of trade unions and dispensing with all the old governmental instututions ", would you care to elaborate more? Its an interesting concept and Id like to hear more. Being only 16yrs old, I have tried to participate as much as possible in creating a student union within my school, so I am very interested on those sorts of ideas. (This has nothing to do with the subject, but may I say that I am glad that I am not alone with my point of views as I no of very few people who share them. Its nice to meet some SANE people for once! :) )

[Valkyrie]

I support Red Stars' #2 & #3. That's the fine poins of Anarchism.

I think people will start to awaken to the fact that the time of leaders behooved to overlook and rule over society in a paternalistic fashion has come and gone.

Human beings right now, in this epoch have the talents and skills, the technological ability, the creative input, and reasoning facilities to create their own societies and deal with eachother in cooperative and civilized ways. I think those repressive institutions known as government are really the chains that bind us.

(Edited by Paris at 10:28 pm on Feb. 25, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

People must take responsibility for their actions for us to live in a truly civilised society, thus we must have a society that is as close to direct democracy as possible, without it being a beurocratic waste of time.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Remember we would still have to have some sort of revolution for the elections, we need to educate. But I would also love to see a change like this.

[Pete]

My teacher will not allow the CPC candidate speak to my school. Although she wants to have a 'fair and democratic' vote. (This is a new initiative where the students vote hypothetically for an MPP).

I agree with the Dictatorship of the proletariat being a democracy, but not capitalist democracy. Workers democracy where the circles do what is best for the sustainablility of their region. A bit like Bolivarian circles but universal.
Cuba is a good example. Political parties are not allowed to nominate candidates, they all come from the body of the workers. Nominated by their peers and then voted on.

[Blibblob]

Pure communism there is no government at all.

I agree with your theory, as it is mine also. But yet there still must be a revolution, you cant fight the system through the system, you will always loose.

[Just Joe]

there is no state in pure Communism.

[Pete]

But inbetween Capitalism and Communism stands Socialsim, which has a government.

[Blasphemy]

Quote: from Just Joe on 10:09 pm on Feb. 25, 2003
what you support, red rage, is basically original social-democracy; electing leaders to implement Socialism rather than revolting and forming the 'dictatorship of the prolateriat'. unfortunatly for you, this has also failed. most SD parties drifted to the right to the stage where they now support neo-liberalism.




he didn't talk about social-democracy, but about a communist-democratic system. the differences are huge. social democracy is not socialism. it is a capitalist economic system with social (not socialist) elements. meaning, the capital is divided among the people unfairly, like in a capitalist society, but the workers have rights which are protected by the government.

a communist democratic system is where the capital is spread fairly among the people, just like in a real communist party. each person gets his equal share, to put in simply. but the difference between this conception and the leninist one, is the democracy part. elections are held, there are different parties, and all the other things which charaterzie a demoracy. this doesn't contradict with communism.

[Just Joe]

no smartguy. Social Democracy in its original context was an idea that Socialism and Communism could be implemented throught the ballot box. the Bolsheviks were actually called the Social Democrats for a time until they embraced Marxs' idea of revolution more militantly.

as i said which you didn't read, Social Democracy drifted right until now they support neo-liberalism.

bloody hell. i sometimes wonder, if you don't understand fully what youre talking about, why would you bother to post?

[Aleksander Nordby]

We can have election, but with the difrent communism sides like Maoism, Trokism and even Stalism

[RED RAGE]

"he didn't talk about social-democracy, but about a communist-democratic system. the differences are huge. social democracy is not socialism. it is a capitalist economic system with social (not socialist) elements. meaning, the capital is divided among the people unfairly, like in a capitalist society, but the workers have rights which are protected by the government.

a communist democratic system is where the capital is spread fairly among the people, just like in a real communist party. each person gets his equal share, to put in simply. but the difference between this conception and the leninist one, is the democracy part. elections are held, there are different parties, and all the other things which charaterzie a demoracy. this doesn't contradict with communism. " - Blasphemy


Blasphemy seems 2 understand what Im trying to say. A communist democracy is simply, communism, with a democratic system where a political arm is voted into power by the people. I also agree with this statement:

"I agree with the Dictatorship of the proletariat being a democracy, but not capitalist democracy. Workers democracy where the circles do what is best for the sustainablility of their region. A bit like Bolivarian circles but universal.
Cuba is a good example. Political parties are not allowed to nominate candidates, they all come from the body of the workers. Nominated by their peers and then voted on. " - CrazyPete


The idea that the body politic is the workers themselves is a good idea. That all of the party are the representitive of the party they are in, not just a singular person.

All of this which I have stated is the only true and logical way communism can work and be applyed to people.

[Blibblob]

People always seem to look at communism and democracy as complete opposites. The US is not democratic, dont base anything off of them, just read some Locke and Rousseau.

I believe we have said something of this before, you seem to catch on quickly red rage, but your avatar is annoying. Thats redstars, change it!

[redstar2000]

Red Rage, the idea of the trade union becoming the fundamental unit of post-capitalist society is, at least as I understand it, the heart of anarcho-syndicalism.

I will not attempt to summarize their ideas...but you can do a web search (see Google at the bottom of this page) and find an enormous amount of material.

You might also want to look at The Workers Opposition by Alexandra Kollontai. The text is at www.marxists.org. This interesting document was actually an attempt to turn Lenin's one-party dictatorship in an anarcho-syndicalist direction.

Another source would be the early writings of the American Industrial Workers of the World.

Leninism and its variants (Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism) so dominated 20th century communism that it's hard to remember that there was serious dissent...from the left...all along. With the collapse of Leninism, the path is opening up again to reclaim Marx's original vision of democratic communism.

It's about time.

:cool:

[RED RAGE]

"your avatar is annoying. Thats redstars, change it! " - Blibblob

it was just 1 of the normal avatars in the normal selection bit so i didnt nick it or n e thin. its not like it it matters, lol!

N e way, back 2 the task in hand... Thankyou Blibblob, i no i catch on quickly, altho i havent read much on the various types of communism already about, thse are all views i have got wifout looking in books. i agree tho... u cannot compare real democracy wif that which they have in a america. America is completely corrupt.

Thanks redstar 4 the links, its about time i start reading up on stuff. its just it tough 4 me 2 do so at the moment, im only 16 and im takin my GCSE's, so i havent got much free time. Il read more during the summer.

I really am getting sick of this world. This society. Its about time something is done. But how and when? Anyone got any ideas, if we r to act, we must act soon. even if its just educating the children of 2moro, we must let the people hear us and learn the truth.

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from Just Joe on 1:58 am on Feb. 26, 2003
there is no state in pure Communism.
Exactly why it is democratic. There is no state; the people rule themselves

[Just Joe]

there is a difference between the state and the government.

even if you were to have direct democracy, you'd still need to elect a leader to chair meetings and to organise things. so you always need government but you don't always need the police states we have at the moment.

[Som]

even if you were to have direct democracy, you'd still need to elect a leader to chair meetings and to organise things.

But why would you do that? whats the point of a leader in a direct democracy? people are organizing things in groups, and doing things purely democratically, a leader would a lot of times be nothing but an appendage. Sometimes it may be beneficial, but its definitly not a need.

so you always need government

You don't always need government, but alot of the time you need organization, don't confuse the two. maybe just words here, just a bit to clarify.

[Just Joe]

i canna be arsed to go into the specific details of direct democracy, but it'd be electing people who will do what the people want. its how the US democracy was meant to be formed; with the politicians being just delegates of the people.

an example. politician X represents a city in a small country. the country is voting on legalisation of marajuana. he should only vote on what the people of his constituency have voted. so if his city voted to legalise it, he should too.

[Som]

If its how the US democracy was meant to be, then its not direct democracy. It was always meant to be a representative republic, and never a federalist democracy.

You don't seem to be thinking of direct democracy at all, you seem to be thinking of some sort of... better representative democracy.

You're also thinking of it with a state, especially with that example. Any sort of federalist system, which is generally the usual form of organization for a communist or any stateless society, must be bottom-up, or it only acts as a representative democracy.

Representative democracy is unnecesary in a communist society. Delegates and politicians serve different roles.

[Just Joe]

yeah yeah yeah. wake me up when you start the revolution comrade.

[RED RAGE]

I dont see anything wrong with having a representitive within within the party, but i dont agree with having a leader. As has been said before, different people within the party would have different roles for different tasks. ie, military, health, education etc. :cool:

[Blibblob]

Democracy is where people decide on everything. There is no leader, thats representative democracy, not to be confused with a republic which picks people who pick people who decide things *runs out of breath*.

Democracy basically is anarchy, just they live together nicely, and have rules.

[RED RAGE]

I agree 100%, but there isnt anything wrong with the party having a representitive of the party, just to explain what the party is doing etc. He would just translate what the party is doing from the party members to the people. He wouldnt be a leader or anything.

[Blibblob]

I wasnt saying that representatives are entirely bad(just a lot). But the US's system sucks, you pick a representative, then they pick some other people who make even more decisions on who they should pick to do something. The entire thing is terrible and it usually ends up with the secretary making the decision...

[Revolution Hero]

Communist society is the society of pure and unlimited democracy; this situation is reached by the means of long transitional stage called socialism, during which people develop new psychology and mentality- communist mentality. Only this ensures the complete democracy and creates a system with no disagreements.
The main problem with social- democracy is that it does not ban capitalists and therefore creates an opportunity of capitalist restoration. Unlike social- democrats true Marxists do support theory of class struggle and oppression of bourgeois class; apparently you call them dictators and totalitarians, then go ahead and call Marx a dictator. Your main mistake is that you don’t understand the nature of socialist democracy- the democracy, which existed and still exists in each socialist state.

[Blibblob]

Hmm, finally somebody posted Marx.