Am I that lost?? - Communism "Versus" Democracy????

[Mashka]

I'm a bit confused by the repetitive argument stating Democracy and Communism as totally opposed ideologies. If we look at the origins of democracy, we could say that democracy IS the ultimate Communism. Through democracy many people (can't remember the names right now) reached power, surpassing aristocracy as an obstacle in their way to a position of respect.

My second point, why is Communism believed to be equivalent to a dictatorship? As far as I know, the dictatorship of the Proletariat is only supposed to last until opposition is dissolved ( at the time, major revolutions had to take place in order to establish a communist system). However, the government is supposed to wither away, later on government is not needed, right?

Can somebody clear this up for me? Am I mistaken? :confused:

[Kez]

Commuunism is Democracy at every stage, from administration down to production forces

You are right about the withering away, as in when communism is achevied the situation will be so that the stae will simply dissolve

[redstar2000]

See these two threads...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=895 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=895)

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=900 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=900)

:cool:

[Mashka]

Wow, I'm Impressed :)

:wink wink nudge nudge: ;)

[Red Comrade]

It's a common antic of the western media to label Communism and democracy as opposites. When in reality it's Communism against capitalism, but I guess that's what you get when you have a bunch of McCarthyist dogs running the media.

[Mashka]

Quote: from Red Comrade on 4:18 pm on July 4, 2003
It's a common antic of the western media to label Communism and democracy as opposites. When in reality it's Communism against capitalism, but I guess that's what you get when you have a bunch of McCarthyist dogs running the media.

Speaking of McCarthy....

"On April 2, 2003 the White House officially nominated Daniel Pipes to the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), and the nomination has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions for approval. As the Washington Post has written, when many first heard the news they thought it was a joke. Pipes, perhaps best-known recently for launching “Campus Watch”, a surveillance network and website reminiscent of the McCarthy era, has not only been widely criticized as a racist, particularly with respect to Arabs and Muslims, but noted for advocating the use of force and fear rather than negotiation as the means of choice for conflict resolution".

This guy supports "the ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian as 'the only possible solution" to the Arab-Israeli conflict...' "

Please sign the Say No Letter (http://www.actsofconscience.net/Pipes/stopthenomination.html) to help stop the nomination

[Joe McCarthy]

o jesus not that fuck.

[Dhul Fiqar]

A Canadian posting under the screen name of Joe McCarthy... what has this world come to? ;)

--- G.

[Umoja]

Maybe Icelandics will start living in China, and speak Arabic.

[革命者]

Quote: from Umoja on 5:58 pm on July 6, 2003
Maybe Icelandics will start living in China, and speak Arabic.lol.

[Elect Marx]

That about answer everything, let me add that capitalism on the other hand is anti-democratic. Will the mass media tell you that?

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Capitalism or communism... which is more democratic? Let's see...

DEMOCRACY is the belief that everyone in the country should have a say (i.e.: a vote) in government. Believers in democracy do not think one needs a college degree in political science to have a worthy political opinion. Democracy is meant to be inclusive because even the lowest, least educated custodian can still have the right ideas politically.

CAPITALISM is the belief that the most worthy, hardest-working people will get the spoils they deserve. At the same time, the worthless, stupid, and lazy should starve to death because they are unfit. It is an application of "Social Darwinism." Capitalism is thought to be an evolutionary process where the means of production are constantly revolutionized by hard-working, intelligent people. Capitalism wants to see the supposedly hardest working and most competent come out on top, and those who are not productive have no right to go on living (let alone living comfortably).

COMMUNISM is the belief that all humans should live together in a classless society. There should not be bosses. The needs of all should be met, and no one should have to work sixty hours a week.

DEMOCRACY and COMMUNISM include everyone. CAPITALISM excludes many.

DEMOCRACY and COMMUNISM are about human rights for all. The right to control one's government, and the right to survive so one can enjoy controlling the government. CAPITALISM does not commit itself to human rights automatically because profits often come best where workers have no rights.

DEMOCRACY and COMMUNISM are humanist and believe that human nature is positive. CAPITALISM holds that all humans are lazy and greedy.

Democracy (real democracy, not the American version) is far more compatible with communism than capitalism. It has been argued that communism is in fact the highest form of democracy, since "democracy" means the rule of the people.

[sc4r]

Great post Nebraska.

I'd just like to add though that we do simplify this situation rather too extremely at times.

The political system in place in almost all western nations is not Capitalism but Liberal democracy. In effect this means Capitalism somewhat moderated by democracy.

The problem is that it is really rather easy for an individual, or group of individuals, who have grown rich because of the capitalist element in the mix to dominate the democratic part (essentially by buying up the media which tell most of us what to believe, and the representatives who ultimately determine what is done).

This ens up giving a double whammy. Capitalists benefit from the system of capitalism (which accumulates wealth and accumulates advantage in gaining yet more wealth) and they also benefit from tweaking the system slightly to their advantage anyway by 'democratic means'.

In some places (notably the USA) this has got to the point where it is hard to see that any meaningful approximation of what democrcy is supposed to do still exists. In others (Norway for example) the balance is still (just about) on the democratic side.

It is a hard cycle to break. Most people assume the press is free. The press is owned by a vested interest. It tells people to support capitalism and re-assures them that they have democracy. They believe this. Which means anyone who challenges the whole system is deemed to be 'against democracy'. Which the press tells them is an evil thing. And because they believe the press is free they believe this also.

Its a nasty self re-inforcing situation. And its why simple programs to 're-educate people' wont easily work. Nor will opposing the 'democratic' part of the system directly.

To put it another way :

Capitalism is expressly non democratic.
Communism does not have a democratic mechanism but delivers the effect (not just the illusion) of democracy (assuming that communism can work).
Socialism is democratic (both in substance and in the mechanism).
Liberal democracies have a democratic mechanism, but not a true democratic spirit, and as a consequence dont always end up delivering what democracy is supposed to deliver- its a subverted version of democracy, just the facade without the substance.

And to put it yet another way :)

In a true democracy people are supposed to inform government what to think and do; in (for example) the USA it works the other way around.

The 'free press' is supposed to prevent this; but when the press is owned by the same people as run the government it obviously wont.

(Edited by sc4r at 11:06 am on July 25, 2003)

[blackemma]

Communism does not have a democratic mechanism but delivers the effect (not just the illusion) of democracy (assuming that communism can work).

Exactly. I think what confuses some is that communism is an economic system as is socialism as is capitalism as is feudalism, etc. Capitalism can function under a dictatorship, socialism can function under a democracy, and vice versa. If one accepts Marx's analysis of history and of capitalism specificially, capitalism is indeed compatible with democracy, but only the democracy of the bourgeoisie. This is not a complete democracy since the means of production are still owned by the few, a minority which uphold the capitalist system. The capitalist state thus exists to protect private property from the majority, paraphrasing Noam Chomsky. Along with it comes the bureaucratic and military apparatus that Lenin spoke of.

The socialist 'state', sometimes called a "workers' state", comes about after the overthrow of the bourgeois state (i.e., the capitalist state). According to Lenin, the proletariat must smash the bureaucracy and military wings of the capitalist state which allowed it to rule over the people. Having done so, the state would ceise to be a state in the traditional sense of the word as it would no longer be an instrument for the minority to oppress the majority; now it would be an instrument for the majority to repress the previously oppressive minority. In such a state, according to State and Revolution, all functions would be managed directly by the proletariat in the most democratic of ways. The "dicatorship of the proletariat" would only be a dictatorship in the sense that it would dispossess the bourgeoisie of its political power, thus creating a dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. Thus, the proletarian state would be the most complete manifestation of democracy since the means of production would be owned by all and managed according to worker control. Eventually, the state itself would "wither away", as the saying goes, and democracy itself would be abandoned in favour of a free society running in accordance with libertarian principles.

In reality, no such thing ever occured. A bureaucratic regime was installed which created a dictatorship of the Party, despite the best intentions of Lenin. The reasons for this are debatable, but the point remains that socialism, communism, and the rest are merely economic systems and are each compatible with different political systems, though they may function better with some rather than others.