Freedoms

[anomaly]

'Would I have the right to start a party (even if it was capitalist, considering you can start a communist party here)?

There would be no parties in communism. Rather, we'd either use direct democracy or demarchy. And I doubt there will be many capitalists (thinkers, that is) once communism 'gets going'. Do you see any feudal-ists in the US or Europe?

'Why can't I own land, why isn't that a freedom?

The only reason to 'own land' under capitalism is to make money and thus survive. Well, we don't need to 'make money' in communism. Once its material base disappears, so too will the concept of 'landowning'.

You should ask them: "Is owning a slave also something you'd consider a 'freedom?'"

Well, the material incentive for owning a slave is gone (that is, feudalism is gone).

'Would I have the right to disagree with the government?

Certainly. If a commune is using direct democracy, disagreeing with the government is simply part of governance itself. If we use demarchy, then one may not only disagree with a government, one may also, if one has a majority, get the government replaced.

In communist society, any government is subordinate to the people. Not the other way around.

'Would I have more than one party to pick from at the ballot box?

There would be no 'ballot box' for candidates. See above.

[Aurora]

'Would I have the right to start a party (even if it was capitalist, considering you can start a communist party here)?'

In socialism I think people should have the right to form other parties.Trotskyist parties,Maoist parties and capitalist parties whatever they want.

'Why can't I own land, why isn't that a freedom?'

Im not sure if people own land in socialism....

'Would I have the right to disagree with the government?'

In a true socialist society yes

'Would I have more than one party to pick from at the ballot box?'

I once again think yes

If someone could get back to me on point 2 I would be greatful

[Cheung Mo]

The right to create a political party in the U.S. is currently only a de jure right: On a de facto level, the electoral and political systems, along with the media, are so controlled by the Republicrat party that it will never succeed unless you're talking at the state level in small, sparsely populated states like VT and its social-democratic Progressive Party (which is now starting to make gains even in right-wing bastions like the North-East Kingdon). MT is fairly interesting too...A hodge-podge of left-wing communities like Missoula and both far-right and libertarian-conservative militia groups.

[bezdomni]

'Would I have the right to start a party (even if it was capitalist, considering you can start a communist party here)?'

The question is pointless. It's like asking "can I start a feudalist party under capitalism?"

'Why can't I own land, why isn't that a freedom?'

By owning land you also must own people to work the land and then exploit the labor of these people. You do not have the right to exploit another person.

Again, the question is kind of stupid. It's like asking "why don't I have the right to own a slave, isn't that a freedom?"

'Would I have the right to disagree with the government?'

I don't see why not.

'Would I have more than one party to pick from at the ballot box?'

I think a Cuban model is good for the party system. There should be a revolutionary party in which several different people can run for office under. You do not have to be a member of the party to run for office (ie, a regressive capitalist can still run, but good luck to them). This way, you are not necessarily voting on party line, but the individuals among the mass party.

Just because there is only one recognized party does not mean democracy is non-existant. Anyway, a study of history would show that parties and blocs naturally arise out of political systems and disagreements between people. There has not always been a Democrat and Republican party in the US, for example. They developed from historical conditions at each time period.