Communism vs. Democracy

The question is posed absolutely wrong, very common misperception among even top scholars, or at least a misusage of terms. Communism IS democracy in the purest sense. Classes are eliminated, everybody's equal, everybody rules,for the collective good. That can be you start of reasoning.

On the other hand, having lived it, I can safely say it is impossible in practice, unless you kill and lock up all dissenters, which is precisely what happened. So argue away, but: don't try this at home!

McGentrix: Everyone has thin crust, thick crust, and deep-dish (aka "Chicago-style") pizza these days, so if you're coming to Chicago, you need to get stuffed pizza. I like Edwardo's, Giordano's, and Bacino's. Stay away from Pizzeria Uno and Due or Lou Malnatti's (they're too touristy and they don't do stuffed pizza). In general, though, Chicago is the greatest city in the world for pizza -- it's all good.

There are tons of things to do in Chicago: I'd recommend the Art Institute, the Museum of Science and Industry, and the Field Museum. There is a lot of good theater in the city, and these days it's not too difficult to get tickets for the Blackhawks or Bulls games. If you really want to do the whole tourist thing, I'd highly recommend an architectural boat tour of the Loop (boats leave from the Michigan Ave. bridge) and, of course, a trip to the Sears Tower sky deck. And because I know that you are an unreformed bourgeois lackey of the imperialists, McG, you'd probably be interested in a tour of the Chicago Board of Trade.

Portal Star: I believe you're thinking of Gino's East. Good food, but they also don't do stuffed pizza.

Yes, pizza uno was mentioned by my prospective tour guide. I will suggest one of the others at YOUR suggestion.

As Dagmar noted, the quesion is absurd.

If you were defending communism against capitalism -- that would be one thing. They are opposites of sorts.

But communism verses democracy makes no sense. They are not inherently opposites. Communism, theoretically can exist in a democracy.

If this is actually your assignment, it sounds like your teacher is not especially careful with wording.

Re: Communism vs. Democracy


Well, its good actually that thats what you have to prove - instead of, say, that communism is good, period. Look at it this way: all you have to argue is whats wrong about democracy.

Of course, the question is stupid - communism is usually (and better) pitted against capitalism, not against democracy, and that is a lot easier to argue, too. And the reason thats easier to argue, is that most communists take the above tack exactly: they spend as little time as possible on explaining what communism will actually be like, and spend all their time instead on what is wrong about western, so-called "democratic" capitalism.

So thats the trick. First, talk as little as possible about the Soviet Union, except to point out that the system they had in the Soviet Union isnt actually communism. Depending on the excuse of your choice, it was either just a first step to communism, or a twisted perversion of what communism is supposed to be like.

Since the Soviet Union's been there all of 70 years, the "first step to" argument doesnt usually go down very well anymore. So opt for the Trotskyite version and argue that the Soviet Union, ever since Stalin, has really been a malformation of real communism, and that real communism in fact, like Dagmar says, equates with real democracy. Thats that put out of the way.

Then, of course, spend again as little time as possible on explaining how, exactly, "real communism" is like "real democracy", just state it: in communism, everybody is equal, everybody works as hard as they can because they know they'll get what they need, because no bosses will be out there anymore trying to exploit their work. Thats your cue to move away from pesky little questions about the practicalities, and start arguing why it is necessary to get to it. It is necessary, of course, because capitalism (so-called "democracy") is so bad.

You can pick your choice of stuff you think is bad about the west. The rich get ever richer. In capitalism, speculation earns you much more than honest work. The poor stay just as poor (when someone says thats not true, resort to rhetorics about the homeless, and how its a scandal that anyone should sleep on the street when others earn millions of dollars a month). Honest workers get fired cause the bosses want to max their profits even further.

The holy list is this: Health care - education - employment. In communism, it's for everyone. And free. In America, millions are unemployed! Tens of millions go uninsured! Again, don't say anything about the quality of Soviet education and health care - focus on whats wrong here. Whenever someone asks about human rights, this is also your fall-back routine. Isn't education a human right too? (It is.) Isn't basic health care a human right too? Point to all those so-called democratic countries in the third world where the masses dont have any of that. What's so good about having the right to go to elections every four years, if you dont have enough to eat?

Pick some classic success stories of communism. In Nicaragua, the Sandinists brought illiteracy down from 80% to 20% in one big idealist three-year drive. (Dont bother looking the numbers up - they're not very reliable, anyway.) Highlight every abuse (pre-Sandinist illiteracy) as typical for capitalism (dont forget to keep fuzzing up the distinction between capitalism and democracy), and every success (Sandinist-era literacy) as typical for communism. When people point out that there were abuses in communist countries, too, argue that that was because those countries were under relentless attacks by the "reactionaries". Focus on countries that suffered a lot of such attacks (Angola, Mozambique), so that you can say that thats why they never made it to the ideal communism. I.e., when they bring up Cuba, you answer about Nicaragua.

One other important lesson: fuzz up the distinction between socialists and communists. When people say something about how bad communism was in Ethiopia or North-Korea, bring up how the Congo was well underway to better times under Lumumba, until the Belgians and Americans had him killed, or how Indonesia was practically democratic under Sukarno, until the Americans helped Suharto stage a coup against him. In short: suggest that there were good and bad communists by co-opting some socialist democrats, and point out that the so-called "democrats" over here supported many a bad guy, too. That evens out the score on human rights so you can go on about education, health care and poverty again.

Re: Communism vs. Democracy


It may well be easier but it's not what the assignment is. While Communism is both a political and an economic system Democracy is strictly a political beast. Since the assignment is "Communism vs. Democracy" arguments about "Communism vs. Capitalism" don't fit.

but, fishin, if we are to talk about the political aspect only, then we shift to the discussion of 'popular' democracy vs. 'liberal' democracy. Because, as I said before, communism in theory is democracy and cannot be pitted against it. since the assignment is for the 11th grade, i assume the usual communism vs. capitalism line of argument will do.

Re: Communism vs. Democracy

Well, I know thats not what the assignment is, and I'm calling the assignment "stupid" ;-).

So you gotta kinda, work with it, heh.

I don't think anyone can fairly be asked to make the case for communism as being better than democracy, since not even a communist would want to make it. At most, as noted, they would argue that communism, ultimately, is democracy, or that what is called "democracy" in the West in fact isn't democracy at all, and should therefore be destroyed, or that after the revolution democracy temporarily needs to be suspended until it can blossom in full glory when communism has been achieved - etc, etc, etc.

Though many communists would attack what is generally called democracy here, now, no communist would pit his ideology/ideal/system against "democracy", per se. So to ask someone to defend that "communism is better than democracy" is kinda setting him up. Its kinda like asking someone to argue that pacifism is better than toppling dictators, if you get my drift.

So if this is debating class, and you're to speak for the communists, then you gotta go around that, and refocus the debate by using some tricks, in order to turn it to how communists would define the opposition: communism vs capitalism.

Luckily, communists always have used a lot of tricks, so that should be do-able. I hope I've given lots of suggestions on which ones to go for ;-)

I agree with nimh, if you are going to play a good Communist the first thing to do is to defy the concept of democracy as opposite to Communism.

A typical way to put it is: "formal democracy (parliament, elections, etc) is a hoax; it's really a plutocracy: the government of the rich. People get to choose between different brands of chains. And the media, controlled by Capitalists does the brain washing. When have you seen an American president who is not affluent? ... and Communism is true democracy, not in the form -you may concede- but in the essence".

For example a nationalization decree by some Communist autocrat: you may say: "it may not be formally democratic, but it is democratic in essence, since it benefits the majority of the hard working people against a handful of rich bloodsucking capitalists".

I read you earlier comments Dag and I agree with your point RE: Communism and Democracy. But his assignment is to prove that Communism is better than Democracy. I'd have to assume that if the teacher wanted the debate to be Communism vs. Capitalism it would have been assigned that way. To pit his argument as being against capitalism is side-stepping his actual assignment.

Re: Communism vs. Democracy


But maybe that "setting up" is the entire purpose fo the assignment????

well, then the assignment is impossible, and has to be done as a discussion of popular (communist, people's, workers') democracy against liberal (republican, representative, delegative...) democracy. they are all slightly different beasts, but can be pigeon-holed in those two camps. i agree with nimh and fbaezer that the teacher worded the assignment wrong. considering the age group i assume very basic arguments are expected and what was already written on this page will be more than plenty to go by. I hope Kevin didn't give up on us and is reading along!

The actual assignment (as stated, anyway) makes no distinction between communism in theory and communism in practice. I'd argue that communism never has been attempted on a large scale, as in the USSR, China, and Cuba what you really had was a fascist regime masquerading as communism. The 20th century is full of authoritarian wannabes posing as communist revolutionaries. The problem then becomes one of proposing a true communist state. Problem is, the predictions of communism's original proponents -- that such a change was not only desireable but was inevitable -- have not come to pass.

Or something like that...

No other way to do it, Fishin' - you cant prove "Communism" is better than "Democracy", cause it never claimed to be anything but "Democracy". (For whatever that claim was worth).

At most you can argue, like Fbaezer said, that its better than what the formal trappings of the West's "so-called democracies" would have democracy be, and all that bull.

So basically, the teacher - if the assignment was indeed phrased in this exact way, which I doubt - was just being unreasonable. And thats OK - I mean, you can just argue so. At least I've yet had to hear a teacher complain about a student turning in an assignment that tried to credibly argue that the assignment itself was phrased wrongly, because of a, b and c. Its about showing your way around the topic, right, showing you did your homework? If the assignment is about debating, all the more so.

Re: Communism vs. Democracy


Ooooooh ---- I hadnt looked at it like that yet. Like - send a kid out to prove communism is better, just so he'll discover it isn't?

That's not very nice ... (and kinda a dubious role for a teacher to take up, too!)

My bet is still that the assignment was worded a little bit more specific than what we got here, tho!

Is he there to debate his plannned opponent or the teacher?

If I were a teacher I'd choose for the debate to pit Communism vs. Democracy simply because it would be a harder case to prove AND it's a no win/no lose situation. Provided both sides do their homework the end result should end up being a simple debate that ends in a draw.

That seems preferable to me in comparison to setting one kid or another up for a trouncing. From the teacher's perspective it's supposed to be about learning right? Not about winning or losing. If it ends in a draw then all sides have learned something and both walk out as equeals. Isn't that what communism is all about?

Even if the debate were Communism vs. Capitalism neither side would be able to "prove" superiority.

Hehheh.

Funny though, I'd read it exactly the other way round. As in, asking someone to defend the impossible ("communism is better than democracy", end of sentence - something not even communists would argue) would be setting him up for being trounced - I mean, how you're gonna get a draw out of that? And how you gonna learn something from being forced to argue an unreasonable (and ne'er-made) argument?

Way I see it, taking the argument and turning it into what a communist would see it to be - communism vs capitalism - is the only way to still get to make a reasonable argument and pull something of a draw out of it. I mean, hell, generations of communists got away with it ;-).

And, if you're supposed to argue the communist side, thats what a communist would argue: that the West's so-called democracy is merely a disguise for capitalist rule.

Anyway - we're getting very meta on the poor guy here - 'specially since we're speculating on what the teacher actually said, an' all ...

yes they would, there's historical precedent for both. I think you are afraid of the word prove.

prove    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (prv)
v. proved, proved, or prov·en (prvn) prov·ing, proves
v. tr.

1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.
2. Law. To establish the authenticity of (a will).
3. To determine the quality of by testing; try out.
4. Mathematics.
a. To demonstrate the validity of (a hypothesis or proposition).
b. To verify (the result of a calculation).

5. Printing. To make a sample impression of (type).
6. Archaic. To find out or learn (something) through experience.

The debate teams are not about proving the truth, but about arguing itself. i assigned debates in my international relations class and the best students were able to win even when they were on the 'wrong' side. i had china team win against the u.s. team over domestic human rights policies, because the team was well prepared, enthusiastic, and funny, while the other guys were half asleep and clumsy. the 'truth' doesn't really matter, what matters is to crush the opponent in a debate.