roverroad wrote:So, if Communism and Democracy are not opposites, could you have a functional government that is both Communism and Democracy? And don't give me that bias crap if you are anti-communist. Communism does work.
After WWII inn Finnland the communists have been in the government, in France, in Italy ...
The momentary Czech government is backed by the communists.
I'm sure that in several other countries the communists either have posts in a government or back it.
Socialism and democracies are not opposites, but communism is. The basic idea of a marxist revolution is for the proletariats to take up arms, lead by so-called "intellectuals." Then these "intellectuals" were supposed to lead until a government is not needed anymore.
Socialism on the other hand, are composed of classic-anarchists (the ideally non-violent ones), syndicalist, etc. In a socialist international meeting (when marxism was still a branch of socialism), there was one anarchist who accused marxism to be power-hungry and vulnerable to dictatorship. I think he was kicked out by Marx out of the meeting. Of course, the anarchist was right.
Walter Hinteler wrote:roverroad wrote:So, if Communism and Democracy are not opposites, could you have a functional government that is both Communism and Democracy? And don't give me that bias crap if you are anti-communist. Communism does work.
After WWII inn Finnland the communists have been in the government, in France, in Italy ...
The momentary Czech government is backed by the communists.
I'm sure that in several other countries the communists either have posts in a government or back it.
Ehm ... that would hardly answer his question / prove his point, though.
He's asking, could you have a government thats both communism and democracy. To answer / prove that, you would need to at least come up with an example of a government in which the communists were dominant.
Even that wouldnt quite make the point that "communism does work" because a communist-led government doesn't necessarily make for instant communism, but at least you would be able to argue that communists can rule a democracy.
That point is hardly made if, as in (most of?) your examples, the communist party is a junior coalition party. The Czech government doesnt even
include the Communist Party because the government parties have sworn up down and sideways that they would never enter a coalition with it. (The Czech communist party is a particularly unreformed one).
Ray wrote:Socialism and democracies are not opposites, but communism is.
Gotta agree with Ray here. Communist
parties can function within a democracy, but I dont know of any example of a communist
state that was a democracy.
Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into the conversation. I'm no political scientist, just interested in the subject. You guys pretty much told be what I needed to know.
Have we decided that the Democrats are commies? Somebody PM me it this thread gets interesting . . .
To me, a Commnuist-Democracy would be a contridiction of terms, but as complicated as these political systems get...I'm sure someone could prove it to be a valid system somehow, somwhere.
In merging the two together, what comes to mind is socialism. I'm by far no expert on Marxism but here is a short statment from wikipedia...
"The term "Communist state" originated in the West from the fact that most of such states are or were run by Communist parties, the remainder being run by soviets. Most of these states called themselves socialist, such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, since in Marxist political theory, socialism is the intermediate stage in reaching communism."
Well, if we take that Wiki sentence, the UK is an example. The Labour Party run s the government there since quite some time.
(The Labour Party is - you certainly remember -
a democratic soialist party.
Obviously, all kinds of political combinations can occur with democracy, with democracy simply meaning the majority of the people want something. They may decide they prefer a particular brand of socialism or communism. This of course grants more power to the government to various degrees, depending on the brand it is. The catch is when the people grow tired of this and wish to regain their personal rights and responsibilities, at which time they better hope they still have the right to vote. By that time, the government that takes care of them may have decided that voting isn't needed.
Quoting Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"Abiding Faith in the Individial - To believe that the essential unit in our democracy is the individual, not any group or class, and that the preservation of our form of government depends in the final analysis on respect of the individual's rights, initiative, judgement and opportunities.
"Limited Powers of Government - To believe that the people themselves should retain all powers and responsibilities not specifically delegated to the Government. As Abraham Lincoln defined it, "The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all the people can individually do as well for themselves, the government ought not to interfere: (I quote Lincoln not only because he has been the patron saint of the Republican Party from its beginning but also because modern Democrats are trying to steal him from us to capitalize on the reverence in which America holds his name.)"
In other parts of the same Saturday Evening Post article written in 1964 by Eisenhower, he expressed the fear that the country would continue to expect more out of government, and eventually could end up without much individual rights and responsibilities. As a democracy, the irony is that we could keep voting more and more in that direction. So, Eisenhower was clearly a conservative, a great American, and in my view one of the greatest presidents we've ever had.
Lincoln's political philosophy bears no resemblance to today's conservative Republicans. The Democratic party of the time were the conservatives. Horrorwitz is again offering up one of his garden variety platitudes that sticks in ones mind like garbage on the side of a trash can.
Democrats are Communists ...
Some of them sure are. Sky is blue too. Why do you think liberals can be so hard to stomach?
Maybe because they weren't meant to be eaten.
Lightwizard wrote:Lincoln's political philosophy bears no resemblance to today's conservative Republicans. The Democratic party of the time were the conservatives. Horrorwitz is again offering up one of his garden variety platitudes that sticks in ones mind like garbage on the side of a trash can.
If Lincoln proposed to run the government now like it was done then, he would be ridiculed for sure. The intellectuals would have a field day with the old country bumpkin. Michael Moore would probably make not just one movie but a dozen of them ridiculing old honest Abe, probably first attacking the nickname "honest Abe" by making some phony "documentary" about all the lies Lincoln had possibly told. If Lincoln was president now, he would probably have half the main stream press in jail for sedition during the war on terror.
Read Gore Vidal's "Lincoln" -- it reveals many of the real warts. Politicians past and present who are installed on pedestals can easily be knocked off that pedestal. It doesn't have to be phony -- it's for real. That he might have half the press in jail for sedition certainly isn't speaking well of the man. He was more deeply flawed than the average person would want to believe.
okie wrote:Lightwizard wrote:Lincoln's political philosophy bears no resemblance to today's conservative Republicans. The Democratic party of the time were the conservatives. Horrorwitz is again offering up one of his garden variety platitudes that sticks in ones mind like garbage on the side of a trash can.
If Lincoln proposed to run the government now like it was done then, he would be ridiculed for sure. The intellectuals would have a field day with the old country bumpkin. Michael Moore would probably make not just one movie but a dozen of them ridiculing old honest Abe, probably first attacking the nickname "honest Abe" by making some phony "documentary" about all the lies Lincoln had possibly told. If Lincoln was president now, he would probably have half the main stream press in jail for sedition during the war on terror.
Would Lincoln invite the taliban to texas and show them a real good time like Bush did with his terrorist Muslim buddies.
"Oil barons court Taliban in Texas," the Taliban was about to sign a "£2 billion contract with an American oil company to build a pipeline across the war-torn country. ... The Islamic warriors appear to have been persuaded to close the deal, not through delicate negotiation but by old-fashioned Texan hospitality. ... Dressed in traditional salwar khameez,Afghan waistcoats and loose, black turbans, the high-ranking delegation was given VIP treatment during the four-day stay."
From ENRON Entanglements to UNOCAL Bringing the Taliban to Texas and Controlling Afghanistan
By Tom Turnipseed
Lightwizard wrote:Read Gore Vidal's "Lincoln" -- it reveals many of the real warts. Politicians past and present who are installed on pedestals can easily be knocked off that pedestal. It doesn't have to be phony -- it's for real. That he might have half the press in jail for sedition certainly isn't speaking well of the man. He was more deeply flawed than the average person would want to believe.
It is true presidents are only men, and all are imperfect. Part of the problem is that many people these days want a king-like figure that is somehow perfect and will give them virtually everything they want.
I've read a book of Lincoln's personal writings and quotes, and I certainly respect the man. I think he was truly an extraordinary man. Unfortunately, greatness is not often packaged in some slick politician that might appear great on national tv these days. Greatness is often clothed in humility and sometimes unpolished people. I think the best people for the job of president may rest among those that do not seek the job. In our society of today, moviestars and sports figures, many of which are shallow, vain people are trumpeted as extraordinary and great. So in general, the leaders we end up with are pretty much what we ask for and deserve. A healthy and wholesome society will usually elect leaders of that quality, while a sick society will tend to elect sick politicians.
He was an extraordinary figure but there has always been the misconception that he was an absolutionist. He was no absolutionist.
