The debate "Democracy is better than communism." was started by
September 1, 2019, 1:58 pm.
40 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Manuel posted 1 argument, Sleepless posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
Manuel, JDAWG9693, HusamAli, Ministerofdebate, CelestialXXXX, Aiyaz, Ambassador_Chess, codyray16, Delta_Force01 and 31 visitors agree.
Sleepless, Legion and 7 visitors disagree.
who said laborers had to prove themselves? what constitutes as proof? which theory of communism is this coming from? in communism laborers are entitled to the fruits of their labor by default. they already earned it. what you are citing are political lies of dictators. not a theory for the people.
i agree communism is a utopia, im curious where in the theory it describes a big central government? i will assert that communism isnt just a utopian theory, its an incomplete theory with many details missing. details authoritarians gladly make up.
putting your trust in a greedy leader is not a flaw of communism, its a flaw of every human system private and public. it is the reason our founders put in many checks and balances. democracy was seen as a flawed system of "unproven" masses susptible to curropt leaders for 1000s of years. then with a few tweaks, it began to work marvelously.
combining religion with communism goes against one of the main tennents of communism, no religion. it sounds like the leader made a power grab and never tried or intended to implement a communist system. sounds like a democracy gone wrong as a false promise politician tried to create a dictatorship. at what point was it communist? people being promised something for their vote? sounds like democracy turned dictatorship.
you have yet to cite any theory of communism. you are just citing nations that call themselves communist, but have no communist policies. their people are expected to sacrifice themselves for their government. the government does not take care of their people. this hypernationalism is a sign of fascism, no matter what it calls itself. pure communist governments dont exist. they are utopian fantasies that will not work, i agree with that. but the current examples you are citing are communist in name only, and names mean nothing if their policies say something else.
a command economy is used by communist states only to be used until the laborers are independent by themselves, if the laborers haven't prove themselves to be worthy of the means of production then the central government shall control the means of production until they (the laborers) are able to. Basically saying communism has a dream to reach a utopia (where everyone is equal and happy) like society and the way they reach that level is by assigning the economy activities to the central government in hope to avoid individual greed.
the "coming into power by force" (authoritarian) one is the example of greed that individual/group got a person/a group of person may become greedy and declare themselves to be the legitimate government of a communist state,
and the people in hope to reach the utopia like society put their trust in their leader (the greedy guy(s) in central government)
for example a leader in my country was leaning more to the left in the cold war period.
the leader (which is a he) gave outstanding speeches to the public claiming that he wants
to make the country better for everyone and the way to achieve that is to adopt a custom form of communism (combining religion with communism) then the people trust him and put their trust in him. He started modifying the economy the way he wanted it to be (command economy), putting more power on the central government (authoritarian) and backing the action (a bloody massacre) of a left wing party to stay in power (more or less become greedy), thus a dictator is born in a communist state (ps he never did reach that utopia like society lol)
i asked you to cite the theory. a command economy is what dictatorship that call themselved communists use. was it what the theory intended?
none of those dictatorships stated as communist and then failed, they were all dictatorships from the start. lenin and his comrades wanted to create communism, then they wont the revolution, so lenin murdered all his comrades and crowned himself king. there is nothing communist about that. hitler did the same thing with a democracy.
*now please cite where communist theory demands a command economy or coming into power by force.*
also a command economy is as it says AN ECONOMY. it has nothing to do with criminal law. all things in COMMUNism are supposed to be determined by the COMMUNity. no comminist theory describes a dictatorship except the ones made by a dictator, like leninism.
- Laws are passed in a communist state by the central government to ensure prosperity and equality to the people (in theory)
- The leader can be chosen by 2 ways: "democratically" elected or came into power by force
- Communism itself is a political ideology while the economic system of communism is "Command Economy" ("guided economy" from where i came)
Communism was envisioned as democratic by Marx. It is the rule of the working class. You do that through democracy. So communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive but necessarily inclusive.
The Lennonist communism we've seen in China, Vietnam, the USSR, etc are examples of authoritarian socialism and not communism. Lennonism attempts to slowly transform society into a communist Utopia, and that path includes democracy, but democracy is also vulnerable to foreign interference. They believe USA cannot be trusted, and our record supports them. The USA had meddled countless times because for capitalist interests.
Just one example is in 2002 the USA told Bolivians they'd stop supplying financial aid to farmers and other workers if they elected a socialist leader. They leveraged their soft power to interfere with the election. The USA has more soft power than any other country and if they're willing to leverage it for political interests they're a threat to every leader who opposes American values.
China, Vietnam and Cuba therefore risk becoming capitalist if they become democratic. They're as opposed to capitalism as we are to communism. They see the same problems we see in capitalism: inequality, krony capitalism, greed-centric, short-term focus, economic instability of the financial cycle, disregard for negative externalities on the environment or society, exploitation of workers for profit (monopsony), and so much more. They believe communism will solve these problems so they're working towards that Utopia.
They're oriented long-term while we're short-term focused. Is that bad for us? Who knows. A mob values the short-term value. That's a democracy. That's not good or bad. But that's why we normally vote for leaders that make us feel good. That's why we never look at their long-term plans, many only have ideas. That's why catchy slogans get us. That's why unimportant guffs and controversies destroy great candidates. This is all what democracy is. When hundreds of millions of people are voting the person with the loudest most resonant voice wins, not the candidate who will benefit the people the most.
the contrast to communism is capitalism
if its a political ideology, then where in communist theory does it say how laws are passed or how leaders are chosen.
Communism is not a form of economy, communism is a political ideology based on equality (atleast on theory)
I mean because voting, in communism haven't voting.
this makes no sense. democracy is a form of government. communism is a form of economy.
you mean capitalism vs communism?