Communism and democracy

[[KMA]Avenger]

i got there in the end lol

[Brdavs]

It should really be communism vs capitalism.

The main difference between the two lies in the fact communism had a vastly inferior PR and historic circumstances unfortunatly stigmatized the term to a degree it has.

Cos now everyone is mixing apples an pears.

Communism is like capitalism, a sociopolitical economic idea that however does not, in theory, prejudice a dictatorship as form of governemt. In theory in fact it calls for equality and equal participation of every one in a classless society which would kinda best fit the purest forms of direct democracy.
Capitalism on the other hand showcases that, unlike commonly percieved and at first theoretically thought, its not only the domain of liberal democratic government forms or its insurer. China is a "communist dictatorship state" (term used very loosly heh), yets its form of capitalism is currently saving all our global collective capitalst arses lol. Especially the arses that most predicted chinas model to fail on a theoretical, ideological and practical level and are now in term seing their model collapse.

Thats just how it turned out. Who knows how the world would have looked if Marxss ideals were put into practice in the industrialized and developed UK as he intended, instead of the dirt poor czarist Russia? The civil war and overnight turning of a monarhic rulal state into an industrial nation surely didnt help and dictatorship was kinda inevitable in those circumstances. But a dictatorship was an abuse of communism not the personification of its ideals. But PR war is lost it seems heh.

People get hung up on the "dictatorship of the proletariat" but in reality thats the same sociopolitical theoretical construct as democracies "dictatorship of the majority". Body count is regretable on both ends and if you look at the full span of capitalism in all its itterations ala colonialism etc. we have a propper race on our hands to see who killed more.



We could get into the whole theoretical argument viability of one over the other but thats besides the point. Libraries of books and studies pritty much boil down to the same main failings of communism as it was attempted... it tried too much too fast, and expected too much of people in terms of their nature, it idealized them as being a bit too much. In theory.

Personally I do however believe capitalism is not the final stage of the human races sociopolitical development, least of all the hardcore classical kind. Nothing is eternal and people in feudalism wouldnt have thought todays society and economic model possible or natural. Yet things change. I have faith we havent reached our peak potential yet.

Am I saying communism of the ussr is that brighter future? Not at all. But a lot of its core values are noble, just, humane and worth of proper implementation. A lot of it has already happened in the "socialist" Europe which I believe to be at the cutting edge of said development. Social capitalism. The edge isnt very sharp thoe, granted. We will see if this crissis sharpens or dulls it. Bit of both if you look at it I suppose.

But like I said, PR did its thing and is still doing so. Especially in the US where mccarthy really did a number over the mentality heh. So much so people still percieve communism and socialism only in the skewed cold war form and hate it "like good patriots". Hate obama. Hate communist Europe. But the real kicker is, when certain polls were run, people denouncing the above mentioned by and large personally support sociopolitical notions and ideals of "fairness" that vastly more coincide with the "leftie/commie" spectrum they politically vigorously denounce. Probably understandable so soon after the cold war I suppose.
But down the line, a couple of generations later, our childrens children will be free of the ideological baggage, free to try and form a juster and more egalitarian society.



tl;dr:
So in short to answer the OP, yea, they are compatible.

Every social policy a western democratic capitalist country ever adopted is proof of that, for one. If you look under the red star and star`n`stripes painted hood, to see what makes each tick, you`ll see a lot of interchangeable parts. Pop a hood of a modern state and loe and behold, quite a few parts are commie promoted (made would imply they originated there isntead of just being emphasised).

[Reschef]

Very very nice post Brdavs, I 100% agree. If my english would have been better, especially my vocabulary regarding economy, I had written something similar.

I have faith we havent reached our peak potential yet.

Me too. But only time will tell if those with a narrow view of the matter will die out one day lol

[xDaku]

It should really be communism vs capitalism.

The main difference between the two lies in the fact communism had a vastly inferior PR and historic circumstances unfortunatly stigmatized the term to a degree it has.

Cos now everyone is mixing apples an pears.

Communism is like capitalism, a sociopolitical economic idea that however does not, in theory, prejudice a dictatorship as form of governemt. In theory in fact it calls for equality and equal participation of every one in a classless society which would kinda best fit the purest forms of direct democracy.
Capitalism on the other hand showcases that, unlike commonly percieved and at first theoretically thought, its not only the domain of liberal democratic government forms or its insurer. China is a "communist dictatorship state" (term used very loosly heh), yets its form of capitalism is currently saving all our global collective capitalst arses lol. Especially the arses that most predicted chinas model to fail on a theoretical, ideological and practical level and are now in term seing their model collapse.

Thats just how it turned out. Who knows how the world would have looked if Marxss ideals were put into practice in the industrialized and developed UK as he intended, instead of the dirt poor czarist Russia? The civil war and overnight turning of a monarhic rulal state into an industrial nation surely didnt help and dictatorship was kinda inevitable in those circumstances. But a dictatorship was an abuse of communism not the personification of its ideals. But PR war is lost it seems heh.

People get hung up on the "dictatorship of the proletariat" but in reality thats the same sociopolitical theoretical construct as democracies "dictatorship of the majority". Body count is regretable on both ends and if you look at the full span of capitalism in all its itterations ala colonialism etc. we have a propper race on our hands to see who killed more.



We could get into the whole theoretical argument viability of one over the other but thats besides the point. Libraries of books and studies pritty much boil down to the same main failings of communism as it was attempted... it tried too much too fast, and expected too much of people in terms of their nature, it idealized them as being a bit too much. In theory.

Personally I do however believe capitalism is not the final stage of the human races sociopolitical development, least of all the hardcore classical kind. Nothing is eternal and people in feudalism wouldnt have thought todays society and economic model possible or natural. Yet things change. I have faith we havent reached our peak potential yet.

Am I saying communism of the ussr is that brighter future? Not at all. But a lot of its core values are noble, just, humane and worth of proper implementation. A lot of it has already happened in the "socialist" Europe which I believe to be at the cutting edge of said development. Social capitalism. The edge isnt very sharp thoe, granted. We will see if this crissis sharpens or dulls it. Bit of both if you look at it I suppose.

But like I said, PR did its thing and is still doing so. Especially in the US where mccarthy really did a number over the mentality heh. So much so people still percieve communism and socialism only in the skewed cold war form and hate it "like good patriots". Hate obama. Hate communist Europe. But the real kicker is, when certain polls were run, people denouncing the above mentioned by and large personally support sociopolitical notions and ideals of "fairness" that vastly more coincide with the "leftie/commie" spectrum they politically vigorously denounce. Probably understandable so soon after the cold war I suppose.
But down the line, a couple of generations later, our childrens children will be free of the ideological baggage, free to try and form a juster and more egalitarian society.



tl;dr:
So in short to answer the OP, yea, they are compatible.

Every social policy a western democratic capitalist country ever adopted is proof of that, for one. If you look under the red star and star`n`stripes painted hood, to see what makes each tick, you`ll see a lot of interchangeable parts. Pop a hood of a modern state and loe and behold, quite a few parts are commie promoted (made would imply they originated there isntead of just being emphasised).

The way the economy works inside a theoretical communist system and the way the economy works in a capitalist system are almost complete opposites. So no, while the ideas might be compatible, realistically (and not based on historic events), it is not.

[Brdavs]

The way the economy works inside a theoretical communist system and the way the economy works in a capitalist system are almost complete opposites. So no, while the ideas might be compatible, realistically (and not based on historic events), it is not.

But the OP is talking about the communism-democracy correlation. I merely pointed out that there are infact 4 categories which people would often equate but arent necessarily equateable. Democracy and capitalism arent the same, as arent communism and a dictatorship. One is a form of government ant the other an economic/social system. They form a pair. They`re intertwigned but seperate and partners are interchangeable, like dancers. In theory.

[xDaku]

The way the economy works inside a theoretical communist system and the way the economy works in a capitalist system are almost complete opposites. So no, while the ideas might be compatible, realistically (and not based on historic events), it is not.

But the OP is talking about the communism-democracy correlation. I merely pointed out that there are infact 4 categories which people would often equate but arent necessarily equateable. Democracy and capitalism arent the same, as arent communism and a dictatorship. One is a form of government ant the other an economic/social system. They form a pair. They`re intertwigned but seperate and partners are interchangeable, like dancers. In theory.

What I meant was that both democracy and a capitalist system work in an almost free market economy while communism works in a central market economy. Those two are opposites. What I meant was that they cannot co-exist, or be interchangeable, just based off that. Central market economy has a lot of problems, and the majority of economists agree that in a long term basis that type of economy does lead to huge problems for society. The society would just crash. Yes, democracy and communism do have some very similar ideas (again, just like you, in theory), but on a practical basis - as communism vs. democracy and not a dictatorship vs. democracy - it just wouldn't work.

PS. Awesome analogy, lol dancers.

[Brdavs]

The way the economy works inside a theoretical communist system and the way the economy works in a capitalist system are almost complete opposites. So no, while the ideas might be compatible, realistically (and not based on historic events), it is not.

But the OP is talking about the communism-democracy correlation. I merely pointed out that there are infact 4 categories which people would often equate but arent necessarily equateable. Democracy and capitalism arent the same, as arent communism and a dictatorship. One is a form of government ant the other an economic/social system. They form a pair. They`re intertwigned but seperate and partners are interchangeable, like dancers. In theory.

What I meant was that both democracy and a capitalist system work in an almost free market economy while communism works in a central market economy. Those two are opposites. What I meant was that they cannot co-exist, or be interchangeable, just based off that. Central market economy has a lot of problems, and the majority of economists agree that in a long term basis that type of economy does lead to huge problems for society. The society would just crash. Yes, democracy and communism do have some very similar ideas (again, just like you, in theory), but on a practical basis - as communism vs. democracy and not a dictatorship vs. democracy - it just wouldn't work.

PS. Awesome analogy, lol dancers.

They agreed but China kinda disproved that thesis while the classical free market crashed and burned.

The reality is however that there are no absolutes and no base theoretical economic models to talk about that would be mutualy exclusive. The free market economies of democratic countries dont have a classical free market in many a segment, and the communist china has a quasi socialist market with many a free market element. The fact a marx reproduction system cannot coesxist with an adam smith base economic model is kinda irrelevant because both have been pritty much dead and burried by now. One has to recognise that about both communism and capitalism.

Severely tweaked base models already blended on both sides of the fence. In that sense they too already coexist. Theyre still short of fully meeting at the middle but they`re getting there. Especially is social aspects.

And there is nothing to say under which form of government this process can function in. We`ve seen totalitarian states with free market economies and with regulated markets. And we`ve seen democratic states with both free market economies and with plenty a "communist/socialist" policy.

Its all getting mashed together, with different blends in different places. Especially in Europe thats kinda a meeting place of both phylosophies.

We`ll see where it eventually ends up. Many more regulations are curently incoming due to the financial crises for instance heh.

[Iƒrit]

I'm talking about purely economical principles as that was brought up. Economics is not about democracy or communism, it's about markets and trade. Democracy just happens to have a system (mostly) which allows free trade versus communism where it is controlled. Controlled trade is bad for an economy, free trade is good. Now even in democracies you see controlled trade at times (Tariffs) but that's the best we've got at this point in time.

I think what you are comparing is capitalism and communism.

Comparing democracies and with communism, is like having 6 communist parties which run on laws of communism being elected to rule the country.. I think the OP is asking if choosing communist parties democratically is allowed or not.. I don't see any problem, as long as all the parties are of course communist and run on basic communism laws.

I was comparing a free market economy to a centralized economy. In this case, the free market economy works in a democratic system while a centralized works in a communist system. What I'm saying is that the biggest problem with the laws of communism on a completely economic basis is that they meddle too much with Adam Smith's invisible hand, which is a core principle of economics. Fact is, and a huge majority of economists believe this, is that a centralized market economy (like in communism) just cannot be as good an economy as possible.

more precisely is capitalism vs socialism. And I tend to agree that a sound money system is preferable to a fiat system.

There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way. -Ludwig Von Mises

In the fight for arbitrary power we often point to written constitutions and bill of rights, but we have to put sound money right up there with those things. Cause its sound money that limits government. -Ludwig Von Mises

[Legendary Apophis]

Instead of creating a new thread I'll re-use this one, and especially re-use the way the debate turned, which is capitalism vs communism.
We have a perfect example currently of two neighbor nations who split decades ago due to geo-political tensions caused by Cold War stuff, but anyway, it's rather strong the way these two countries are different economy - wise.


Comparing economic results between North Korea and South Korea, with one preferring isolationism and centralized economy (also called the last Stalinist country) and the other preferring technology development, investment and world trade. I will pass on freedom differences between North and South, this being mainly centered towards differences in economy and technological advancement between these two neighbors (don't think of a better example in the world to find such close but different countries). At least one cannot say these two are strongly different due to cultural history, historical traditions or whatever, as the split isn't that old.

One could say SK isn't the perfect example of a capitalist nation and NK of a communist nation, but as I said I chose these two examples due to being close geographically, sharing a similar history and culture (before the split) etc...

South Korea has a market economy which ranks 15th in the world by nominal GDP and 12th by purchasing power parity (PPP), identifying it as one of the G-20 major economies. It is a high-income developed country, with a developed market, and is a member of OECD. South Korea is one of the Asian Tigers, and is the only developed country so far to have been included in the group of Next Eleven countries. South Korea had one of the world's fastest growing economies from the early 1960s to the late 1990s, and South Korea is still one of the fastest growing developed countries in the 2000s, along with Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan, the other three members of Asian Tigers.[6]


GDP PPP: $1.423 trillion (2010 est.)
Nominal: $1.007 trillion (2010 est.)
GDP growth 6.1% (2010 est.)
GDP per capita PPP: $30,200 (2010 est.)
Nominal: $20,265 (2010 est.)

Exports $466.3 billion (6th; 2010 est.)

This goes along with numerous famous brands such as Samsung, Hyundai, Daewoo, Kia, LG...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Korea

Based on a Time mag article I read a while ago, I remember that wireless internet access, especially in Seoul, is very developed, as explained here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 02,00.html

South Korea's education system is technologically advanced and it is the world's first country to bring high-speed fibre-optic broadband internet access to every primary and secondary school nation-wide. Using this infrastructure, the country has developed the first Digital Textbooks in the world, which will be distributed for free to every primary and secondary school nation-wide by 2013.[120]

Technology culture
South Korean corporations Samsung and LG were ranked second and third largest mobile phone companies in the world in the first quarter of 2010, respectively.[175] An estimated 90% of South Koreans own a mobile phone.[176] Aside from placing/receiving calls and text messaging, mobile phones in the country are widely used for watching Digital Multimedia Broadcasting (DMB) or viewing websites.[177] Over one million DMB phones have been sold and the three major wireless communications providers SK Telecom, KT, and LG Telecom provide coverage in all major cities and other areas.
Wide access to broadband has let online games become a significant part of Korean culture in recent years. (...) Based on Pando networks content delivery service released on September 2011, South Korea has the first fastest Internet speeds on the world[clarification needed] at 17.62 Mbit/s and Seocho city has the fastest Internet on earth at 33.5 Mbit/s.[180]

On the other hand, North Korea

North Korea's economy is currently one of the world's only centrally planned systems. The role of market allocation is sharply limited – mainly in the rural sector where some peasants sell produce from small private plots. There are almost no legal small businesses, but illegal small businesses are very common. Although there have been scattered and limited attempts at decentralization, as of mid-1993, Pyongyang's basic adherence to a rigid centrally planned economy continues, as does its reliance on fundamentally non-monetary incentives. The collapse of communist governments around the world in 1991, particularly North Korea's principal source of support, the Soviet Union, have forced North Korean economy to realign its foreign economic relations. Economic exchanges with South Korea have even begun in earnest ways at times, see Kaesong Industrial Region.

GDP ~$40 billion[1]
GDP growth 3.7% (2009)[2]
GDP per capita $1,800 (2010 est.)[1]

Exports $2.062 billion (2008)[1]

North Korea's economy has been unique in its elimination of markets. By 1960s, market elements had been suppressed almost completely. Almost all items, from food to clothes, have traditionally been handed out through a public distribution system, with money only having a symbolic meaning. Ratios of food depend on hierarchy in the system, whereas the positions seem to be semi-hereditary. Until late 1980s, peasants were not allowed to cultivate private garden plots.[20]
Since the government is the dominant force in the development and management of the economy, bureaus and departments have proliferated at all administrative levels. There are fifteen committees—such as the agricultural and state planning committees—one bureau, and twenty departments under the supervision of the State Administration Council; of these, twelve committees—one bureau, and sixteen departments are involved in economic management. In the early 1990s, several vice premiers of the State Administration Council supervised economic affairs. Organizations undergo frequent reorganization. Many of these agencies have their own separate branches at lower levels of government while others maintain control over subordinate sections in provincial and county administrative agencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Economy

Telephones and Internet
North Korea has an adequate telephone system, with 1.18 million fixed lines available in 2008.[153] However, most phones are only installed for senior government officials. Someone wanting a phone installed must fill out a form indicating their rank, why he wants a phone, and how he will pay for it.[154] The number of mobile phones in Pyongyang rose from 3,000 in 2002 to approximately 20,000 in 2004.[155] In June 2004, mobile phones were forbidden again.[156] The prohibition lasted until 2008, when a new, 3G network, Koryolink, was built through a joint venture with Orascom Telecom Holding, of Egypt. In May 2010, more than 120,000 North Koreans owned mobile phones.[157] By September 2010, the number of subscribers reached 301,000.[158] By August 2011, the number of mobile-phone subscribers had increased to 660,000 users.[159] By December 2011, the number of subscribers was reported as 900,000.[160]
North Korea's first Internet café opened in 2002 as a joint venture with a South Korean Internet company, Hoonnet. Ordinary North Koreans do not have access to the global Internet network, but are provided with a nationwide, public-use Intranet service called Kwangmyong, which features domestic news, an e-mail service, and censored information from foreign websites (mostly scientific).[161]

A little step towards future and technology with the development of mobile phones, however they apparently have yet to get personal access to internet.