Can Communism be democratic ?

Post Reply New Topic

Communism throughout the 20th century has nearly always had governments with one man in charge and elections were forbidden or probably rigged, and people were told to do what their leader or party said otherwise they go to prison or worse. Some countries say they are democratic when they are not really like for example, the Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea) which is run by one man Kim Jong-un and still technically run by his grandfather Kim Il-sung who died in 1994 and call him the ''Eternal President''. There were attempts to create a kind of communism with a human face like for example, in Czechoslovakia but it go crushed by soviet troops and tanks fearing it was going to leave the Warsaw Pact and lean to the West. I seem to think a communist system could still be a democratic system as well and surely it can't always be run by one person.

Last edited by chris1989 on 10 Mar 2021, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

East Germany, in its final year, allowed multiparty elections.

Moldova and Cyprus had presidents from their respective communist parties, but were not communist countries (though Moldova was formerly part of the Soviet Union).

Moldova’s president was Vladimir Voronin, in power 2001-2009.

Cyprus’ was Dimitrios Christofias, in power 2008-2013.

Chile had a communist elected as head of state (Allende). But it was overthrown by the right in a military coup.

In theory yes, a communist country could work as a democracy. But Ive never seen it happen in real life.

Can anarchists form a government?

Oh yes, I've read about that, I seem to think US was not going to tolerate a communist country near its shores even if it was democratic like the US itself, and that Chile was thousands of miles away. I can't quite understand that, so a dictatorship under Pinochet would be the better alternative than Allende ? Its like as I mentioned quite like the Soviets sending in tanks and forcing Dubcek to resign in Czechoslovakia because he was trying create 'socialism with a human face' and would not tolerate a westernised democratic communist state near the Soviet Union's borders.

Of course communism can be democratic in the form of having a democratical election process to select ones new leader and the various positions that need to be filled. It does not have to have democratic elections, but most communist countries will adopt something along those lines.
Along the same lines a democracy can be communistic if they limit the freedom of speech and take a different approach.

If one wants to know if one is governed through a communistic system or a capitalist system take a look at the schools.

Capitalistic ways are along rhe lines of right or wrong.
Communistic ways are based on reasoning.
Capitalism has prisons to punish the wrong doers and once they are out they are totally free to start a new life again because they have served their sentence for their crime.
Communism relies on re-education centres where people are released when they have been re-educated into thinking the communistic way. Once they have been released they have to be continually checked on so they may have to stay in a certain location and attend appointments so they can be assessed to check that their re-education has been a success. Communism is all based on reasoning.
Very different approaches.

Last edited by Mountain Goat on 10 Mar 2021, 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Communism is political idealism
democracy is a type of government

there is no reason why these can't be mixed

as for anarchism (if you can find someone who isn't full of s**t, who actually wants real anarchy, rather
than just being a pop punk consumer who thinks their cool cause they kick over trash cans while wearing
clothes that are fit for a clown)..

then also
anarchism, although not really compatible with the concept of government

how else can individuals exist in a universe of other individuals

unless the individuals exist independently in a land that has no government
but what constitutes a government

on a planet of just 2 people
one anarchist and one person who wants to order things

if the former person is bigger (has physical dominance) or superior skill in fighting or weapons
and wants the other person to follow his rules

then he is the government and anarchy does not exist

for anarchy to exist
you need all members of the society to be completely free of authoritarianism or control over others

that is why anarchy is extremely rare even in lands where only 2 people exist

I went to Auroville for a few weeks
Auroville regards itself as a divine anarchy

This, and I would say Representative Democracy is perhaps the only type of democracy that would fit.

Anarchysm is by definition directly incompatible and the opposite of a government, so no, anarchists can't form a goverment, so much as a bachelor can't be married.

And about Communism, is it also a married bachelor logical problem with Democracy? Not really, it probably is with Freedom but Freedom and Democracy are not synonymous. I know modern democracy is associated with freedom, but historically it hasn't been always the case, democracy existed before the enlightment.

A communist government can have a system in which people choose their authorities, and that's about it, nothing more, nothing less and they can still call it Democracy, similar to or be Classical Democracy, granted.

This of course, is just Theory, because Communism never existed in the first place, so we don't have either empirical and historical basis.

Of course it can. Communists participate in democracy all over the world. They participate in elections, form governing coalitions with other parties, accept electoral defeat, and take part in legislation. They don't run on a platform of "We will ban every other party except us". Just because the USSR, PRC, and DPRK abuse the terms 'democracy' and 'communism' to legitimize their undemocratic, anti-worker governments does not mean that communism is inherently undemocratic.

Anarchists can also participate in democracy. Most anarchists believe in some form of non-hierarchical, voluntary, direct democracy. Even if their ideology is anti-government, that does not mean that there are no anarchists who are willing to participate in government to affect political change. They're like libertarians in this respect. Both are antagonistic towards government, but that doesn't always mean they are unwilling to work within government to try to partially or completely dismantle it.

Communism is anti-capitalist. As a movement it is all about long term socio-economic, political and even philosophical change. So traditionally the emphasis has been on making people think differently by erasing all traces of the capitalist system. Entering into a democratic contest means admitting that alternatives exist. Why would a communist want to do that? Capitalism is notoriously short term in outlook and appeals to our egos and our greed. Everyone who votes for capitalism thinks they'll be rich as a consequence, even though the whole point is that there cannot be winners without losers. Voters tend to like the promise of immediate, personal gain even if that can't be true for everyone.

From a capitalist perspective communism stifles innovation and destroys all motivation and conscientiousness. If everyone is the same and no-one gets promoted, why try harder? Why bother about quality or efficiency if nobody assesses those? Just churn out the bare minimum required. The main criticism of communism has always been that while in theory everybody was equal, they were equally terribly poor. It wasn't the good thing it was made out to be.

Both extremes try their hardest to deny the other side exists. They simply cannot understand why anyone would possibly want to adopt the other system. But that's the catch, they just might. You can see this in the Vietnam War, America could not understand why their enemy wasn't just an opposing, Soviet-backed army but large numbers of the local people too.

And that brings us to another irony. Extreme right wing nations often turn into extreme left wing nations and vice versa. The more a people have been exploited, the more equality they want. The more a nation has been homogenized, the more the people want choice and freedoms.

By Marx's definition, communism is when the people who work at a factory decide how the factory is run and share the profits. It's literally democracy extending to the workplace, rather than subjecting yourself to 40 hours of private dictatorship a week (In Marx's days, more like 60) to pay the landlord and food, so you can go back to work in a private dictatorship again the next day.

The "communist" governments, from the USSR to China, do not call themselves communist, actually - communism is what they are supposedly striving for. Of course, in reality they are or were dictatorships with a planned economy, and the terms socialism and communism were demonized by capitalist propaganda. No one likes to give away their dictatorship, whether it's a "communist" government or a capitalist owning a company.

Communism is democratic in some ways, because the population doesn't say a word to disagree, so their lack of actions is general approval of what is going on (in other words, democratic acceptance).