[Il Porko]

Skullers... while you're commenting on my beleif that communism has amounted to dictatorship... maybe you would realise that "I" was talking about dictatorship. So..... read my previous posts and see if you can present an opposing view. It should be interesting

In essence, democracy is better than dictatorship because democracy does not have a tradition of genocide, theft of national property, waste of natural resources, denail of minority rights and state control of the emdia (as a means of brainwashing the public)

Whoever repleis to this post, do me a favour and drop the pseudo left wing jargon. We can all sound fancy and smart, but very few of us can just come out and say what we think.

[jaakko]

"13. WHAT IS THE STATE?
A machinery of force by which one social class rules over the rest of the people.

Really?? In a democracy, all people contribute to the voting process, and thus rule into toto. Even those decisions made without a vote are made by a vote in governemnt chambers.

Voting doesn't change the class essence of the State. It's not 'a democracy' that you're talking about, but one specific form of democracy, that is; bourgeois democracy. On one hand it's about letting parties of the capital compete with each other. On the other hand (the actual governmental work) is about settling the differences between different sections of the capitalist class. Again quoting the online study material:

"3. WHICH OF THESE (principal organs of the state -Jaakko) FORM THE KEY ORGANS OF STATE?

The armed forces, the police and the security services. This is because the key issue in politics is always physical power, and it is these three organs which possess physical power in the state."

To save me from unnecessary repetition, you could read what's already answered here:
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/marxism/Cl4.html

As I said earlier, voting doesn't change the class essence of the State. This has been proven by numerous examples of history. When 'parliamentary democracy' no longer (for whatever reason) satisfies the needs of the ruling class, it has many means of using its State to overcome potential or acute problems in 'parliamentery democracy'. One such measure is replacing parliamentarism with fascism.

Sandino posted on another forum a link to a book that deals with fascism. Preface and excerpts of chapter I of the book are free to read there. I recommend you to read atleast what's excerpted from the chapter I.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/BlackShirts.html

Why are you using the past tense??

Because primitive communism is past, except some African tribes. As you can see from the quote itself: "In primitive communism, a classless society, there was no state machinery. The state came into existence with the establishment of a class-divided society, since the slave-owning minority found it necessary to hold down the exploited slave majority by force."

Once again:
"5. WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPAL SOCIAL SYTEMS KNOWN TO HISTORY?
1. Primitive communism, as in African tribal society;
2. Slavery, as in the Roman Empire;
3. Feudalism, as in mediaeval Europe;
4. Capitalism, as in contemporary Britain;
5. Socialism, as formerly existed in the Soviet Union in the time of Lenin and Stalin."
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/marxism/Cl1.html

There has never been a communist govt before the USSR. That fell into dictatorship

It didn't "fell" into dictatorship. It was at the head of the dictatorship, that is, the socialist state. Bolsheviks from their very existence announced loud and clear that their aim is to win leadership in the revolution that is going to establish a new dictatorship in place of the old.

If communism is not about equality, how can is be classless?

Communism is about abolishing the social classes. Abolishing social classes doesn't make people equal. It's an objective fact that people are unequal. Communism only puts an end to social classes, and creates conditions where people can satisfy their needs in return of contributing to the society's progress despite their inevitable unequality.

By the way, I'm ignoring your puerile insults which are bannable offences under the rules for this forum.

I didn't force you "laugh sarcastically". It was your own decision. Anyhow, I'll avoid insults for now on.

Here's a short description of the 'class-issue':
"7. WHAT IS A SOCIAL CLASS?
A social group which has distinct property relations to means of production. The members of a class
1. own means of production and live by exploiting a class that does not;
2. own means of production and live by means of their own work; or
3. own no means of production and live by selling their capacity to work to members of a class that does.
A class in category 1 is an exploiting class, while a class in category 3 is an exploited class.

8. WHAT ARE THE BASIC SOCIAL CLASSES IN BRITAIN TODAY?

1. the capitalist class or bourgeoisie, which owns means of production and lives by exploiting the social class which does not;
2. the middle class or petty bourgeoisie, which owns small means of production and lives primarily by its own work; and
3. the working class or proletariat, which owns no means of production and lives by selling its capacity to work to the capitalist class."

The West is econimically more advanced than the East. Democratic countries tend to be econimically better off.

That's historical idealism. Bourgeois democracy developed in the "West" because it was economically advanced.
About the development of society. Go here and read the 10th point:
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/marxism/Cl1.html

According to Marxist-Leninism, world socailism occurs in one country (Russia) and spreads to other countries from theer. Explain that please.

According to Marxism-Leninism, world socialism occurs when the proletariat has taken state power in all of the world. Socialism in one or several country is not opposed to, but is in fact an integral part of world revolutionary process. Course of events could lead also to that possibility, that socialism is established in several countries entirely separate from each other.

[Ymir]

Il Porko,

"In essence, democracy is better than dictatorship because democracy does not have a tradition of genocide, theft of national property, waste of natural resources, denail of minority rights and state control of the emdia (as a means of brainwashing the public) "

LOL, the USA has done all of that!

Genocide-Native Americans.
Theft- Native America.
Waste of Natural Resources- The USA allows people to put perfectly recyclable resources in "land fills" that actually slow the process of deterioration.
Denial of Minority Rights- This continued into the 1960s and actually political minorities are always oppressed in Democracies. It is the main principle of Democracy, majority rule. (All of this talk of "Rule by The People" is wrong, it should be read as "Rule by the Majority of The People")
State Control of Media(as a means of mass brainwashing)- If this happened I wouldn't know, because I was brainwashed

[Noumenon]

I agree that true democracy is a bad thing. That would mean that the majority can overrule the rights of the minority. For example, many small New England towns in the 1600's were true democracies, and they persecuted "witches" because the majority overruled the rights of the minorty (the people accused of being witches). The only good system is a democratic republic, where people have rights and the majority elects leaders to represent them and make wise decisions. No other system comes close the the success of this system. Monarchy and dictatorship always lead to tryanny, and true democracy leads to tryanny of the majority.

For your island example, if both islands were democratic republics instead of democracies, the elected leaders would make the wise decision to send aid over, and possibly plan out a way for them to grow more food. These are decisions beyond the capability of the average voter, who is mostly concerned only for himself. However, if the voter doesn't like the results of what his leaders have done, he can vote them out.

[Noumenon]

LOL, the USA has done all of that!

Genocide-Native Americans.
Theft- Native America.
Waste of Natural Resources- The USA allows people to put perfectly recyclable resources in "land fills" that actually slow the process of deterioration.
Denial of Minority Rights- This continued into the 1960s and actually political minorities are always oppressed in Democracies. It is the main principle of Democracy, majority rule. (All of this talk of "Rule by The People" is wrong, it should be read as "Rule by the Majority of The People")
State Control of Media(as a means of mass brainwashing)- If this happened I wouldn't know, because I was brainwashed [lol.gif]

First, the US ins't a democracy, its a democratic republic. We didn't commit genocide on the Native Americans, they fought and lost. Most nations have been founded on conquest, so if you criticize America for conquering the native americans, you might as well criticize all countries. That goes for our "theft" of native america also. It is true that some denial of minority rights happens in this democratic republic, but we have improved our record on that since the 1960's.

[Ixa]

Based just on what you posted, I have a few points to make.

1) Democracy does not just facilitate acts of depravity. True, Sweden did sterilise many of its people. In a democracy, that could have been stopped by majority rule. In a dictatorship, the dictator/ military junta/ Saddam Huissein lookalike, would have butchered anybody who opposed such an action.[/b]

1. Sterilising people is not an act of depravity.

2. What is the problem with exterminating opposition?

3. You are stating opinions as facts. This is a form of bigotry.

Democracy is not perfect, but it's betetr than any other choice.

4. See (3) above.

4) What about human rights?

5. Irrelevant.

In communist countries, becuse the state can deny the will of the people, theoretically, a dictator could decide that, say, drug dealing was legal. In a democracy, the minority who want drug dealing (or murder, or bestility) would be stopped by the more reasonable majoroity. In your state, where minorities get what they want, even a minority of one person in favour, of, say, murdering dolphins in public, would get their way. The dolphin ecample is a real one, from a formerly communist country. One person wanted to do this sort of thing, and as he was the 'leader',he got his wish.

6. It all depends on the leader, and in a democracy, it all depends on the majority. The masses, it is true, are can be quite reasonable.

7. And you cannot "murder" a dolphin. "Murder" only applies to man.

8. And what "Communist" contries? Where has there been a Communist country?

[Anarchocommunist]

..... I do know something about communism.

if you knew anything about communism you would know it has nothing to do with democracy. one is a theory of rule and the other a theory of economics. secondly, america is not a democracy. it is a republic. a pseudo democracy. elected officials are not democratic.

and why is a dictatorship a bad thing. because there is no such thing as a benevolent dicatorship. absolute power corrupts absolutely. have we yet to see a dicatatorship work at the benifit for it's people, no. it is less likely for a true democracy to commit such acts of depravity as did hitler, or worse, stalin. in the island scenario you would be a thousand times less likely to see a dictator give aid to that country. secondly your scenario is based outside of reason and is completely ludicrous. noone wants to pay more taxes pff! in the logic presented yes a dictatorship is better, but your scenario is based outside of reality in a delusional world.

[Adrien]

Communism as an ideology also includes a particular view of politics and organization of different powers, you can't deny that.

And a "Republic" is a very general term, you can do whatever you want with it, from a pseudo-democracy in the hands of the bourgeoisie to the organization that will assure the transition between capitalism and communism, that is to say socialism.

[Anarchocommunist]

as long as there is power there will be abuse. and it is, and history has show, that insanity is more deadly when it's in the hands of the few in power. can a large group be insane, yes, but it is allways lead by someone. someone allways feuls the insanity. the republic is a moderation of democracy, yes, but it cannot be considered democracy. it's an oligarchy. especially when there is money involved. if those two islands were devoid of class within themselves, on still being more destitute, then the likely hood of them receiving help would be much greater, as your benevolent dictator does not exist, and has not existed.

and yes communism is just an economic strategy. if it had it's own politics you wouldn't see authoritarian and collective communists. you could even have communism in a monarchy. it is just that, an economic theory. it is not the opposite or synonymous with democracy. it cain be paired with a system of power, but cannot not be the system of power, only economic power. which is to say once the systems are in place it can only act as an influence to the theory of rule. which is why socialism has not worked, because it has used the republic, and a mighty perverse republic at that.

[Adrien]

I maintain that the communist ideology has its part of politics and offers a particular view of it. And no, you can't have a Communist (note the capital letter) monarchy: you may find a socializing monarchy, but not Communist it's against the ideology.

In fact when you agree to the Communist ideology, to Communism, you do not only defend economic theories, but also a certain view of politics and a certain advice on social problems.

[Anarchocommunist]

these ideologies are held from an econominc point. there is much debate on how these systems be run, and i am mistakenly again presuposing socialism as communism. communism in theory, is without any power structure, another word for anarchism if you will. but it still just an economic perspective, this mainly applys to socialism and capitalism. some theories of rule are impossible to acheive within someof these economic theories, but they are still jsut that. the only reason that a theory of rule could be impossible is that it's simply incompatible for both systems to work. but they can still be put together and fail. democracy and capitalism are technically polar opposites. because if there is a concentration of economic power in the hands of the few, then it will collapse any democratic solution for capitalsm.

[Adrien]

Well yes, if you take the goal of Communism, there isn't any State as we know it, but wishing the "disappearence" (that's not the precise word but i don't have it) of the State and having precise theories on it is having a certain view of politics.

But i won't deny that communism is very economical, the fact is just that it has its share of politics and that economics and politics are closely linked in this case.

[Anarchocommunist]

yes but just because it has it's share of politics doesn't mean it is a theory of power. religion has a much larger share of politics, but on it's own it is not it's own theory of rule. the main point is that communism and democracy cannot be compared as if they were judging the same things. in reality communism is closer to democracy than capitalism. in which it is impossible to acheiv true democracy. this is where the argument should end, as it is totally off topic.

[Adrien]

I didn't say that it was an ideology of power, i only said that you couldn't take the political aspect of communism away, it is a vital part of the thing.

And you can't put communism and democracy in parallel because they are not the same kind of thing: democracy is a concept, which you can shape thanks to an ideology.