Quote:
|
Quote by: Ken Carman I disagree. Communism and socialism set up a method, or at least attempt to, of governance... just like democracy. In communism leaders are chosen according to Marx's idea, for example, that eventually the ruling class would go away and the people would, essentially, pick amongst themselves. Of course this never happened because the whole concept Marx set up didn't work on large societal scale. Very small groups have come close.
re:
The ideological positions you refer to can be found in the writings of all the founder(s) of the different "isms" and "ocracies." To divorce those who founded the different societies that have strived struggled towards the democratic ideal but recognize Marx's ideological skew is a skewed view in itself.
I agree with the second paragraph and, although I hate to do this because the Right does it so often and often does it poorly, but we are not just a democracy. (Some would claim we are not a democracy at all, but that is wrong too.) We are a representative form of democracy, a subcategory if you wish, where we vote on representatives and even vote for representatives who then vote on for our actual leaders, such as when we "vote" for the president. I'm not a fan of that last part of our system, but that is what it is.
All this is the way it is because our founders had their ideological positions that they unified into our Constitution and some of the system of governance we now argue about. Some has been changed, just like those who attempted following Marx changed theirs. We have just come a tad closer to the "idea," or the model.
In fact one could argue that an actual Communist country that is a lot closer to the Marxist ideal would be very similar to a democracy. The ideological bent? "The people decide." In fact if any country had actually ever fulfilled Marx's dream they might have been closer to an actual democracy in one way than we are: the people decide. After an unspecified (? Don't remember for sure whether Marx ever mentioned any period of time.) period of time the leaders were to give up their power. :rolleyes: RIGHT. Of course countries that attempted to follow Marx were doomed to fail from the start. Too "pie in the sky" as the cliche' says. |
Thank you for bringing up the argument that Communism carries the intent of turning increasing power over to the people. Communism, socialism, fascism are all democracies. That is they all engage the people in decision making, and in some ways the USSR was more democratic than the US which has autocratic industry. Autocracy is the opposit to democracy, not communism. What separates capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism is, verying degrees of government controls over the economy. Currently the US is a fascist democracy. This is required for the New World Order.