QUESTION: Can you have Democracy with a Communist Economic System?

Theoretically you could have a Communist economic system with a democratic form of goverment. As I understand it this would be the purest form of communism where committes of citizens direct the efforts of the whole to promote the general welfare.

Unfortunatly the is little chance of this type of system ever being maintained because it is a basic tenent of human nature that men will persue courses of action that will give them an advantage over others. It is an evolutionary imperative, survival of the fittest and the procreation drive etc. There would always be power plays and a black market corrupting this idealisism and altruistism.

Capitalism is a cruel b**** that anticipates man's self interest. But when we fully expect men to abuse it, we can temper it's inequities somewhat to benefit the whole.

 

The idea behind capitalism is to accumulate wealth both for individuals and for nations. But once a nation have accumulated enough wealth, it is in the interest of the country and wealthy people(capitalist) to distribute some of the wealth to the lower class (socialism). So I believe capitalism and socialism will always coexist in wealthy nations.

US today is much more of a socialist nation than China (which some on this board claims to be a communist nation ) with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and unemployeement benefits.

 

depends on how you define communist or socialist, pirc. if you're talking about government ownership of industry, we are nowhere in the neighborhood of China. are we???

 

. At this moment that is true, but China government have been offering IPOS left and right on state owned industries.

 

that's why i added the "are we?" because i seriously didn't know!

 

Very true indeed. China's economic system is nothing short of (early day) capitalism.

People who still call China a communist country are either too lazy to get themselves out of Cold War nostalgia, or too ignorant, or deliberately misleading, in order to advance their own agendas.

 

THEY STILL OWN INDUSTRY!! they are communist. they may be evolving. but they are communist.

 

Does that make France and many European countries that had owned many industries during the cold war period communist nation too?

 

Take a trip or two to China, talk to people over there, and find out for yourself.

 

I didn't feel like I dismissed his point. I do think that businesspeople will influence government, but that influence could be reduced by eliminating the ability of corporations (and unions, and other for-profit entities) to give money to politicians legally.

 

no, it makes them socialist. control of some industry is socialist. control of most or all is communist.

 

i didn't say you did. i just think his point is hugely valid. money talks...we can eliminate some of the ways it talks....but it still talks.

 

again, i'm not saying it's not changing. i'm certainly hearing that it is. but as long as the state controls most of the industry over there, it is, by definition, a communist country.

 

Guys, all this talk about economic systems is fine but you are forgetting one very important mix in the equation: People. People are what corrupt any economic system or governmnet system. Corporations aren't bad; the people who run them can be. Government isn't bad; the people who run them can be. We've seen examples of good, bad and incompetent corporations and governments.

So, to assume that Capitalism has failed because business influences government too much is, IMO, a falacy. If it's got problems its because the people in charge are bending the system.

Look at every instance of a Communist or Socialist government and tell me that there havn't been corrupt people at the top. Heck, look at the U.N. and the problems with corruption it has. Personally I believe the U.N. has its problems because most countries in the world do not see bribery and nepotism as being bad - it's just what you do. So, if you can help your son with contracts (Kofi Anon) or take a little extra cash for some protection (Oil for Food) you do it and its just business.

The reason, IMO, the U.S. has been so successful, IMO, is because of a relative lack of corruption compared to the rest of the world. The U.S. is probably the least corrupt of any "big" country out there (and that's not saying much!).

As long as people are in the mix and you give those people power they will almost always abuse that power. Even "good" people are going to make bad decisions or make decisions that are good for their constituancy but bad for others.

Right now the economy of the U.S. is probably the strongest in the world despite the burdens placed on it. European economies would collapse in a second if they had to pay for enough military power to keep the world in check.

So, don't blame the system, blame the people in charge (which really means blame yourselves). And don't give me any Republican vs. Democrat BS as both parties are equally to blame. Either that or accept the fact that there is ALWAYS going to be corruption in the system and make sure there are enough checks and balances to ensure that it's hard to get away with anything.

 

I always thought that government control of industries was socialism while government control of markets and prices was communism.

 

rule of law over rule of man. it's most important. without it, corruption thrives. even with it, corruption thrives...but it can be curbed.

 

www.dictionary.com

com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

 

Like chase said, people are what makes the system work. Let's face it, everyone is selfish on different levels. And for whatever reason they have, most people want to accumulate more wealth.

And no system can change that, communism simply put a select group of people into the position of power (i.e. the communist party members) which leads to big corruption. China is a fine example of this.

 

I don't know a true communism has to have a party to rule the society.

My impression with chase's post is that no system can be blamed for its fault - it's always the people who run the system cause the failures. Am I the only who sense there are flaws with this assessment?

 

read "Klass." i'm guessing you can find it at Amazon. it's an amazing book that describes how the class structure in the Soviet Union was vastly more rigid than it was in the US and the rest of the Western world.

you're not going to change the heart of men with more government.