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

describe the flaws you see. i think i know what you're getting at...but describe them.

 

If you have the right people you can make any system work. However, some systems does not have very high requirements. For instance, you can count on your hand and feet the great emerors in the world, but there are countless terrible emperors in the history. During the period of bad emperors the country always suffered greatly. In the US there have not been many great presidents but there have not been many terrible ones if there are any. The country as a whole have prospered almost continuously for 200 years. Thus the system does make a big difference.

 

rule

of

law

 

Ya, the short version.

 

No China is not a true communism, there never was a true communism anyway.

Out of all the systems, imho U.S. has the best system that curbs corruption and promotes economic activity.

 

And Checks and blances too.

 

life and liberty.

and corndogs.

 

those are good points. There is also phenomenom of "shirking" which is a form of corruption. Communist systems are the most susceptible to this. When everyone is guaranteed the same benefits - the desire to work hard decreases. I suppose this is a basic human flaw. If working hard will not get you more than the next guy - then why work hard? For the good of the State?

How many of you actually live in (or have lived in) a Communist state? I suppose the Chinese posters here have.

 

I have but left after I finished elementary school.

 

Life and liberty, yes.

But I hate corn dogs.

 

Show me a system that functions properly regardless of the actions of the people and I'll show you a system populated by robots. Communism works very well on small, voluntary scales (aren't kibbutz's essentialy communes?) but fails when you force people to participate.

But for any system to work you have to have people that buy into it. How can a system FORCE people to buy into it? You can have laws and penalties but clearly laws and penalties won't prevent people from trying to get away with stuff. Name a time in history when people didn't break laws.

The nice thing about capitalism is that it rewards human nature (the drive to accumulate) but doesn't punish those people who aren't that driven. There are plenty of people in the U.S. who just have jobs and are happy with what they've got. Now, in the U.S. you do have to work to survive (unlike some communist models where you get what you need merely by existing) but, I think, most people's lives are enriched by working (as opposed to lazing around watching tv).

 

We’re talking about combinations of economic and governmental systems but I think the question is how to rate them. Should you rate them by GDP alone? I think one of the things thadeus is alluding to is that our understanding of what constitutes a good life and a good society is expanding past a simple bottom line financial analysis. I think many people and many families have understood this for a long time but I think we’re coming to a time when we are coming to understand it more on a societal level, and when you have a critical number of people in a society whose worldview shifts in this way then public policy will start to shift in response. There are some existing measures for the kind of rating I was taking about, but I don’t hold any of them up as being perfect, just a step in the right direction. The UN Human Development index is one and there are some other similar ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Development_Index

 

I agree that you can never remove the influence of business completely but you can decrease it dramatically, and indeed to preserve the principles of democracy I believe you should. If you allow individuals with a lot of money to greatly skew the process then they will obviously tend to skew it toward their interests and you’ll end up with a never ending loop of influence that will effectively lead to an oligarchy.

 

Even if you are not an atheist, do you think human beings are "evolving" toward better or worse end of mankind since their inception? And what about societies?

There is no easy answer, but you (actually chase) can't simply separate system (society) from the people who run it. His argument is one-sided and oversimplified. IMO, any system that is created for the betterment of humanity, with the least likelihood for corruptions from the people who run the system, is the ideal one. The Constitutions, and the checks and balances of US government are certainly good examples of how a well-intended political system is operated by its intrinsic mechanisms.

 

That's fair. For some, security would be foremost. They would be willing to give up other things for security. You might even bow to an authoritarian government to see that through. For others it might be welfare of the needy. It could be any number of concerns you could judge this on. But if we're talking economy and government....it's hard to put those together. I don't think there's anything more broken about the American system of government and the US Constitution than anywhere else in the world. If we're talking economy, I'm looking to sheer economics. Production. We measure that, as you say, by GDP, primarily. The problem is...we don't all value the same things. Canadians have some different values than Americans. Americans have different values from the Chinese. And on and on. So what we do with the wealth, once it's generated, is an entirely separate analysis, as I see it. And cultural values have to be taken into account. And yes...the United States DOES have a culture!

 

I'm not sure we're any better or any worse. We are what we are and what we've always been...self-interested.

I don't think I see system and society as the same. I don't think I'd define those as synonomous, as you do. Certainly there are some government systems that are more easily used by those with power for their own benefit, to the detriment of others. But just because you have a system that values equality, doesn't mean that's what you'll get. Particularly if you give a few all the power they need to provide that equality...because ultimately, that's not where those resources will be spent by those "few."

 

I am not sure what we are arguing now. The devil is in the system or in the people, or both?

 

Hit the nail on the head..


Nations who self profess communism (partial list)
China
Cuba
Viet Nam
North Korea

Nations who self profess democracy (very partial list)
Russia
United States
Iraq
England France
Romania

The idea that democracy does not produce a ruling elite is ridiculous, in fact it will always establish one.

The idea that communism does not produce a ruling elite is equally absurd, it always will.

The class struggle is a result of a central government not a result of freedom of enterprise and ownership. Both democracy and communism always produce central government control.

Rule of Law with the freedom of enterprise and ownership is the antithesis to both democracy and communism. (throw in globalism, socialism, etc)

A free republic with a small decentralized government with rule of law and protected individual freedoms will set up a guard against both democracy and communism- which result in class struggle, re-distribution of wealth, and slavery (big brother)

Free enterprise works like this- you work, you earn the fruits of your labor and it belongs to you. You choose what to do with it. It belongs to no one else. Free choice. You have rule of law to protect what you own from a thief.
Personal ownership, the freedom of enterprise and reward are the rule of law.

We are mixing a political system with a economic system which is the right thing to do because they cannot be separated they are always the same

All democracies and communists nations have a ruling bureaucratic elite.
History is proof.

 

I would say its definately in both. Ultimately all political systems are run by people and even the best system is only as good as the people running it. At the same time though some systems facilitate better functioning of a society and economy by providing a fair amount of accountability, transparency and dispersal of power. Anytime you can't have those things the potential for corruption greatly increases.

Even with a system that provides those things it is still dependent upon the will of the people and leadership to abide by that system. Like what happened to Rome any society could go ahead and dump its democracy and checks and balances and decide that a dictatorship is the best thing and then you're just back to the luck of the draw on what sort of emperor you get.

At the same time if unchecked a system can easily become overbearing where any sense of humanity gets driven out of it and even good people can't do anything about it because the rest of societies rigidly follows the system. For instance the fall of the lasy dynasty of China came about partially because the Confucian bureacracy got to heavy and bound by the dictates of both Chinese tradition and legalism that the state couldn't deal with many of the problems that beset it.