communism is an economic system whereas democracy is a social one
Communism is a political and economic ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society, the pseudoscientifically postulated utopia of a stateless, classless, moneyless, post-scarcity society.
Communist ideology is like the Christianity of politics & economics that keeps promising the 2nd coming of Christ: they insist it’ll happen someday inevitably.
No possible way Marx was wrong.
Colloquially, communism refers to a communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state): a political system/government consisting of a socialist state following Marxist–Leninist political philosophy with a dictatorial ruling class that promises to achieve a communist society.
Democracy is a political system/government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state.
Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy: democracy following ideas of liberal political philosophy.
So, colloquially, communism refers to a political & economic system whereas democracy refers to a political system.
As a political system, the communist state is totalitarian, the most extreme authoritarianism:
Totalitarianism is a label used by various political scientists to characterize the most tyrannical strain of authoritarian systems; in which the ruling elite, often subservient to a dictator, exert near-total control of the social, political, economic, cultural and religious aspects of society in the territories under its governance.
Whereas an authoritarian regime is primarily concerned with political power rather than changing the world & human nature (they will grant society a certain degree of liberty as long as that power is uncontested), totalitarianism aims for more.
A totalitarian government is more concerned with changing the world & human nature to fulfill an ideology: it seeks to completely control the thoughts & actions of its citizens through such tactics as
- Political repression: according to their ideology, rights aren’t inherent or fundamental, the state is the source of human rights.
Rights (eg, freedom of speech, assembly, & movement) are suppressed.
Dissent is punished.
Unauthorized political activities aren’t tolerated.
- State terrorism: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps.
- Control of information: full control over mass communication media & the education system to promote the ideology.
- Economic control.
All of this is entirely compatible with Marxist-Leninism.
Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism.
It holds that governments exist for the people & authority is legitimate only when it protects inalienable/fundamental/inherent rights & liberties of individuals.
The people have an inherent right to obtain a government with legitimate authority, and when their government lacks or loses legitimacy, the people have a right & duty replace or change that government until it obtains legitimacy.
Allero@lemmy.today 4 months ago
The “political” aspect of communism stems directly from the desire to radically alter the economic system. It is not tied, however, to the particular political order.
Coming from the same very Wikipedia article you cite on communism:
So, communism, just as capitalism and socialism, can be combined with all sorts of governance types. It can be authoritarian (and so can be capitalism - look at fascism to see an example), and it can be democratic (early Soviets) or even libertarian (anarcho-communism). You can build a totalitarian communist hellhole, and a totalitarian capitalist one; same in reverse.
Now, an argument can actually be made that capitalism is inherently undemocratic. As your ability to exercise rights is heavily tied to your wealth (think of regular worker suing a billionaire, or all the lobbying, or corruption scandals involving the wealthiest and the way they slip out of them like nothing ever happened), people can be and commonly are silenced. Moreover, if you have money, nothing stops you from financing the media to translate your message. This way, important political messages are drowned in favor of what the rich want to translate, and certain (rather corrupt) voices are heavily amplified over others.
By extension, liberalism, even in the most ideal of its forms, is deeply flawed when it comes to a true democracy.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 4 months ago
While this is true, they’re talking about Stalin & the political system mentioned before
not any political system. None of the other types of communist governments have existed to scale for a meaningful duration & none have fulfilled their fantastical/mythical promise. They either fail within a few years or persist through authoritarian repression while purporting to strive for a fantasy they may never achieve.
Not a political system. Nothing you wrote about it necessarily happens (depends on government), and the rich have been successfully sued & convicted of crimes before.
Isn’t some deluded speculation. It’s a moral & political philosophy of immediately realizable demands to restrict government authority[^liberal-demands]. Are you arguing against the restriction of government authority & against liberty? That’s a strong argument to reject your political system as illegitimate.
Unlike the fantasy of a communist society, the demands of liberalism have been achieved before in North America & Europe. It’s why you’re allowed to write everything you have.
Because liberalism is not democracy, liberal democracy is, and as mentioned:
True democracy was already defined
and demands less.
Only to communists: socialists regard it as the goal.
Economic systems aren’t political systems, so they don’t have rights, though they may depend on rights (from a political system). :::spoiler Moreover, those benefits amount to less than purported in communist states. With all their rhetoric on substantive equality, & the time, state ownership, & central planning to achieve it, we’d expect at least the main outcome of economic equality. Yet, measures of economic inequality don’t support that: China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba rate medium on economic inequality. (Only, North Korea with an average height notably shorter than South Korea due to food shortages has low economic inequality.) To the contrary, the “flawed” liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia do better with low economic inequality.
Despite an ideology opposing the exploitation of workers, Soviet forced labor camps did exactly that & would work the malnourished to death.
The formal guarantees for nutrition from those benefits meant little when at least 5 million died during the Soviet famine of 1932 the Soviets created.
In contrast, during the Great Depression in the United States, mortality fell & there were few reported cases from starvation.
Without profit motive in those “benefits”, we might have expected a better environmental record in the Soviet Union. To the contrary
Their planners considered pollution control
and
Stemming from those so-called benefits, the Soviet constitution of 1977 made a number of promises it couldn’t realize.
Shortages increasingly lead people to the second economy with its blat (favors) network. Eventually, the last Soviet leaders, conceding failure by their own standards (economic, social, & cultural rights) & western standards (civil & political rights), dismantled the system from within: Western governments had exceeded their communist state by all standards.