Democracy and Communism

(Yes I like to talk about Democracy and freedom despite certain lifestyle choices, so bite me)

I was wondering if it is possible to have a nation that had a multi party Democratic system and still have a Communist economy or are the two incapable. Yes I know that one of the provinces of India had a Marxist Mayor for about 30 years and the Chileans had a Marxist government for about 5 minutes so neither answer my question.

Nope. The Communist Party wouldn't have constant control, and every time it got voted out things would change. It's the reason democracies always have economic troubles: schizophrenic leadership. It has to take permanent control to enact even a cursory communist system.

well there have been comunist goverments that have been elected democratically

Once in Spain and once in Chile.

But they where both overthrown.

Chavez could also be another example.

edited 15th Aug '11 6:38:24 AM by Baff

When did Spain have a communist government? because the government that fought Franco was a secularist anti-clerical government.

Dont be silly. Take a look at the list of beligerants in the Spanish Civil war.

Besides.

When Madrid was about to be taken over the republicans took all the gold and currency stored in the national treasury and shiped it to Stalinist Russia.

edited 15th Aug '11 6:36:03 AM by Baff

Baff: Look at who supported Franco as well. The Soviets saw their intervention as being Anti-Fascist.

Edit: The Spanish governemnt at the time was more Socialist than Communist anyway.

edited 15th Aug '11 6:41:29 AM by whaleofyournightmare

The Popular Front included the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), Communist Party of Spain (PCE), the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM, independent communist) and the republicans: Republican Left (IR), (led by Azaña) and Republican Union Party (UR), led by Diego Martínez Barrio. This pact was supported by Galician (PG) and Catalan nationalists (such as the Esquerra Party), socialist union Workers' General Union (UGT), and the anarchist trade union, the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT)

Also in Nepal the Maoist won the elections I think.

And in Nicaragua when the Sandinistas took over they called for elections... and they lost.

edited 15th Aug '11 7:09:01 AM by Baff

I see your point but Franco had support from the Fascists of Europe so it could seen as anti-Fascist coalition and some of those factions are Socialist which is defined differently from Communism but that didn't answer my question as I said the Stalinist Government not its supporters in the Civil War.

In theory Communism and something called Council Democracy are perfectly compatible. In the original (pre Soviet) model, workers were organized into small communes that operated pretty democratically. They were supposed to function without the need for a strong centralized government. If that experiment had continued, Communism's reputation would be entirely different today.

In theory...

Big problem with that: the theory is wrong.

On January 7, 1936, new elections were called. Despite significant rivalries and disagreements the Socialists, Communists, and the Catalan and Madrid-based left-wing Republicans decided to work together under the name Popular Front.

One day it could happen. Democracy took 2000 years to become a reality after the Greeks did it.

edited 15th Aug '11 7:25:57 AM by Baff

@USAF: Not that I disagree, but what exactly is wrong with the theory?

The theory is that everyone can just hold hands and pool everything, and everyone can be exactly equal in the process.

Human Nature Does Not Work That Way.

edited 15th Aug '11 7:42:00 AM by USAF713

It works just fine in families and some traditional societies (on village-scale).

Oh, absolutely. It does not scale up well at all, however.

Why can't we have a half-way communist utopia where villages and individual city neighbourhoods do pool (not necessarily all) things together, but do not pool (most) things on a national scale?

Because the economy would collapse...?

That would be what we call tribalism. Or, I guess, confederation, if you want...

Nothing would get done on a large scale, and it would be trivially easy to conquer...

Why? I don't see how it would be different from a country populated by A Lot Of Large Families.

Because socioeconomics don't work like that. Just because everyone in each little settlement might be equal, that doesn't mean all the settlements will be equal, and not every geographical area will have the same concerns. The national government couldn't treat them all equally, and as soon as that happens, it all breaks down.

@USAF: "The theory is that everyone can just hold hands and pool everything, and everyone can be exactly equal in the process."

That's not the theory. Read the link.

Where is the link?

Also, that is true communism: equality legislated by the body of society.

I meant the theory behind Communist Democracy. See post 10.

The problem I see with it is that it's making a group of people higher than the others. Yeah, yeah, Just the First Citizen, but really, communism relies on equality. Break the equality in anyway, and the system starts to decay.

I believe the OP has his answer...