wouldn't control of parliament constitute dictatorship of the proletariat? Does Communism necessitate forcing people into ideological acceptance? Isn't there a lot of good to having strong civil society, norms and institutions? Aren't those things necessary for socialism in the first place?
Hope I'm past 200 chars
Becaus liberal democracies are interested in civil freedom above all. DoP is interested in economic and political freedom.
"Liberal" in "liberal democracy" refers to classical liberalism, which is fundamentally distinct from socialist ideas. As for democracy, that is essentially the goal of socialism to begin with, at least philosophically.
Matter of opinion. Topics like this are what divide the authoritarian and libertarian left.
Communism would render any need for compliance obsolete because without economic scarcity or private property (in an economic sense, not personal belongings), people would no longer have de facto societal influence over one another.
Yes, theoretically we could revert to old shitty modes of production if we all somehow agreed to it, but there would be nothing to gain from it at a profound cost, so who the hell would agree to that?
They aren't bad per se as much as they are imaginary concepts with no real backing in the materially driven real world. Human society has always been a slave to its means of survival and propagation, not built on good feelings.
Liberal democracy has by definition the protection of private property and freedom of contract enshrined in the constitution, making it a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie effectively.
I also don't see the point of having multiple parties.
But there are methods of amending the constitution. If the Communist party won a majority they could theoretically amend those protections out of the constitution, no?
So are you arguing that the functions of liberal democracy are cohesive in the west while they fail in the third world purely because of material circumstance?
Couldn't you have a government in a liberal democracy that respects both?
but why? just write a fucking new one.
I think you fail to understand that the entire governmental institution of the united states is meant to favor the ruling class. It's not even a democracy by definition.
gee its almost like thats literally what a ruling class is, otherwise they wouldnt be a ruling class and it wouldnt be a government
Because those are two entirely different systems.
I believe what you meant to ask if a liberal democracy may peacefully and legally transition into socialism. Theoretically, yes. In practice,it would never be achieved purely within the system, because the ruling class controls it. So, you at least need a political revolution, as Bernie puts it.
ha, that's cute
I'm arguing that they aren't "cohesive" at all.
What you are talking about is worthy of an icepick
Aren't they? The US government has functioned for over two centuries just based on a single constitution and court precedents, with few constitutional crises.
If by liberal democracy you mean constitutional democratic republicanism then it's not incompatible with socialism. It is under capitalism that said system of government cannot function properly.
Why do communists advocate for revolution then?
Not that guy, but I can assume it's because practically all liberal democracies function under a capitalist economy necessitating revolution in the eyes of communists
Awful answers ITT.
lmao my poor sweet little child. Conquering the legislature just means communists can put up a fight on fairer terms, the bourgeois state still has the police and executive branch to fall back on. The real revolution begins with the communities.
Absolutely, just like every other major movement. Politics isn't a game sunshine, people die because of it by the thousands every day.
Yeah, not sure what the fuck that has to do with anything you're saying.
Parliamentarianism was designed by & for the bourgeoisie. Every fool, yourself included, is entirely aware of the fact that no serious change to society can be undertaken with a bourgeois form of state. Voting is NOT a replacement for mass struggle against the existing state.
The goal of socialism is to extend that democarcy to other parts of society that are still ruled through authoritarian means.
Liberalism is a capitalist ideology. If your question is "why is democracy incompatible with socialism?", well it's not.
I mean presumably you could conquer all branches of government using the already existing democratic institutions. At that point it would be a question of whether or not those gains could be entrenched and maintained.
If this were really true then fascism wouldn’t exist. Fascism appears precisely because communist movements threatened to hijack the institutions of bourgeois democracy. Germany, Spain, Chile, etc all became dictatorships because leftists were threatening to take control of the state through democratic means. If it was truly impossible for bourgeois democracy to topple capitalism then they wouldn’t have bothered to abolish it.
This. The issues average people think about when they hear terms like human rights is that they can't get executed based on some rumors, that they can defend themselves in court and the principle is innocent until proven guilty, they think it means that they won't be tortured. Now, let's put aside that countries that officially uphold these things have a reality a bit different from that (police brutality). When one actually reads these texts, one will find stuff like that, but also property regulations. Inheritance of wealth is a right according to Article 14 of the German Grundgesetz (though it can be taxed to some degree).
If you could amend the constitution as easily as any other law, it wouldn't be a constitution. A common thing is requiring super-majorities. And a constitution can also have parts that cannot be changed at all, according to the document itself.
Because the economic system isnthe problem.
"Democratic" institutions are specifically designed to protect private property. From this, it follows that:
1) a genuine communist government couldn't be elected;
2) if elected, it wouldn't be obeyed.
...
These are actually good questions and a subject of the classic “reform or revolution” debate. I haven’t read it might suggest a book with that title by Rosa Luxembourg
Theoretically it could but you have to consider 1) is ithat even possible. It’s evidently quite clear at this point the elites rig elections, if not outright counterfeit them to begin with. The CIA is phenomenal at doing this in 3rd world countries. 2) once elected those proles would have to play by governments rules; and the US at least our government was designed to resist radical change. We call it checks and balances. So even if proles won elections into congress they’d still have a hard time getting things done, with the deep state manipulating things, elite owned media smearing each person. 3) those proles would then have to undo massive frameworks our political system, private property as an example. Would be much easier to simply physically seize the political infrastructure through revolution and abdicate or abolish large swaths of the govt, think alphabet soup agencies, state dept, ect
Not if there are other countervailing forces who would block implementation of socialism. Courts who block measures because e they violate constitutionally protected private property for example. The change sought in society is so total that political control has to likewise be total, and a simple parliamentary majority does not suffice. Chances are that even supermajorities will not suffice as the bourgeois will resist change with extra-legal means, like wrecking, sabotage, violent uprising, mercenaries, and so on. At that point you need a red army as well to break them, and some kind of intelligence service to snuff out saboteurs.