Challenge: democratic Communism

You might want to think more carefully about your use of the word 'glories.' They did lose that war, after all. Pretty badly, too.

That it was a 3 year war instead of a straight up and down fascist coup, is solely attributable to the Anarchist militia in the first few days. See Jello's response for more detail.
 
That it was a 3 year war instead of a straight up and down fascist coup, is solely attributable to the Anarchist militia in the first few days. See Jello's response for more detail.

Taking a long time to lose doesn't mean you didn't lose. The Confederate States of America stuck it out for four years, but that doesn't mean that democratic oligarchy is a great form of government.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Aranfan has a good point; the Anarchists did play a major role in holding back the Nationalists. Not to say that they would have won, but we have to remember that perhaps the major reason that the Anarchists had so much difficulty was because of the outright treachery and losses suffered at the hands of the Spanish Communists, the Anarchists' so-called "allies." It is almost impossible to overestimate the role that the Spanish Communists played in the ceaseless disruption endemic to the anti-Nationalist forces ("Republican forces" really isn't all that accurate). Hell, the Communists even went so far as to execute Anarchists and once they showed up in Anarchist-held territories, the places tended to go to hell in a hand basket.
 
I'm surprised nobody mentioned Moldova. Up until recently, the Communist Party has had a majority in the country's parliament. Though, FWIR there's some question as to how communist they really are.
 
Taking a long time to lose doesn't mean you didn't lose. The Confederate States of America stuck it out for four years, but that doesn't mean that democratic oligarchy is a great form of government.

Stalin beat Hitler, does that mean Stalinism is a great form of government? My point is that the Anarchists made a real fight out of it, and while the Anarchist control lasted, according to the books I've read, it was the next best thing to paradise.
 
2enc5zb.jpg


Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. The essence of political freedom depends not on the fanatics of 'justice', but rather on all the invigorating, beneficial, and detergent effects of dissenters. If 'freedom' becomes 'privilege', the workings of political freedom are broken.
 
Stalin beat Hitler, does that mean Stalinism is a great form of government? My point is that the Anarchists made a real fight out of it, and while the Anarchist control lasted, according to the books I've read, it was the next best thing to paradise.

Which books would those be, if I might ask?
 

Susano

Banned
:confused: Really? Really???

Yes, really. Have you read the thread at all? As Ive said, Leninism (i.e. the doctrine of the revolutionary vanguard party elite) is anti-demopcratic, but Marxism as a broader spectrum need not be. So theres no point in your anti-communist rhethorics. Democratic communism can work (though I still wouldnt exactly expect it to have an exceptionalyl prosperous economy...)
 
Yes, really. Have you read the thread at all? As Ive said, Leninism (i.e. the doctrine of the revolutionary vanguard party elite) is anti-demopcratic, but Marxism as a broader spectrum need not be. So theres no point in your anti-communist rhethorics. Democratic communism can work (though I still wouldnt exactly expect it to have an exceptionalyl prosperous economy...)

Anti-communist?

Rosa Luxembourg was a Marxist who was highly critical of the "democratic centralism" of Leninism (thinking it wasn't really democracy at all) and regarded Lenin as a Blanquist - an elitist trying to take over the working class revolution with his vanguard clique.

I'm pointing out that there is a very fine Marxist mind in 20th century history who could serve as the mother of democratic communism.
 
Yes, really. Have you read the thread at all? As Ive said, Leninism (i.e. the doctrine of the revolutionary vanguard party elite) is anti-demopcratic, but Marxism as a broader spectrum need not be. So theres no point in your anti-communist rhethorics. Democratic communism can work (though I still wouldnt exactly expect it to have an exceptionalyl prosperous economy...)
Er... isn't that a quote from a communist about what she thinks about freedom? That is, a confirmation of your stance that Marxism, indeed, Communism, need not be anti-democratic just because Leninism is.
 

Susano

Banned
Oh for... goddamn, sorry all.:eek: I didnt recognice Luxemburg. Damn, on that photo she even looks vaguely East Asian... damn, again, sorry:eek:
 
Well speaking as an apparent anarcho-socialist (according to the Internet), I don't think true Communism can be implemented. We can get very far with Socialism, but I think Communism is just too much with our current understanding of physchology and ethics.

However, political Socialism is in essence a democratic ideology.
 
Yeltsin's June 1996 stroke becomes public knowledge, Gennady Zyuganov wins the second round of the Presidential election, the CPRF controls parliament and the Presidency and starts turning the country's economy back around.

There ya go.
 
Oh for... goddamn, sorry all.:eek: I didnt recognice Luxemburg. Damn, on that photo she even looks vaguely East Asian... damn, again, sorry:eek:

No problemo.

My personal taste with this AH hook would be to go for revolutionary communists who believe in bourgeoisie democracy, rather than going for communists who reject bourgeoisie democracy but are not revolutionary in character.

You could probably get democoms either way and find suitable characters in history to lead the way, but I find revolutionary movements in conjunction with liberal democracy to be more interesting than outsider non-revolutionary anti-authoritarian collectivists.
 
Top