not much difference between the two.
we don't live in a democracy by the way.
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/demorep.html
2007-04-25 20:51:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Communism looks really good on paper, but in practice, as seen in the Soviet Union and other countries, it doesn't do so well.
I only know of the economic stand point though.
In communism, there is no competition for market because everything is owned by the government. No competition means no incentive to work harder and create better products. This is what happened to the Soviet Union. The factories were outdated and the owners did not want to spend more money than they had to. All they had to do was meet a certain number of products and that would be all. The workers also would have no motivation to work harder. I can't seem to remeber the reason though.
This is why when Communism fell, many reforms were to have a free economy.
2007-04-25 20:55:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Cindy L 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Although communism is defined as an economic system in which goods are owned in common, it lends itself well to authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Why? Because it's difficult to get twenty people to agree to do something, let alone millions of people. When there's resistance, as there inevitably is whenever a revolution occurs, communists tend to adopt totalitarian policies to enforce their will. When communism leaves the commune, its chance of success seriously declines. You only have to compare the kibbutz to, say, Cuba, the USSR, China, and North Korea to get the picture.
There's also a difference between getting people on board to vote and speak freely against their government (democratic principles) and getting people on board to live under a regulatory system (communism).
As one other person pointed out, communism and democracy aren't opposites, but they usually don't go well together. Systems that promote freedom, like democracy and capitalism, are what historically work, especially with entire countries.
2007-04-25 20:57:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by TheOrange Evil 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Communism is the shorter path to tyranny, so Democracy is better. Communism is similar to democracy in a deceptive way: Democracy promises equality, and communism enforces it. Democracy hopes to achieve equality by allowing each citizen to vote in a participatory government, and communism achieves equality by eliminating capitalism and social classes through power of government. However, communism requires total government power to achieve this end, and once you give government absolute power, you no longer have control over what kind of government it is. Therefore, democracy is the slower but safer path to equality, and communism is the quick easy answer but depends on too much govermental power.
The main point is: communism requires absolute government power to work, and then you don't know what you're getting in the end.
BTW, "Animal Farm" was about the Russians giving a communist government the power to end the inequality of class citizenship under the Czars, but then the communist government became far worse than the Czars.
2007-04-25 21:03:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Communism V.S. Democracy
Communism-
A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, 1870-1924, Russian revolutionary, the founder of Bolshevism and the major force behind the Revolution of Oct., 1917.
Marx, Karl, 1818-83, German social philosopher, the chief theorist of modern socialism and communism.
Democracy-
A government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
A state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
A political or social equality; democratic spirit.
The common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
Locke, John, 1632-1704, English philosopher, founder of British empiricism. Locke summed up the Enlightenment in his belief in the middle class and its right to freedom of conscience and right to property, in his faith in science, and in his confidence in the goodness of humanity.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 1712-78, Swiss-French philosopher, author, political theorist, and composer.
Now that I have defined some finer points in Philosophical history, Let me begin.
The basis to this age old question is the proof of freedom (ethical and moral) .Communism prides itself in the working class. The idea is to take all property and make it part of the whole.The greater good as present day communists would call this property for the collective conscience.The ultimate communist principal (all for all) the whole acting as one taking out the human flaw of individuality.
Now Democracy cannot be looked at in America.
So allow me to paint you a picture.
Democracy is the total compliance of free will allowing all people to cast their vote no matter their status. The principal their in is equality of mental aptitude, Each man or woman given the ability to determine their own fate without bias.
This is the true Democracy.
-N.Howard
2007-04-25 21:47:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Clarity Sensor 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Communism is better in theory. The problem is that people don't work for the common good. They are selfish and take care of themselves first. If you don't benefit personally from getting a second harvest, you are not going to be motivated to do it. That is just human nature. Communism has never been successful except maybe in some communities in Israel. In Russia and nations influenced by them, it is just another brand of totalitarian dictatorship.
2007-04-25 20:52:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by bravozulu 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Here's something. Democracy better. Why? Much more successful. See Viet Nam (getting better), N. Korea, Cuba, China (getting better), Russia etc.
2007-04-25 20:51:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Was Bush democratically elected for his first term?
Isn't capitalism v communism a better question?
Is high tech clean incineration a good way to produce hot water and manage the landfill problem?
2007-04-25 22:51:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Read "Eat the Rich" by P J O'Rourke. There is a chapter on Cuba which is a communist country. Then ask yourself whether Cubans or Americans are better off.
2007-04-25 22:22:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Mad Roy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Communism simply will not work. It is not a viable system.
There will always be some people who work harder or accomplish more than others.
And more significantly, there will always be people who seek to gain a societal advantage over other people.
2007-04-25 20:52:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by sociald 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's a false dichotomy. The opposite of communism is capitalism, not democracy.
As for which is superior: in pure form neither one. Pure communism results in permanent shortfalls because of lag between the time that new demand becomes apparent and government controllers can do anything to increase production.
Pure capitalism is equally unsatisfactory. As soon as capital becomes concentrated in anyone's hands it tends to stay there, and the natural result is a pure monopoly system. Without government regulation to check it, pure capitalism is socially disastrous.
2007-04-25 20:51:41
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋