| ||||||||||
Communism vs DemocracyWritten by: blissweet Communism is an original system of society, quite different from Democracy in many ways. While total democracy is not widely spread, many forms of it are prosperous throughout the world today. One of the first and major differences between a Communist and Democratic government is their contrary economic systems. In a communist government, the community owns the major resources and means of production. The goal of such a system is to prevent any one person or group of people from becoming radically rich, while others are extremely poor. The system attempts to eliminate lower class by balancing the wealth between rich and poor, therefore giving everyone equal pay and ownership. Unfortunately, this results in an increased lower class. However, in a Democracy, free enterprising is permitted, and smiled upon. ? Here, free enterprising helps the economy to flourish. People can organize their own businesses and receive their own profits if it succeeds, or debts if it fails. In this system, the harder a person works, the more money they receive, allowing them to ‘make ends meet.’ The downside to democracy is that people can get a high paying job through education, but may work just as hard at a lower paying job and receive less money. As Winston Churchill once said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Generally, Democracy’s seem be more successful economically. In a democracy, money is the most dominant incentive. On the contrary, in a communist government, a person can work a million times harder than the person sitting next to him, and receive equal pay. This results in no incentive on the part of the worker whatsoever. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder, people become slothful, which does little good for a country’s economy. In most attempts, past and present, communism has failed economically, whereas democracies have a commendable success rate. Communism is most widely taken up by Third World countries striving for national independence and sudden social change (Russia, Cuba, and Northern Korea). Forms of democracy however, are usually exercised by countries, which have a long-range goal to succeed, or improve economically (Britain, U.S.A.). Most widely first heard of through Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, communism hasn’t been around nearly as long as democracy, which is first known to have existed in the city-states of ancient Greece and Rome. In theory, everyone is equal in a communist government, however this is not true in many aspects. When only one person controls a communist government, it’s not far off from totalitarianism, as that one voice is the only one that really matters. In a democracy, however, every citizen has an equal say in government. Suffrage rights apply to men and women alike, regardless of race, past education, heritage, etc. Even in ancient Greece and Rome, every citizen could vote individually at an assembly, with a vote from a farmer counting as much as a vote from an artist. As you can see, Communist and Democratic forms of government are very contrary to each other. As they both have benefits and disadvantages, people continuously argue over the superior choice, despite history.
|
| Permico 2002-11-11 08:00AM | No Rating |
|
The simple fact that the population can vote does not mean that the population has a "say" in government policy. True, the government must respect the populations wishes for it is the who elect them, but how many times have we all seen protests going on because the some of the populace is displeased with government policy? It is also true however that in a communist regime that the state is the media, the law and judge. But how many American politicians have their hands (stock, ownership etc.) in the media? How can we watch what goes on on CNN and not say that it has a republican bias? The point I'm trying to make is essentially that one hand washes the other. So it may seem that we have more freedom of speech and media than communist regimes but it is still biased. As in regard to suffrage rights, blacks were excluded from voting in the D.C. district until 1974. Is that not exclusion based on race? Also, when a party wants to get elected it sets a certain mandate. This mandate is usually (should be) the basis on which the population votes for the party. But the party, after being elected, can change their mandate. How credile is a government who breaks their promise to the population? I am not saying that we should start a revolution and demand economic and social equality through a communist system, that goal is too idealistic. But that democracy, as it has its benefits also has its flaws, but the media will not tell you this. | |
| blunted 2006-10-03 01:47PM | |
|
First of all you are confusing capitolism with democracy. Easy to do when you grow up in America. Capitolism is the form of government you refer to in your essay. Capitolism is the government concerned with free enterprise, democracy simply means that the people rule themselves. In fact, in theory, it is possible to have a communistic democrocy, a government in which the people rule and the people own. What we have is a capitolistic democrocy in which we supposedly rule, and rich people own, but in fact the rich people also rule since they have the recorces to have their voices heard, at least to a greater extent than the poor. Our form of government is not to far from Feudal society if you think about it. The rich are comparable to the Lords while those of us who work for a living are comparable to serfs, essentially slave labor. The fact that "democrocy" is flourishing has more to do with the way we have exploited the world economically. For instance, stealing people from their homeland and making them do our work (ie slavery), also stealing their resources, such as iron ore, which we took back to Europe and America to be manufactured by whites and thereby create jobs and a strong economy for whites while impovrishing the entire continent of Africa. By the way, how does equal distribution of wealth result in increased lower class? It should result in the abolition of class all togeather. I think you are misled by what was referred to as Communism by some, though it was not. Governments like the Soviet Union for instance were ruled by dictators who exploited the working class in much the same way as the rich exploit the working class in Capitolistic societies. Therefor they are not truly communist. Capitolism does not ensure that the harder you work the better off you will be, as you pointed out yourelf. It is entirely possible to do nothing and make tons of money in America just be being born rich...just look at Paris Hilton. On the other hand you might bust your ass your whole life and accomplish nothing but making someone else rich. My point? Capitolism sucks! Communism, true Communism has never had it's chance, so we can not make blanket statements about how well it works in comparison. If we are allowed to rule ourselves (democrocy) and land/property ownership is abolished and our whole class system is abolished (Communism), it might not be as bad as you think. Bottom line, life is a struggle and no form of government we ever devise will be perfect, but don't be so close minded and ethnocentric (for lack of a better word) as to believe that capitolism is inherently better than communism. | |
| Athiestjc 2007-02-24 11:27AM | No Rating |
|
you sound like such a socialist - and socialist in a way comparable to a religious funamentalist. Capitolism doesn't 'suck', though if a goverment is capitolist to an extreme (like communism is another extreme) it is bad, and it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. But Socialism is a worse extreme. While it's attempted to make everyone's wealth equal, it brings everyone down to the lowest level, and makes everyone poorer (which was clear in Britian before Thatcher - the Iron Lady {prime minister}). People lose motivation, because is no reward for hard work, and so businesses' employees don't work as hard, the country's businesses have less and slower production because of this. Employees are rewarded for doing hardly any work with more holidays, days off, higher pay, shorter hours, and the trade unions are given far too much power. All this results in lousy service throughout the whole country, and the whole country has a generally far lower Gross Nationinal Product (GNP). Less money is made and so there is less money to go around, and everyone are equally empoverished. I wasn't around when the Labour goverment was in power just before Thatcher, but I've geen given a pretty good impession of how bleak it was: There was what was called a 'three day week', which meant that companies only had power for three days of the week, most people were poor, the goverment publicised far too much andso never had much money. because when there is publisation, there is a lot more the goverment needs to spend on, the tax had to be high (combined with general poverty!) too. There were stikes all the time (especally the coal miners) which meant that people had to do without for tedious amounts of time. Also, while the soviet threat was increacing, the govement at the time was disarming, and underfunding the defence sector (the worst possible thing to do!). This is an example of what happens wen the goverment is too socalist. Nowdays Britain is a bit less left wing than most of Europe. France for example is like Britian was before and now the slightly more right wing Britian is doing better (for evidence of that just compare London air port to Paris). When capitism is in moderation (before Blair) it's not at all a bad as it seems. It may have disavantages, but it's the lesser of evils. What socialists don't seem to understand is that weath goes down the wealth chain. When more money is made there is more to go around. It's not equal, because people are different. People vary in intelligence and aspiration, people may have business minds and become millionares from nothing, and other people may be lazy, and live on benefits. People don't have as much, because people don't deserve so much, due to how much they put in. True, many people work their whole lives and get peanuts, but thats because they make wrong decisions, or are unintelligent, or don't aspire to much. As people succeed and make money, they spend money around them, and those who receive the money spend money..... and so gradually money get's distributed throughout the population (just imagine the route of a coin or a note takes to get to you). Poeple are poor in capitolist society, but in time poorer area, famlies and people get more affluent, until the country as a whole is more affluent (wealthy). Capitolism causes progress, general weath and quality of life, while socialism and comunism drags everone back, limits everones freedom by disallowing certain things, it rewards those who don't contribute, while limiting contributors' rewards. Rewards of success are dissallowed eg private school (which the labour gov. at the time is trying to do). Capitolsm stands for progress, wealth and quatlity of life, while socialism and communism stands for equal poverty and equally poor quality of life. sorry if this is a bit lenghy | |
| Athiestjc 2007-02-24 11:46AM | No Rating |
|
and also, just for clarification: Communism is the non democratic left wind extreme. EG Carl Marx Facism is the non democratic right wing extreme. EG Hitler, Moussolini Democracy is the political system where people vote for representatives of the population, and the laws and desisions are made by these represenatives. Socialism is the democratic left wing extreme. EG Most of Europe (unfortunately). Capitolism is a democraic right wing extreme where the emphasis is on making money, and success. EG USA, United Kingdom (though one could argue that in some States the USA is more like a Theocracy!) Theocracies are goverments which are run by priests in the name of their God(s). EG Iran Left Wing is in the direcion of Socialism or Communism. Right wing is in the direction of Capitolism or Facism. I personally, in the Left Wing - Right Wing Scale am decocratically right of centre. | |
| Dr.Kim 2008-06-26 05:15PM | No Rating |
|
Athiestjc... Your comments are full of grammar and spelling mistakes. Ex.goverment,impession,especally,Britian, wen,disavantages and many more -_-^ Kid... study English proficiently before you write something critical. Pathetic abortive kid.(cough) | |
| PlanetPapers.com | Contact Me | Copyright © 2009 | Privacy Policy | Add to Favorites |