Should democracy get tough on communist party's in the west?

[Souseiseki]

You know, if a party is outlawed, it ain't much of a democracy.

Pretty much spot on.

Also, Communist Parties are about as likely to get into government in Europe, the States, Oceania (lolrony) or any other 'Western' country as the Monster Raving Loony Party is in the United Kingdom. Like it or not, Socialism failed and Joe Blogs knew this long before socialists cared to admit it (many still don't) and because of this, or maybe vice versa, real Left parties never get substantial votes.

I'd say, if any type of party is worth worrying about, it's the Nationalists, but even they are unlikely to get hold of any real political clout in most 'civilised' countries. The Fascists showed that it was a lot easier to get the proletariat fired up with patriotism than it was to inspire them to adopt an unified internationalist Working Class consciousness. Even so, Far Right parties shouldn't be band either.

we used to have a few socialist MSPs (since you mentioned socialism failed and the united kingdom) before things got really kinky and the left tore itself apart as usual

we're also run by a nationalist government

holy shit we must terrify you

[Arumdaum]

Well, I say no, because as many people have said it limits freedom of speech and expression. Also, communism isn't even a real form of government. It's an economic system. Technically speaking, it is possible to have a communist democracy, though that is highly unlikely.

No, communism is a socioeconomic system in which there is a classless, stateless, moneyless society structured upon the common ownership of the means of production.

[Agymnum]

Well, I say no, because as many people have said it limits freedom of speech and expression. Also, communism isn't even a real form of government. It's an economic system. Technically speaking, it is possible to have a communist democracy, though that is highly unlikely.

Communist democracies would merely be the next step in democratic socialism. It's just that democratic socialism works so well (my ideology of choice) that no one ever felt that the next step was necessary.

[Anachronous Rex]

You wish to imprison intelligent, hardworking Americans who have done nothing wrong?

Please, tell me more about how you value freedom and democracy. If you oppose communists being able to exist legally, you clearly have no clue what freedom and democracy are.

Sometimes to protect freedom you have to do what is necessary. Communism is a direct threat to freedom so those who follow it deserve none.

Every time someone has come to power saying things like this, always they have done naught but destroy freedom entirely. Ask Argentina, Brazil, and Chile.

[Dilange]

Ban Communism for the name of Democracy.

[Conscentia]

I love the poll:
"Do nothing, or else do far more then would be civilized, choose wisely."

Thank you Rex.

You do understand what he's saying, don't you?

[Arumdaum]

Ban Communism for the name of Democracy.

Ban democracy in the name of democracy~

[Agymnum]

Ban Communism for the name of Democracy.

Ban democracy in the name of democracy~

We're going to destroy you so hard, you'll be safe from everyone else destroying you.

[Regnum Dominae]

Ban Communism for the name of Democracy.

Ban democracy in the name of democracy~

What does this thing ~~~ mean at the end of sentences?

[The Broken Imperial Sector]

Sometimes to protect freedom you have to do what is necessary. Communism is a direct threat to freedom so those who follow it deserve none.

"Protect freedom" is bullshit. To protect freedom, you allow it to flourish.

Tell me where communism is a direct threat to democracy. Tell me. Stalinism is not communism. Neither is maoism. Both are authoritarian state-socialist ideologies which masquerade as communism just as North Korea masquerades as being a democratic republic.

Communism does not work, it is a tool power hungry men use to get their nations working class to place them in power.

[Imperiatom]

What Communist Parties? Oh yeah, those Communist Parties which have no conceivable chance of ever winning a single election for even the lowest offices.

The issue is not whether they are relevant. It's whether banning them is the morally correct thing to do.

It's not, because it infringes on freedom of speech. As much as I may hate the KKK or WBC, banning those would be infringing on their freedom of speech and that is undemocratic.

You say that but if fascist ideology was banned in 1920, No Hitler and no Holocaust. So maybe it is justifiable morally.

[Agymnum]

I chose to outlaw them. I don't mind Social Democratic parties, or other moderate organisations, but full-out Communism... no.

Expected - OP, here is a real fascist. Feel free to ask him what fascism is, assuming he's willing to explain.
(You are still a fascist aren't you, Prussia?)

One of the reasons I so respect Prussia-Steinbach is his unwavering loyalty to fascism and his understanding of it. While we do not see eye-to-eye - we're opposites politically, economically, and socially - at least he understands his ideology.

I can't say the same for the OP's understanding of freedom of speech, democracy, and communism.

[New Panti]

"Protect freedom" is bullshit. To protect freedom, you allow it to flourish.

Tell me where communism is a direct threat to democracy. Tell me. Stalinism is not communism. Neither is maoism. Both are authoritarian state-socialist ideologies which masquerade as communism just as North Korea masquerades as being a democratic republic.

Communism does not work, it is a tool power hungry men use to get their nations working class to place them in power.

If communism does not work, please tell me how China is still communist. Communism itself isn't evil. The way rules generally use it is.

[Albion Rhodesia]

Personally, I'm all in favor of going back to the old ways, and by that I mean blacklisting communists and barring them from any employment that involves national security/anywhere in which a security clearance has to be held.

Now some will say, "What about freedom of speech/ideology" however due to the nature of communism being an ideology hell bent on taking out the establishment through a spontaneous workers revolution(as any hardened Marxist would tell you), that any communist is already rallying in, or preparing to engage in treasonous activity against his own homeland.

Also, if communists want to live in a "worker's paradise" as they continuously quote, they can always immigrate to North Korea, Communist China or Cuba where they can have all the proletarian state that they can stomach.

[Agymnum]

"Protect freedom" is bullshit. To protect freedom, you allow it to flourish.

Tell me where communism is a direct threat to democracy. Tell me. Stalinism is not communism. Neither is maoism. Both are authoritarian state-socialist ideologies which masquerade as communism just as North Korea masquerades as being a democratic republic.

Communism does not work, it is a tool power hungry men use to get their nations working class to place them in power.

In which case those men were not really communist in the first place, were they?

I can overthrow a dictator and promise democracy, and then install myself as a dictator. Does that mean democracy doesn't work? No, of course not, it just means that I never intended to implement democracy in the first place.

Stalin and Mao never intended to really implement communism. They wanted power, and communism is the antithesis of power since it empowers the worker.

[Anachronous Rex]

"Protect freedom" is bullshit. To protect freedom, you allow it to flourish.

Tell me where communism is a direct threat to democracy. Tell me. Stalinism is not communism. Neither is maoism. Both are authoritarian state-socialist ideologies which masquerade as communism just as North Korea masquerades as being a democratic republic.

Communism does not work, it is a tool power hungry men use to get their nations working class to place them in power.

Yeah, because anti-communism is nothing like that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

[Arumdaum]

Ban democracy in the name of democracy~

What does this thing ~~~ mean at the end of sentences?

It's just some silly thing you add at the end of sentences to look umm... azn and something else... can't really explain, sorry, haha.

[Arumdaum]

Communism does not work, it is a tool power hungry men use to get their nations working class to place them in power.

If communism does not work, please tell me how China is still communist. Communism itself isn't evil. The way rules generally use it is.

China was never communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

[The Broken Imperial Sector]

Communism does not work, it is a tool power hungry men use to get their nations working class to place them in power.

If communism does not work, please tell me how China is still communist. Communism itself isn't evil. The way rules generally use it is.

China is not a communist state. There are no real communist states in this world it is a false system based around telling the workers they will have a say in what is produced and in reality this never happens.

[Disserbia]

Niether should, because both are trying to subvert democracy. Sounds like you're good at making assumptions that are wholy unfounded.

Subverting democracy to protect it against those who would subvert it defeats the purpose entirely, and accomplishes exactly what you're trying to prevent. You're just assuming the role of those you wish to prevent from getting into power.

It is not anti-democracy to prevent parties that wish to destroy democracy from being political parties. Democracy does require protection, that is reality. Like my signature says, taking things to their logical end is irrelevant, and this is one of those times. What you're saying is similar to saying that any regulation in a free enterprise economy renders it no longer part of the free market or that it is somehow destroying the free market economy by doing so, that simply isn't true. As long as the express goal of a political party is not to end democracy in the state, than they should be allowed to have a party. Neither fascism nor communism meet those requirements. You may not like it, but it's reasonable, and if you're not willing to be pragmatic there is not really any point to discussing anything.

[Agymnum]

Personally, I'm all in favor of going back to the old ways, and by that I mean blacklisting communists and barring them from any employment that involves national security/anywhere in which a security clearance has to be held.

Now some will say, "What about freedom of speech/ideology" however due to the nature of communism being an ideology hell bent on taking out the establishment through a spontaneous workers revolution(as any hardened Marxist would tell you), that any communist is already rallying in, or preparing to engage in treasonous activity against his own homeland.

Also, if communists want to live in a "worker's paradise" as they continuously quote, they can always immigrate to North Korea, Communist China or Cuba where they can have all the proletarian state that they can stomach.

It's a good thing I'm not as extreme as this man is, because if I was my friends and I would take our college education and go somewhere we were actually wanted.

Since America hates leftists so much, I guess I'll move to Europe. I mean, it's not like my taxes or my education and job helped the American economy, am I right?

[Garwall]

I'm gonna try and thread this right now.

Democracy is the participation of all citizens in the processes that affect their lives. Thus, all citizens have a say and may voice their opinions. If a governing body wants to protect Democracy, then it must seek to ensure that all its citizens are able to voice their opinions on what they want the government to be like. Make sense so far?

Okay, so let's make an example. Country A recently received a shipment of books that argue for Communism. Communism will be defined as that described by Karl Marx, not the "Communism" or "Socialism" argued for/practiced by political figures such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, and so forth. Communists in Country A decided to found the Communist Party of Country A (abbreviated as CPCA). They argue for the abolition of the state, an end to private property, and placing the means of production in the hands of the people and sharing it in a collective fashion for the benefit of all.

Country A is Democratic, and its constitution declares it as a democratic nation where the rights to free speech, expression, and demonstration are protected by law, and the government's sole job is to protect Democracy in Country A. If Country A was to outlaw the CPCA based on the assumption it would subvert democracy, the government of Country A just restricted rights of expression, speech, and demonstration to all its citizens in the CPCA. As a result, Democracy was just subverted by the Government of Country A, who just violated their constitution and oaths as elected officials.

As a result of this demonstration, it is clear that banning a party to protect Democracy, restricts the rights of the people, and is by nature, undemocratic, and thus cannot be done in a country whose constitution guarantees democratic rights of free speech, expression, and demonstration to all citizens.

[Conscentia]

The issue is not whether they are relevant. It's whether banning them is the morally correct thing to do.
It's not, because it infringes on freedom of speech. As much as I may hate the KKK or WBC, banning those would be infringing on their freedom of speech and that is undemocratic.

You say that but if fascist ideology was banned in 1920, No Hitler and no Holocaust. So maybe it is justifiable morally.

Then the Nazis would never have discredited fascism, imperialism, anti-Semitism, etc.
Germany would still be dealing with the Versailles debt & hyperinflation.
etc.

[New Panti]

Communism does not work, it is a tool power hungry men use to get their nations working class to place them in power.

In which case those men were not really communist in the first place, were they?

I can overthrow a dictator and promise democracy, and then install myself as a dictator. Does that mean democracy doesn't work? No, of course not, it just means that I never intended to implement democracy in the first place.

Stalin and Mao never intended to really implement communism. They wanted power, and communism is the antithesis of power since it empowers the worker.

Well first off, Stalin did not found the Soviet Union. Lenin did, and what he implemented was communism. Stalin took what Lenin did to the extreme. As did Mao. Also, communism is not a form of government. It is a socioeconomic system. You can't say "We're going to he communist" then say "just kidding we're a dictatorship", it makes no sense.

[Agymnum]

You say that but if fascist ideology was banned in 1920, No Hitler and no Holocaust. So maybe it is justifiable morally.

Then the Nazis would never have discredited fascism, imperialism, anti-Semitism, etc.
Germany would still be dealing with the Versailles debt & hyperinflation.
etc.

They didn't necessarily discredit fascism, only Nazism.

The Italians discredited fascism more than the Germans did.