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

[Shofercia]

What I would like to know is if some of these people who are against banning or censoring communism/communist parties support the banning of fascist/nazi symbols and parties

Nazism yes, fascism no.

Nazism yes, since it's race based.

Fascism no, since it's country based. Under Fascism, you can be whatever race or ethnicity you want, and as long as you're idiotically loyal to the government, you'll still be fine.

Parties that don't accept and endorse a liberal democratic order should not be allowed to take part in the political process. And no, it's not 'anti-democratic'.

Banning a party for any reason is anti-democratic. Anyone who can drum up enough support to be on the ballot has the right to be on the ballot.

Unless they drum up said support by beating the living shit out of minorities.

Did you seriously just go down the "taxes are theft" route?

They are, but they're a necessary evil. I meant that as long as they don't unfairly (imo, anything above 40%) tax anyone to oblivion, I'm fine with taxes. What I am not fine with is idiots screaming "TAX THE RICH 99% TAX RATE EBUL RICH I AM SO JEALOUS IF I'M NOT RICH ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T BE EITHER"

So you're ok with the rich actually paying their fair share, instead of 15%?

Even though most "communist" parties are just authoritarian Stalinists or fascists in disguise whom I absolutely despise, no. Preserving democracy by destroying democracy is rather counter-productive.

Wait, wat?

So we were wrong to fight the Nazi's? They had a right to be there on the ballot paper and in government. You don't accept that democracy sometimes needs protection?

The Nazis had every right to be on the ballot. If a Nazi party were set up in my country today, I would agree they had a right to be on the ballot.

It was what they did afterwards that was wrong.

So racist pigs shouldn't be allowed to discriminate when they're running a business as to who to sell stuff to, but it's perfectly ok for them to write racist legislation?

I think there should be another option... where you diagnose all self-declared and genuine communists as mentally problematic and put them away.

It's healthier than the other poll options, prison or execution. It's not about punishing them for their beliefs... it's about simultaneously protecting society from them while helping them get over the mental blocks and become normal citizens again (rehabilitation).

It's not that communists WANT to be bad... it's not that they just want to cause chaos and destruction and advocate unrealistic policies. It's that something is different with them... unlike the 90%+ of the rest of the population, something is wired wrong and they for whatever reason... they think it's actually POSSIBLE to create a large scale classless, moneyless, and stateless society. This is a very dangerous disorder because the most serious sufferers of this madness will actually use violence to achieve their goals; the rest of them are equally dangerous because their instability makes them a liability to everyone else. One wrong trigger and they could snap and rise up against the government... for what they honestly believe are realistic, feasible, and possible objectives (while everyone else systematically and rationally rejects these utopian formulations).

It's clearly a sign of insanity if you believe in the possibility and feasibility of implementing a large scale stateless, moneyless, and classless society. We need to help these communists regain their rationality... they need our help and we as a society in the west should provide it.

Rehabilitation > Punishment

We can help them...

Think about it... it's much more realistic and feasibly than imprisoning or outright executing communists. It should be added as a poll option... I'd vote for it.

Are you being serious?

why could it not take place in the modern world? look at how people treat the roma.

please, don't dodge it. what if the homeowners association decides there will be no juden in the area? is that a-ok, because hey, it's your private rights?

you also don't see the problem wi- no souseiseki, bad.

I don't see the problem; if you own the houses, why shouldn't you be allowed to decide who gets to live in them? Why should anyone have a right to tell you who gets to live in YOUR houses?

Privately - you can do what you want, well, within reason.
Publicly - you cannot.

[Mike the Progressive]

No, because if democracy "got tough" on Communism (or any ideology for that matter) it wouldn't be a democracy.

Actually, it could be very democratic. Not just tolerant.

[Gaveo]

No, because if democracy "got tough" on Communism (or any ideology for that matter) it wouldn't be a democracy.

Actually, it could be very democratic. Not just tolerant.

How would it still be democratic?

[Mike the Progressive]

Actually, it could be very democratic. Not just tolerant.

How would it still be democratic?

Democracy is simply where the majority gets what they want. From education to healthcare to a strong public safety net to the banning of minarets or even a communist party. In fact, if a country voted overwhelmingly in favor of getting "touch" on communist parties, it would be very democratic.

[Gaveo]

How would it still be democratic?

Democracy is simply where the majority gets what they want. From education to healthcare to a strong public safety net to the banning of minarets or even a communist party. In fact, if a country voted overwhelmingly in favor of getting "touch" on communist parties, it would be very democratic.

While that might be true how about the minority?

If they don't have a voice in government it the government can't be considered a true democracy.

[Mike the Progressive]

Democracy is simply where the majority gets what they want. From education to healthcare to a strong public safety net to the banning of minarets or even a communist party. In fact, if a country voted overwhelmingly in favor of getting "touch" on communist parties, it would be very democratic.

While that might be true how about the minority?

If they don't have a voice in government it the government can't be considered a true democracy.

No, a true democracy is simply what the majority wants. In fact the concerns of the minority are why democracy is so abhorrent.

[Agymnum]

Democracy is simply where the majority gets what they want. From education to healthcare to a strong public safety net to the banning of minarets or even a communist party. In fact, if a country voted overwhelmingly in favor of getting "touch" on communist parties, it would be very democratic.

While that might be true how about the minority?

If they don't have a voice in government it the government can't be considered a true democracy.

Democracy is merely rule by majority, hence why tyranny by majority is still technically a democracy. Thus we have things such as constitutional limits and articulated rights which protect the minority from the excesses of democracy.

Any man who is for unrestricted, unchained democracy is merely advocating tyranny, except this tyranny is led by mob rule rather than a single man.

[Bordoria]

Nope, freedom of speech and assembly are basic tenets of liberty.

^ This

I went for the quo because i decided that thankfully communism is irrelevant in the modern world.

^ & That

[Trotskylvania]

Except there are democracies who do.

They're generally called "illiberal democracies", or "semi-democracies".

Not even at the height of the Cold War was the CPUSA banned outright.

Membership in the party was considered criminal from 1949 onwards, and the Party itself was outlawed by the Communist Control Act in 1954, though ineffectively, and as a result of a 1961 Supreme Court case, it was essentially rendered infeasible.

[Lerro]

No, Communist Parties shouldn't be outlawed.

Members should be turned into pariahs, but not outlawed.

[Agymnum]

No, Communist Parties shouldn't be outlawed.

Members should be turned into pariahs, but not outlawed.

I would join, then, just for kicks. Would be hilarious seeing people avoid me because I had a red C on my chest. At least then I wouldn't have to wait in line at places like the DMV or the tax office.

[Genivaria]

No, Communist Parties shouldn't be outlawed.

Members should be turned into pariahs, but not outlawed.

I would join, then, just for kicks. Would be hilarious seeing people avoid me because I had a red C on my chest. At least then I wouldn't have to wait in line at places like the DMV or the tax office.

That'd be like putting a Satan bumper-sticker on your car...in Texas.

[Agymnum]

I would join, then, just for kicks. Would be hilarious seeing people avoid me because I had a red C on my chest. At least then I wouldn't have to wait in line at places like the DMV or the tax office.

That'd be like putting a Satan bumper-sticker on your car...in Texas.

I would do that, but I like my cars without dents.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I would join, then, just for kicks. Would be hilarious seeing people avoid me because I had a red C on my chest. At least then I wouldn't have to wait in line at places like the DMV or the tax office.

That'd be like putting a Satan bumper-sticker on your car...in Texas.

I would SO do that, just to piss people off (don't give me any ideas cause, I live in Texas, and well, let's just say I am the equivalent of a ram among a bunch of sheep )

[Dustistan]

No because you don't advocate the banning of all parties, just the one's in favor of banning all other parties.

"Those who fight monsters should take care that they never become one. For when you stand and look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

Right, I am now forming a party devoted to banning all parties that do not ban themselves.

[Quintium]

Personally, I'd put communist parties and nazi parties on one line - they represent ideologies that have had millions and millions killed in their name. Either outlaw both or allow both. My preference is to have both allowed, because a democratic society should not be afraid of its voters.

[Choronzon]

Personally, I'd put communist parties and nazi parties on one line - they represent ideologies that have had millions and millions killed in their name.

This is our criteria eh?

Ok, you can no longer be a Christian. Or believe in democracy.

[Quintium]

This is our criteria eh?

What are yours?

[Cosara]

To be fair, most communist parties in the west are so incredibly small, it's hard to even take them seriously:

Communist Party USA
Communist Party of Canada
Communist Party of Mexico

[Choronzon]

This is our criteria eh?

What are yours?

I don't have any criteria for banning political parties, because I'm not interested in banning political parties.

[Lemonius]

Okay, but should a "communist" party come to power through electoral success, they would not undertake such actions; else they would be a Fascist party... I applied to be a member of the British Communist Party, I subsequently withdrew my application as I disagreed with their approach, if you feel I should be imprisoned, executed or similar for expression of my political beliefs, then you deserve similar punishment for preventing me from fufilling a right which I have, in this country.

Frankly, if a "true" communist party were to somehow come to power, then it deserves to be there. If people vote for it, it's what they get... They know what they're in for.

Your advocacy for member of communist parties to be made "pariahs", to be shot, to be hung and what have you; makes you no better than those who are punishing. Yes, "communists" such as Soviet and Chinese communists are wrong, these persons, however, are entitled to hold their political beliefs without fear of punishment. I'm sometimes afraid of confirming my political standpoint, because history has given the theory a bad name. You cannot tar us all with the same brush, I love democracy, and I am a communist who welcomes opposition, you can hold your beliefs and I can hold mine - we can argue days on end, but I won't force you to change your opinion (in terms of politics, anyway) I'll try my best to show you the error of your ways, but consider me a "rare breed" of socialist, I wouldn't ban all the other parties if I had the option.

Personally, I'd put communist parties and nazi parties on one line - they represent ideologies that have had millions and millions killed in their name. Either outlaw both or allow both. My preference is to have both allowed, because a democratic society should not be afraid of its voters.

How about all the various other political parties out there, who have killed, enslaved, punished, tortured, harassed and executed millions in their names? The Conservative party, for example. Republican party? Ba'ath party? Why don't we outlaw all ideologies, because somebody has killed a certain amount of people in the name of each one.

EDIT:

Personally, I'd put communist parties and nazi parties on one line - they represent ideologies that have had millions and millions killed in their name.

This is our criteria eh?

Ok, you can no longer be a Christian. Or believe in democracy.

I have been ninja'd with briefer expression.

[Luziyca]

No. If you ban communist parties, and you are, okay, WERE democratic, you'd become anti-democratic.

[Former United Soviet Socialist republic]

communisim was not design originally for that. but it came during stalins era

[CTALNH]

Okay, but should a "communist" party come to power through electoral success, they would not undertake such actions; else they would be a Fascist party... I applied to be a member of the British Communist Party, I subsequently withdrew my application as I disagreed with their approach, if you feel I should be imprisoned, executed or similar for expression of my political beliefs, then you deserve similar punishment for preventing me from fufilling a right which I have, in this country.

Frankly, if a "true" communist party were to somehow come to power, then it deserves to be there. If people vote for it, it's what they get... They know what they're in for.

Your advocacy for member of communist parties to be made "pariahs", to be shot, to be hung and what have you; makes you no better than those who are punishing. Yes, "communists" such as Soviet and Chinese communists are wrong, these persons, however, are entitled to hold their political beliefs without fear of punishment. I'm sometimes afraid of confirming my political standpoint, because history has given the theory a bad name. You cannot tar us all with the same brush, I love democracy, and I am a communist who welcomes opposition, you can hold your beliefs and I can hold mine - we can argue days on end, but I won't force you to change your opinion (in terms of politics, anyway) I'll try my best to show you the error of your ways, but consider me a "rare breed" of socialist, I wouldn't ban all the other parties if I had the option.

Personally, I'd put communist parties and nazi parties on one line - they represent ideologies that have had millions and millions killed in their name. Either outlaw both or allow both. My preference is to have both allowed, because a democratic society should not be afraid of its voters.

How about all the various other political parties out there, who have killed, enslaved, punished, tortured, harassed and executed millions in their names? The Conservative party, for example. Republican party? Ba'ath party? Why don't we outlaw all ideologies, because somebody has killed a certain amount of people in the name of each one.

EDIT:

This is our criteria eh?

Ok, you can no longer be a Christian. Or believe in democracy.

I have been ninja'd with briefer expression.

What do you mean the Soviet and Chinese communists were wrong?

I consider myself to be Stalinist and a Chinese communist supporter.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Okay, but should a "communist" party come to power through electoral success, they would not undertake such actions; else they would be a Fascist party... I applied to be a member of the British Communist Party, I subsequently withdrew my application as I disagreed with their approach, if you feel I should be imprisoned, executed or similar for expression of my political beliefs, then you deserve similar punishment for preventing me from fufilling a right which I have, in this country.

Frankly, if a "true" communist party were to somehow come to power, then it deserves to be there. If people vote for it, it's what they get... They know what they're in for.

Your advocacy for member of communist parties to be made "pariahs", to be shot, to be hung and what have you; makes you no better than those who are punishing. Yes, "communists" such as Soviet and Chinese communists are wrong, these persons, however, are entitled to hold their political beliefs without fear of punishment. I'm sometimes afraid of confirming my political standpoint, because history has given the theory a bad name. You cannot tar us all with the same brush, I love democracy, and I am a communist who welcomes opposition, you can hold your beliefs and I can hold mine - we can argue days on end, but I won't force you to change your opinion (in terms of politics, anyway) I'll try my best to show you the error of your ways, but consider me a "rare breed" of socialist, I wouldn't ban all the other parties if I had the option.


How about all the various other political parties out there, who have killed, enslaved, punished, tortured, harassed and executed millions in their names? The Conservative party, for example. Republican party? Ba'ath party? Why don't we outlaw all ideologies, because somebody has killed a certain amount of people in the name of each one.

EDIT:



I have been ninja'd with briefer expression.

What do you mean the Soviet and Chinese communists were wrong?

I consider myself to be Stalinist and a Chinese communist supporter.

And you're wrong.