10-26-2011, 09:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2011, 09:16 PM by FireIceTalon.)
I thought I made the post crystal clear. What is there not to understand about it? Democracy and Totalitarianism are fundamental opposites (I think all can agree on this). For a true communist society to exist, democracy must be present first (there is no debating this either, unless you just jump on the popular bandwagon without actually reading Marx's work, but then one has no credibility in such a case). If a state is Totalitarian, then it isn't communist, or is so only in name, but certainly not in practice. I fail to see how this does not make any sense. Rosa Luxemburg was Communist (she valued equality, freedom, democracy, and the rights of workers, and no or minimal state control), Stalin was Totalitarian (he valued complete state control and his own personal power, nothing else), and both for the most part, acted on their values and principles. If Stalin was a true communist as so many historians label him as such, he certainly did not practice what he preached. If this doesn't make sense, then I don't know what does.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)