Do you tolerate communists?

@OctoPinky you can always have a monarchy together with democracy, as long as the monarch serves the people's will.

His powers will be decided by the population and he will obey the people, not the opposite.

There are monarchies which are bounded by democracy, and autocratic monarchs too, where they rule against the people's will.

@celinofj said in #61:
> you can always have a monarchy together with democracy, as long as the monarch serves the people's will.

Exactly: monarchy is the biggest denial of "all citizens are equal", but social, politics and economy are always compatible if there is the will, no matter how incompatible they were according to the definitions (on the other side, actual political systems never follow strictly their theoretical models). Many of the more democratic leaders in European history were absolute monarchs, and if you research it, I think you'll realize there is a good reason for it.

In that same sense, in practical terms you can have democratic communism or any other formula you could imagine (or even these you can't).

@celinofj said in #24:
> you can't separate economy from politics and marxism from anti-democratic revolution.

I agree on the first, even if that poses additional issues too long to discuss here (summary: economic inequality can establish a 'de facto' dictatorship on a theoretical democracy) but necessary to assess Marxism in a fair view.

About revolution, it doesn't have to be anti-democratic, think about American or French Revolution, widely seen as the birth of modern democracy.

If, instead of that, you think bourgeoise revolutions are democratic but marxist revolutions are anti-democratic (and obviously this would be a logical fallacy if it is the reason why marxism can't be democratic) take into account the state of affairs in Marx's age, it's very hard to admit any revolution could be more anti-democratic or violent than the then-current government systems.

@celinofj said in #19:

> What is the difference between a kleptocratic state, where the government takes everything from everyone, and a marxist state? I didn't understand.

Please reference where in the Marx-Engels Collected works you can find an endorsement of kleptocracy.

@celinofj said in #61:
> @OctoPinky you can always have a monarchy together with democracy, as long as the monarch serves the people's will.
>
> His powers will be decided by the population and he will obey the people, not the opposite.
>
> There are monarchies which are bounded by democracy, and autocratic monarchs too, where they rule against the people's will.

Monarchies which are "bounded by democracy" are governments in which the monarchs themselves are figureheads. In other words, they're not interestingly monarchies.

"The people's will" is a propaganda term cooked up by those who want exclusive rights to say what "the people's will" is. To find out what "the people" want, you need some sort of process by which the people, individually and collectively, can 1) learn about democracy, 2) decide what they want, and 3) organize themselves to do what they want. Elections are a start toward democracy; you need (at least) free speech and organizations which empower people both individually and collectively.

@Cassiodorus1 said in #65:
> Elections are a start toward democracy

And sometimes you need an autocratic leader able to dismantle the previous oligarchy, because the people's will goes against other people's will... This is the reason why many European absolute monarchs were, indeed, more democratic than their own people as a whole.

Human affairs are often paradoxical.

@OctoPinky said in #66:
> And sometimes you need an autocratic leader able to dismantle the previous oligarchy, because the people's will goes against other people's will...

Is that what autocratic leaders do? Oh and you get to choose what they do? If they're autocratic, remember, the answer is "no."

> This is the reason why many European absolute monarchs were, indeed, more democratic than their own people as a whole.
>
> Human affairs are often paradoxical.

Examples from history please.

@Cassiodorus1 said in #67:
> Examples from history please.

Carlos III (Spain), Christian VI and Frederick VI (Denmark), Louis XIV and Napoléon (France) did a good job in spreading education, abolishing older privileges and favoring meritocracy in the economy and politics. Established nobility and the Church (where applicable) was not happy, of course.

Before that, I'm no expert, but the Medici in Florence, Sejong in Korea and emperor Hadrian come to my mind as "benevolent dictators".

Question: Do you tolerate communists?

Answers: 7 pages :)

Things are going fine until now.

The USSR (communists) and the USA competed in ruling the world. USA won the competition. As bad as if USSR had been the winner. No good when only one major power is the ruler of our globe. Powerful countries as well as poor countries are forming an alliance against USA. It will be interesting what result will be in future. Capitalism can be as bad as communism.