LoneRifle wrote:Historically speaking, Communism has a rather sordid history of destroying democratic institutions, not making them. I'll stand by that. I take back the dirt comment. I actually pity you for believing that drivel that Communism is somehow compatible with Democracy. It isn't. Never has. Never will be.
I pity you for believing strawman conceptions of communism. The insult of drivel is a still a cheap shot. If you really want to discuss actual academic things, that stuff should be left at the door. As is with these assertive inductions of "never has, never will be" which has a wishful component no matter how much of the past you cite. You can't leech credibility from intellectual language by dipping into it halfheartedly and then say "I know history and you don't."
Some rudimentary ideas on what is Marxism. If scholarly debate is ensues these views can be refined or revised. (That is the proper attitude for doing academic work anyway, and I will go out on a limb and assume you know and agree.)
But first, if you want to get academic and discuss "history" you better define your terms well from the onset. The first question is, what is democracy? Democracy is itself a historical term, first growing out of a system of governance present in the Greek city-states. The meaning of it then cannot be seriously applied to industrial eras and beyond. When I say democracy, I mean putting up some things for popular vote, especially social policies. If there is a process that credibly determines the best fit officials to carry out a policy, then they should enter office for a term.
Second question. What is the metric for a democratic institution. How do you judge when it is good enough or when it is destroyed? If you say for example that Tsarist Russia in 1917 had a democratic institution, you have to back it up with social facts. And I'm well aware of the practice among historians to scrutinize people for cherry-picking evidence. You want to play the history expert and obtain the credibility that follows from it, I will hold you to that standard.
Third question. What exactly IS compatible with democracy? What does compatible mean to you? Does it mean that there must be no mutual contradiction between fixed sets of dogma? Does it mean that you need to empirically satisfy the criteria for a "good enough" democracy, whatever the criteria is?
If you can refrain from burying quips in between the lines I can certainly handle an academic discussion. But can you.