Democratic Centralism
DirtySanchez
Regular
Democratic Centralism is a Leninist form of government that is a mixture of Democracy and a dictatorship. It involves having a single party state and a single state ideal but it allows or debate within the party so that one man does not have absolute power.
So in short it the good that is dictatorship such as authority and national unity but it assures prevents a single dictator from going mad with power and bringing down the country. It also states that once a matter is voted on by the party all members are expected to follow and obey the directive. In my opinion this is the most logical system. This was the system used under Lenin and it is also used in the PRC as of 1982.
So in short it the good that is dictatorship such as authority and national unity but it assures prevents a single dictator from going mad with power and bringing down the country. It also states that once a matter is voted on by the party all members are expected to follow and obey the directive. In my opinion this is the most logical system. This was the system used under Lenin and it is also used in the PRC as of 1982.
Comments
So tell us, how did that work out for both of them?
Democratic Centralism was abandoned after Lenins death and wasn't brought back until Brezhnev and China is one of the fastest growing economy's in the world so I'd say it's working for them.
Show me one nation that has ever prospered long term under any sort of totalitarian system since the dawn of the industrial revolution, just one. And please don't come back again with China. They have only been around for about 60 some years and the majority of that time has not been exactly champagne and roses for the average Chinese citizen.
But as I was responding to this I finally figured out why your view on what makes a good government is so screwy. You approach the whole matter from the point of view of what is good for the state without regard to what is good for the people of the state. What you don't appear to grasp is that in the long run what is best for the viability and long term stability of the state is inexorably linked to what is best for the people of the state.
The primary failing of every political system I have seen you support is that they all look out for the interests of the state over the interests of the people in any area where there may be a conflict of interests between the two. When the state puts it's interests ahead of those of the people the people will suffer. When the people suffer the state will ultimately fail. For a state without people is nothing more that an idea or a meaningless piece of paper.
[The state] is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual... Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State... Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers.
The idea of the corporate state is that everyone participates in its on going management by means of officially sanctioned channels, including employers, workers, state officials, and even students. All citizens should remain occupied; model agricultural/industrial towns should be established, ideally females be banned from public employment, the ownership of all private enterprise with the state determining who is hired and for what position would be implemented, trade unions abolished and replaced by a grand council of employers, workers and other organs of state bureaucracy, and force people to spend a small percentage of their wealth on the growth and maintenance of the state. The state is above the actual fascist political party. This could be ensured, if a deficit was ran, in order to subsidize the implementation of massive public works projects and educational programs.
Beria also had the intention of raising the state above the communist party; but not really in the same way as fascism. The Communist Party had control of the state and led as the vanguard of the working class. According to Beria's son, Sergo Beria, whose stories regarding personal, inner-party matters are proven to be quite reliable, described his father's distaste for what he saw as Party interference. He mentions that Beria was opposed to the Communist Party interfering with matters that he believed it didn't understand, and ultimately sought a system in which the Party still was the only legitimate political organization for which members of the government would come from, but nonetheless, the state had the final authority over political and economic decisions instead of the Politburo or Central Committee of the CPSU.