To gpit-
"
In theory,theory and practice are the same.But in practice they are different."
In theory,the perfection of theories as you may have rightly pointed is not possible to compare,and therefore it is meaningless to do so.
We can study the Marxist concept of democracy under the following categories-
-Criticism of bourgeois concept of democracy
-Dictatorship of Proletariat(DP)
-Changes made by Lenin and Stalin to the concept of DP
-Other Marxist writers on democracy
Criticism of bourgeois democracy-
I am sure you are well aware of the criticism from Marx,democracy is nothing but a convenient form for the maintenance of class rule.
Now we must see
how 'communist' China really is.
"China has been the most rapidly growing economy in the world over the past 25 years. This growth has fueled a remarkable increase in per capita income and a decline in the poverty rate.
At the same time, however, different kinds of disparities have increased. Income inequality has risen, propelled by the rural-urban income gap and by the growing disparity between highly educated urban professionals and the urban working class. There have also been increases in inequality of health and education outcomes. "
-David Dollar,World Bank Country Director for China
Gini Co-efficient for China- 46.9
(Compared to India's 36.8)
[Taken from CIA,World Factbook]
While there has been success in tackling poverty,income inequalities have gone out of hand n China.
So a 'communist' country with a large(and growing) class of bourgeois.
*Marx should take note*
-
Dictatorship of Proletariat
By the above figures,once can say that the situation is
Dictatorship of Bourgeois.
On July 1,2001 CCP party leader Jiang Zemin made the proposal to allow private entrepreneurs to join the party,ending a ban imposed in August 1989,after suppression of Tiananmen demonstrations.
Since then the number of capitalists have actually grown.
What would be more incongruous than having millionaires in a party created to represent the interest of workers and peasants?
Elites also rule in China.
Other characteristics we can talk as well regarding people's democracy,Chinese 'communism' fails on all of them.
This comes to another one of my quotes in response to you-
Geromix said:
"Earlier people(party officials) used to believe in Communsim,now they only believe in the Party(CPC)."
That in my opinion shows how China has changed and where Communism is in China.
It is now the party that matters not the ideology.(A sense of pragmatism is what that is being dictated in China and if this means abandoning core communist philosophies for capitalism then so be it.)It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white,as long as it catches the mice.
The less said the better about changes made by Stalin and Lenin.
Other Marxist writers include
Karl Kautsky,who believed that Lenin was wrong,he merged democratic tradition with Marxist socialist doctrine to lay the foundations of achieving socialism through democratic means.
Edward Bernstein,claimed that socialist revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat were neither necessary nor desirable.(He became the leading1] promulgator of Orthodox Marxism after the death of Friedrich Engels.)
Another Marxist revolutionary,
Rosa Luxemburg,also criticized anti-democratic principles of DP.
She believed that unlimited democracy,a free public opinion,freedom of election and press etc were necessary otherwise the DP would be replaced by the dictatorship of clique.
For her socialism and freedom were inseparable.
Then there is
Euro-communism and Palmiro Togliatti's ideas.
Thus,sitting in the West,you would agree to the different school of thought,Western Marxist concept has evolved in direct opposition to the Leninist concept,which is what you may subscribe to.
(You at least cannot claim that there is no dichotomy in Marxist theories/communist literature regarding democracy,there are different schools.)
Therefore you should take a re-look at your statement.
gpit said:
In fact communism theory contains democracy.
Things are not so simple.
A degree of exclusivity exists between democracy and communism.
Once again simplistic arguments.
The mere example of
Mayawati,is enough to say that its not mere elites who rule/govern India.
Being the Chief Minister of India's largest state,a Dalit,with a simple majority,is not an easy task.
Indian democracy is both participatory and elitist,and not merely elitist.
Ofc,interest groups will never yield their positions voluntarily.
Ranvir Sena,an upper caste army in Bihar used to attack lower castes,but now it is more or less dead.
Partly due to better governance and the acceptance of democracy at the grassroots level.
You also miss point of the
identity of culture,as i said earlier it is NOT the elimination of identity that is important,what is important is
the elimination of caste hierarchy.Each caste has its own unique micro-culture,elimination of one caste would be elimination of the culture.
[That is why i gave you the example of salad bowl,where identities are retained,while America is melting pot where identities merge into each other.]
For example in some parts of country, Dalits are trained to become priests in temples,taking the role of the Brahmin.
This
changes the hierarchy,and at the same time the identity of Brahmin is retained through the Dalit!!
Therefore contrary to your thinking,the status quo is changing in a much better manner though slowly.
The best judgment on a particular system comes from the people of that country and not from outsiders like you.
Nonetheless an enormous amount of your countrymen, including your elite Mr. Singh, never stop judging China in a pitiful and laughable way… , he also misjudged his city as well.
Yeah sure they do,but i am not them.
But its a reaction to the judgment what most Chinese and people like you often give on India.Tit for tat.
I have always maintained the stand that the Chinese can follow their model,if they wish to.If say one wants democracy in China,one can only speak about it,the real change has to happen from China.
-Geromix
