Democracy,compatible with huge population

You cannot start a revolution and take over an entire country without the support of the majority. Not only that, but sources from the time period clearly mentioned the massive support enjoyed by the Bolsheviks.

As for Hitler, he came to power democratically (he was voted in) and then took complete power. He enjoyed massive support throughout his rule.

TGS is correct. They came about by democratic means. That they then install safeguards so they can not be removed comes later. Communism and Fascisms are/can be democratic in nature. Its just not always best if those in charge then decide that there wont be any more voting, or that you are only allowed to vote for 1 party, because only 1 politcal party is allowed, an all the candidates belong to that party. 

It is very easy to understand the early soviet idea of democracy looking at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly#Election_Results_.28November_12.2C_1917.29

They "compensated" for the lack of support with military power. This is hardly democratic in any way.
Of course they were supported by a great number of people, but their ideological point of view was that the working classes were not educated enough to understand their full potential, so the noble and wise bolsheviki had to seize power to pave the way for the future.

However the future itself saw extreme use of the secret service to supress their political enemies.
I once even read about an incident (Unfortunately I have no source for this one, and it sounds almost too extreme even for soviet standards) when Lenin made a request for a list of potential political enemies. An officer of the secret service wanted to impress him by collecting 200 names of people, some of whom were just random. Lenin received the list and signed it with a blue cross.
A few months later most of the people on the list were dead. Only later the officer learned that Lenin always used to sign documents with a blue cross to confirm that he read them.
The same officer was later appointed leader of the secret service and rose to great honor - until he was murdered by the party because he had become too powerful.

I also remember reading of an account of Mao complaining about how people honored some chinese emperor of an older dynasty who had 460 academics buried alive, whereas he himself had 46 000 academics buried alive.

How can this be compared to the USA? I know their secret services were not too altruistic in the cold war, even towards their own citizens, but never on a comparable scale. Or if they did it is secret until today. Even "Operation Artichoke" which Im least comfortable about, didnt seem to have a political background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ARTICHOKE
(Unfortunately the english version of the article is very short, the german version mentions the use of drugs and physical torture as well as hypnosis and mental torture with some of the subjects dying. The experiments were supposedly inspired by those of the National Socialist concentration-camp "Doctors".)

I think theres not much sense in discussing how any communist regime is more democratic than the USA, and thus to return to the topic, we see that external pressure seems to lead to democracies being regulated more with a smaller elite using its power to concentrate the states actions on special targets. There are countless examples of this. Mabye stable democracies are too "saturated" or too inflexible with their controversial interests to use their power against other states.
There are also only few incidents of stable democracies declaring war on other democracies. But the real question is: What is the ultimate goal of a state?
Is it to enable its citizens the best possible circumstances to live? Or is it power?

Originally posted by opuslola I don't believe I have to do this, but; http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/dubiousquotes/a/stalin_quote.htm And I even used the Urban Legends site! Maybe it was a vote of the Central Committe that you were refering to? I wonder what happened to the first comrade to vote against old Joe?

A very good idea! Locke, Hobbs, Mill, Machiavelli and a host of others!

Heck it couldn't hurt, and it might even help?

For sure, I hated high school, because it was so boring.  I like college so much better because at last I could study interesting things.  More important to me is the survival of democracy with liberty and I am NOT sure that will happen without education for that purpose.   In fact I am quite sure it will not happen.

Edited by Carol - 16-Aug-2010 at 18:11

Bureacratic control of the masses threatens the US as much as the liberty of people anywhere in the world is threatened. 

Edited by Carol - 16-Aug-2010 at 18:15

Originally posted by Carol When the masses do not understand the priniciple of democracy they can not maintian their liberty. Government sure as blazes will not give people liberty.

But the what if the masses are less than smart? It appears as though in this country, the masses do not understand democracy, nor logic.

Originally posted by opuslola Then, it appears that the great intellect calling him/her self "TGS", has very little regard for his less than intellectual fellow citizens and neighbors! How sad, TGS must really be a lonely person?

I have no respect for people who choose to be dumb, correct. Thats a choice. No one is less intellectual than anyone else, some choose to better themselves through education, others choose to lie to themselves and keep themselves misinformed.

Thats atleast 40% of the US population.

Originally posted by Van_Möck It is very easy to understand the early soviet idea of democracy looking at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly#Election_Results_.28November_12.2C_1917.29 They "compensated" for the lack of support with military power. This is hardly democratic in any way. Of course they were supported by a great number of people, but their ideological point of view was that the working classes were not educated enough to understand their full potential, so the noble and wise bolsheviki had to seize power to pave the way for the future. However the future itself saw extreme use of the secret service to supress their political enemies. I once even read about an incident (Unfortunately I have no source for this one, and it sounds almost too extreme even for soviet standards) when Lenin made a request for a list of potential political enemies. An officer of the secret service wanted to impress him by collecting 200 names of people, some of whom were just random. Lenin received the list and signed it with a blue cross. A few months later most of the people on the list were dead. Only later the officer learned that Lenin always used to sign documents with a blue cross to confirm that he read them. The same officer was later appointed leader of the secret service and rose to great honor - until he was murdered by the party because he had become too powerful. I also remember reading of an account of Mao complaining about how people honored some chinese emperor of an older dynasty who had 460 academics buried alive, whereas he himself had 46 000 academics buried alive. How can this be compared to the USA? I know their secret services were not too altruistic in the cold war, even towards their own citizens, but never on a comparable scale. Or if they did it is secret until today. Even "Operation Artichoke" which Im least comfortable about, didnt seem to have a political background. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ARTICHOKE (Unfortunately the english version of the article is very short, the german version mentions the use of drugs and physical torture as well as hypnosis and mental torture with some of the subjects dying. The experiments were supposedly inspired by those of the National Socialist concentration-camp "Doctors".) I think theres not much sense in discussing how any communist regime is more democratic than the USA, and thus to return to the topic, we see that external pressure seems to lead to democracies being regulated more with a smaller elite using its power to concentrate the states actions on special targets. There are countless examples of this. Mabye stable democracies are too "saturated" or too inflexible with their controversial interests to use their power against other states. There are also only few incidents of stable democracies declaring war on other democracies. But the real question is: What is the ultimate goal of a state? Is it to enable its citizens the best possible circumstances to live? Or is it power?