Is a one party system basically the idea of communism?

Question

I'm very confused. Can someone point out the differences for me, or the similarities to give me a rough idea. Thanks

Answer 1

Communism is a system of economic control established through violent revolution against the capital-owning classes.  In a Communist state the state apparatus is controlled in its entirety by the Communist Party, and no other party is legally allowed to gain control of the government.

So there are many different kinds of one-party states.  Communism is one of them.

Answer 2

No, communism is mainly referring to government economic policy.  There can be fascist one party systems (n**i Germany), Marxist (Stalin), Monarchs(Jordan), Militarism, ect.

Answer 3

Communism is not a political system, but rather an economic system.

It is prone to one party rule, however.  

Capitalism is the polar opposite of communism.

Under communism, all land, all buildings, all manufacturing, everything is run by the state for the common good of everyone.  There are no rich or poor, there is only total equality for all.  That seems really good in theory but does not work in reality because communism takes away all incentive to excel.  Society becomes stagnant, there are no rewards for hard work or punishment for being lazy.

With capitalism, it is all about competition, the the end reward is money.  Pure capitalism does not work, that is what happened in France a few centuries back and they ended up with a revolution.  The rich controlled everything, the middle class was almost non existent and the poor were starving. The same thing has brought on revolutions in modern times. Cuba was one of them, out of control capitalism created mass poverty.  Capitalism thrives very well under some controls with socialism for needed services.  Such as our military, police, city to federal infrastructure and even medical care.  

One party systems can thrive under all economic systems.  Saudi Arabia is a monarchy with capitalism.  China is a one party system under capitalism and socialism for needed services with a mix of socialism and capitalism working side by side in vital industry, such as oil and power.  N Korea is a one party system with a communist economic system and it is doing extremely poor, except their totalitarian political system is thriving.  Cuba is slowly letting its markets open up under Raul Castro and I suspect they too will become a capitalistic economic system, with socialism for needed service with one party rule.

Democracy does not work everywhere.  Instant democracy can be very dangerous.  Prior to WWII there were about a dozen democracies in the world.  Now there are over 85 democracies of varing degrees.  Democracy and the expansion of democratic values have been doing pretty well on its own.  The USA has never gone to war to install democracy, we have gone to war to defend it.  The two wars we are in now, in part, the reason given was to install democracy.  I'd say, democracy has been set back, not forward by that.  

My point being,  we should never force our system on others, but rather let them decide for themselves.  I seriously doubt the democracy will continue for much longer in Afghanistan or Iraq after we have left.  They have thousands of years of totalitarian rule, to change it overnight is bound to pizz off a lot of people.  

A final note:  A friend of mine that is from Iran said to me, "I love your country, your people, and your society, but you can keep your stinking democracy to yourselves.  That will cause us nothing but trouble and bloodshed."

Peace

Jim

PS I live in China, a transplanted American.

.

Answer 4

Depends on who you talk to.

With communism, there is no need for other parties.  The idea, is that anyone who is interested in politics joins 'the party' which makes decisions.  Each local area has a 'soviet' which makes decisions for the local area.  Each 'soviet' elects someone to the next soviet (which is a tier of government) and so on.  It is a similar method of government to what he have now, but has more levels of government, and more local accountability.

The difference is though that you only elect your local representative.  The overall leader is not directly elected by you, but is elected by the ' supreme soviet' which has members that are elected by the 'soviets' below it.

It is meant to be more accountable.  Has never been implemented properly in practice though.  

And for the record, communist governments have been elected into power as well.

Answer 5

There are several "one party" systems. Monarchy with a king as ruler. Fascism with the state conjoined with business as a ruler. Communism with the state as a ruler. All of them are tyrannies.

Answer 6

No, because the one party does not have to be communist. Look at Burma, they're "one party" and they're military authoritarian dictators.

Answer 7

Yeah, and it was one of Karl Rove's stated goals.

"One Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance"

http://www.amazon.com/One-Party-Country-...