Posted on 09/15/2025 1:53:29 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
Cousins, Not Strangers: The Illusion of Difference Between Communism and Parliamentary Government by CIB-173RDABN
At first glance, communism and parliamentary democracy appear to be opposites. One is often portrayed as authoritarian, centralized, and controlling, while the other wears the cloak of liberalism, freedom, and public accountability. Yet when you peel back the layers — particularly the economic mechanics, electoral systems, and long-term outcomes — the two begin to look less like strangers and more like cousins.
Let’s begin with economic control. Communism is blunt: the state owns the means of production. Businesses, land, and industry are centralized under state authority.
Parliamentary democracies, by contrast, typically allow private ownership — but regulate it so extensively that ownership becomes a matter of permission, not control. Heavy taxation, strict labor laws, environmental restrictions, and social mandates shape the behavior of private businesses.
The state may not own the factory, but it tells the owner what they can produce, how they can operate, how much they must pay, and how much of their profit will be confiscated. In practice, the difference becomes one of form, not function. Risk is privatized; control and benefit are socialized.
Now consider elections. Parliamentary systems often boast of having multiple parties and regular elections — unlike communist systems, which generally feature a single ruling party. But these multiple parties rarely serve as true alternatives. Party elites select candidates, not the public. In practice, they are narrow factions within an ideological corridor, each promising the same policies with different slogans.
In many parliamentary systems, regional dominance — such as Ottawa in Canada — means entire geographic areas are effectively disenfranchised. The result? Rule by majority at the expense of any meaningful minority voice — or as some have put it, two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
And what of constitutional restraints? In the United States, a written Constitution provides an external framework to limit government — even if often bent or blurred. But in many parliamentary systems and communist regimes, constitutions are either unwritten, symbolic, or regularly amended to suit the needs of the ruling class.
The government can change the rules of the game at any time. Laws that were “voluntary” last year become “mandatory” this year. Protections for speech, property, and protest are conditional — and disappear when inconvenient.
This is rule by whim, not rule of law.
We can look to the United Kingdom for a living example. Arrests for “hate speech” on social media, prosecutions for "liking" offensive memes, and suppression of peaceful protest are now common. The UK doesn’t need a Chinese-style censorship bureau — it achieves the same result through vague laws, cultural pressure, and politicized policing.
The tools differ, but the outcome is the same: speech that challenges power is silenced.
And in both systems, one truth remains: the government exists to protect itself first. Whether dressed in socialist rhetoric or democratic ceremony, the machinery of state serves the interests of those who run it. The people are useful only insofar as they produce labor, pay taxes, and remain compliant.
This brings us to the ultimate flaw shared by both systems: money. Neither system is built on sustainable economics. Communism collapses under its own inefficiencies, unable to create value or reward innovation. Parliamentary democracies collapse under the weight of their own social promises — welfare, healthcare, housing, pensions, subsidies — all financed by fewer and fewer workers and sustained only through debt and inflation.
What both models rely on is a Ponzi scheme: take from the productive to give to the dependent, skim off the top for bureaucracy, and hope no one notices the books don’t balance.
But Ponzi schemes always fail. The math always catches up. When the takers outnumber the makers, when the debt outpaces the productivity, when the promises exceed the means — collapse becomes inevitable.
The end will not be dramatic. More likely, a slow decay. Then a crisis. Then the emergence of a “new” government promising reform and renewal — a reset. A recycling of ideas under a fresh banner. But unless the system itself is rebuilt from a different foundation, the cycle simply restarts.
Because whether ruled by a central committee or a coalition parliament, it was never about serving the people.
It was always about preserving the system. ________________________________________
I think some of what you say here is relevant to early US Constitutional experience, specifically the failure of Pennsylvania’s unicameral legislature after the Revolution, a very fortuitous failed experiment that helped shape the US Constitution. I think you would like this paper:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20092180
I think some of what you say here is relevant to early US Constitutional experience, specifically the failure of Pennsylvania’s unicameral legislature after the Revolution,
—
There were many historical cases I could have used but my aim was to point out what is happening today in the UK, Europe, Canada and Australia. They all have Parliamentary forms of governments, and they all have the same weakness. What we are seeing (in my opinion) is the system collapsing under it’s own weight. My essay is just my opinion on why it is happening. Again, it is just an opinion piece.
Years back, I'd heard a talk which asserted that liberty is the sterling idea, and "freedom" required a prepositional; phrase to follow, as in "freedom from invasive government."
As we watch the mess in European governments in this time as in our own inner cities, "the system collapsing under it's own weight."
So what’s the alternative?
How do you explain what’s happening in Argentina?
Although, if you don't mind, I will alter it to "speech that challenges government power and authority is silenced.
And maybe add; "by any and all means necessary."
I think it’s a valid opinion, and the paper I linked (which is a SUPERB piece of scholarship) will provide you with more evidence.
I don't mind in the least, but applaud your precision. Kudos.
Wiki: "The government of Argentina, within the framework of a federal system, is a presidential representative democratic republic. The president of Argentina is both head of state and head of government."
I'll explain Argentina as I might these United States.
By way of comparison, the German parties NOT the AfD are discussing how to disenfranchise about 1/4 of the electorate. The British Parliament has "lords" in it, and the EU parliament is most ineffective with many "member states" -- as the European elite wish sovereign nations to think themselves -- often pressured by the European Commission atop the system; that EC is not elected by the people."
By way of comparison in terms of a republic, the Soviets and the East German government called themselves "republics" but were not, without opposition politics. In the same way, other "republics" in name only us the word to camouflage their true authoritarian natures.
I would do better with definitions, but there are many sources available. Argentina's Javier Milei is cutting the size of government. Who argues with that? Government employees, and those politicians who use such employees to seek rent and profits from a people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.