Hmmmm, I come from a former socialist republic(Poland) that definitely wasn't a dictatorship, and yet the survailence was extremely widespread(each telephone call would begin with the operator announcing "this conversation is being monitored"), you had secret police keeping secret files on citizens along with the doctrine of "no one is innocent, you just need to gather enough data about someone". Protesting the ruling party? We'll find this one time you did something 6 years earlier and put you in jail for it. Completely unrelated to the protest, of course.

I live in UK now and it's absolutely terrifying how every move by the UK government reminds me of the stories told about the communism back home.

Sure, communism itself might not be about reducing democracy, but I guess it would be very hard to find an example where it didn't.

Edit: ok, according to wikipedia, I'm wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_United_Workers%27_Party

"Until 1989, the PUWP held dictatorial powers"

Loving the correction! The world needs more people like you!

I believe there are two separate axes. You can have a free market without civil liberties (i. e. Singapore, or Germany ca. 1933-1945), or a less-free market with civil liberties (maybe the Nordic model). "Dictator" is really only concerned with the latter, apparently, although I have always associated it with the political right.

You're right in thinking that it appears hard to be truly democratic without (some form of) a free market. At least I can't think of an example. And I've met many eastern Europeans with an aversion to even slightly left-of-center economic policies because of their history. But communism doesn't have a monopoly on being terrible to its citizens.

An economic system regulating common business interactions and transactions among citizens and civilian organizations is not to be equivocated with a system of government exercising authority and enforcing behavior through police, military and state apparatuses.

A system of authority and security does not operate at an economic level of autonomy. A regimented heirarchy differs from the conceptual model of interaction among autonomous individuals and organizational collectives.

> Sure, communism itself might not be about reducing democracy, but I guess it would be very hard to find an example where it didn't.

Replacing "communism" with "government" may be just as accurate.

Yes, agreed and I stand corrected.

However, I think I was trying to make a different point, although failed in my writing. A big reason policies like this get passed, without protest, is because the people of the UK trust the government to "look after them" as a parent would do. It's all about (don't worry about thinking or using your brain, we'll do that for you).

You are wrong.

The snoopers charter was met with protest, it got struck down and blocked by the Lib dems, so they shoved it through with minimal debate and no meaningful public consultation once they got majority power. This is a proposed law which has been leaked (why do laws need to be leaked?) which they will force through, public opposition or not.

Well, most communist-like states have been dictatorships. Although they've mainly claimed to be temporary technocracies.

So was Nazi Germany, Spain under Franco, pre-WW2 Japan etc. All claimed to be temporary technocracies, even when the technocrats are essentialy the military.

True. It's a convenient excuse. The people, they are too naive and misguided, and need mentoring. And our enemies, they are strong and threatening.

You know we don't need comments like this here. Please don't.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand how (presumably) an adult can make a comment like the grandparent's, conflating socialism with dictatorship, in earnest. It frustrates me to see people believing such obvious propaganda.