I'm just here to set you guys strait. Communism and socialism are purely democratic. Stalinism, the kind of socialism exhibited in the Soviet Union, was not democratic. But in their forms as put down by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Gramsci, is entirely Democratic and egalitarian. Those of you who only look at the American propagandized version of history will obviously fail to see that. Even when Marx said the word dictatorship he meant it only in the sense that a social democracy will only serve the interests of the lower classes. As for violent revolution, that was the course of change in the late nineteenth century. Now we have routes for peaceful change such as demonstrations, elections, etc. So they were simply "victims of their time" when they said that violent revolution was the only course of change. When it comes to "Big Brother," you Americans have secret police state where you are watched without knowing about it. At any time you are outdoors, you had better suspect yourself of being watched. Cuba , on the other hand, is a success story for the third world. Castro has been delayed in bringing in democracy because of America's constant efforts to destabilize the Cuban government and economy. He has thus had to sacrifice rights for the sake of security. That is not a move I necessarily agree with, but is understandable considering the circumstances. Socially Castro has been a godsend to his people. Before the Revolution, Cuba had one of the lowest literacy rates and one of the highest poverty rates in the western hemisphere, as well as an almost nonexistent or inaccessible health care system. Now they have the Third highest literacy rate in the western hemisphere, a much more equal distribution of wealth, and basic health care is provided to all people, something even the great and invincible America has yet to grant its citizens. their economy grew by more than eight percent last year, much faster than the American economy. All this from a country that had ninety percent of its business interrupted by the American embargo after the Revolution. In an economic point of view, true communism as Marx designed would also not put a damper on the creativity and ingenuity of its citizens. If you wanted to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or an inventor nothing would stop you from becoming that and getting the higher education necessary just because you wouldn't be made more than anyone else. It would make you happy so you would do it because that's what you want to do. And even under communism you have to work so that way you can make your contribution to society. Without work you wont get paid. No pay for voluntary unemployment. The economics of Marxism are totally sound. As for political parties, there is no reason why parties that promote alternative ideas such as capitalism will not be allowed to exist and function. The basic nature of government will not change, but instead of serving the rich corporate interests, it would serve the interests of the previously exploited peoples. As for the government becoming corrupt with wealth, the government would not just sit on the money like the rich do. It would be able to use the profits as either a source of income other than taxes, or just give everybody in the country a slice of the GDP as their salary. So do your reading and you will be able to find the real answers, rather than just swallowing the government's elitist propaganda.
"The constitutional republic is a dictatorship of our collective exploiters, the social democratic red republic is a dictatorship of their former allies."