[ratboy666]

The USSR did call itself democratic. In a sense, since it was central control for all. The USA did NOT call itself democratic -- the preferred term up to the '70s was "constitutional republic". To avoid the flattening that "democracy" was perceived to produce. The argument is that democracy ALWAYS leads to tyranny and collapse.

To quote "Both are anti-democratic". Which I don't understand. Is your claim that both systems (as practiced in the USSR and USA) led to extreme wealth concentration? Did the economy increase during this concentration? If so, do you still consider this "anti-democratic".

[greedo]

Democracy is inherent and implicit in a republic. And I think you're mistaken about "constitutional republic." That term really wasn't used much, though representative democracy and "democratic republic" were terms that were used more frequently.

The entire argument about the US not having a democracy but a republic really stems (in modern times) from the John Birch Society.

[ratboy666]

You could well be right (I am not American). I do recall discussing the GDR with some USA people... a "democratic republic". Was told, back then, that the term had been co-opted. But then, I don't know much about the John Birch Society.

[specialist]

> Is your claim that both systems led to extreme wealth concentration?

Yes.

> The argument is that democracy ALWAYS leads to tyranny and collapse.

Rather than Plato's mob rule criticism, I'm using the more contemporary capitalism-vs-democracy (winner-takes-all) food fight.

The tension in USA, at least, has always been wealth vs democracy. The "liberal" in the traditional "liberal democracy" was a reference to our economic system of free enterprise. The aspiration was to balance winner-takes-all with will-of-the-people. Basically the formulation of modern Nordic "democratic socialism".

[dd36]

False. We’ve always had a representative democracy.