Could anyone highlight the main difference between these 3? Also, i remember reading about the concept of communism which is very beautiful, however i do not really understand why there has been no country that has successfully become a communist state. Could anyone explain why?
Your question is somehow very unspecific.
Generally there are three forms of Amount of Rulers: One, Some, All citizens and the differentiating them by Alltruistic(good) and Egoistic(bad) introduced by Aristotle.
This creates a table of the Form: Alltruistic | Egoistic
One: (Philosopher)King | Tyranis
Some: Aristocracy |Oligarchy
All: Polity/Democracy | Ochlocracy/Democracy
Therefore the Tyranis(Dictatorship) is generally seperated from Democracy based on the Amount of citizens having a say and possibly the Form (depends on your understanding of Democracy). The Dictator focuses on his Egoistic Goals enriching himself on the cost of the citizens.
The understanding of Democracy varies depending on who you read. While Aristotle sees Polity as the legitimit form and Democracy(random selection of officials common in ancient athens see: Demarchy) as the illegitimit form. Polity is understood in this context as Constitutational Parlamentary Governement decided by enlightend citizens. This section is mainly to show the broadness of the Terminology.
I support more the distinguishing with the Terms of Polybios to address the modern situation. Where Democracy is a positiv Term. In opposition to democracy you have Ochlocracy or "mob-rule" as the negative form of "All".
We arrive at grave Problems when looking at communism, since A) communism is again a very broad often used and missused term and B) establishing the Form of Communism.
I want to focus first on B) here. Polybios describes a Anacyclosis(cyclical theory of constitutions/political evolution). Since communism sees it self as "freeing of the cycles of the past" it is debatable if the forms used to describe historical cyclical occuring patterns can be used for communism at all. Or in other words if forms of state organisation can be used to describe something thats not a state.
(Now comes the rather personal understanding of me part.) However if we view forms as relational structures between a group of people the application is justified. To simplify matters in this regard it seems to be the easiest to conceptualize communism as special form of anarchism.
The relations between the people are power relations. Power has the characteristic of not being distributed equally in any given time. Furthermore power can be subdivided into authority(accepting someone freely) and violence(usage of physical intimidation to generate acceptance). State forms organize the power distribution in a certain way using usually authority and violence but to different degrees. Anarchism/Anarchistic states(f.e. revolution or civil wars) (often) do not organize or organize to a lesser degree. Leading to a more "law of the jungle/mob-like" power structure that is prone to demagoges (Robespierre/Hitler/Lenin/Mao/Pol-Pot/Kim Il-sung/Mussolini ect.). Making it's form the bad "All" form, where basically anyone can rise to power, where traits needed are bruttality and deception to hold your position.
Polybios describes in his Anacyclosis that 1 monarchy becomes(->) 2 Kingship -> 3 tyranny -> 4 aristocracy -> 5 oligarchy -> 6 democracy -> 7 ochlocracy ->1. I however think the 7 -> 1 part is questionable. It seems to be the case that out of 7, 3 arises aswell/or at least rather quick. Since you need violence to cement your position. (See Party Purges under lenin 1921, aswell as founding f.e. the cheka)
We can therefore conclude that communism understood as anarchistic is a very unstable state of powerrelations that tends to lead to tyrany and violence seemingly following the Anacyclosis more or less.
However to have a bit a clearer understanding of communism we should look at it a bit more closley (A).
Communism is an Idealism, based on an idealized view of reality(humans are per definition good, power can be evenly distributed, ect.) and fundamentally fails at this part. Positive intention does not implie positive outcome. The supporters of this totalitarian ideology fail to see the necessary leading to totalitarianism due to the idealized nature of communism. Because the supporters imply that the positive intention is sufficient. The idealization itself makes communism force people to being something their not, demanding a control and forcing structure (communistic parties) that guarantees that they stay something they are not. This structure accumulates power and as history shows missuses this power(f.e. killing mentally retarded people for "not being equal enough").
Consider that communism is not based on the usage of violence(violence is only used to transition to communism), since violence seems to imply an illegitimate state like powerstructure. It rather is based on authority of certain ideas that should be morally ensured. However we know that based on variations of Individuals in morality of Populations that there exist extreme cases of moral frameworks despite the moral dominant frameworks not supporting it at all (f.e. serial killers, pedophiles ect.).
If the state doesn't exist as a framework of violent power negating/punishing this acts of violence by individuals, theres either no structure to prevent murder, or it is based on initiative of self proclaimed protectors, that themself have a specific moral framework which themself justifiy their violence and accumlate power. However unlike democracy that limits the competence of the people with justification to use violence, this is not the case for the "communist case" where it's unrestricted and mob-like vengeance actions like killing the pedophile/serial-killer can take place. Which itself leads to overextensiv use of force generally leading to a tyranny of "one" or "some" powerfull people. The acummulation of power does never end since the idealized state is never realised, therefore one can always justify new restrictions torwards possible opponents by drawing the lines closer and closer to ones personal view.
So a communist state is an utopia that can not be reached. It also seems to attract people who see themself as godlike figures that could, if only given the chance, create a real communist utopia and cure the world. Overestimating themself by idealizing themself, this is not only arrogant but also false. There are plenty of countries that have become communist states, they all are expieriencing simular outcome despite vastly different cultural backgrounds. If the result is always the same thats what communism looks like. Just because it's not how you expected the process to turn out doesn't negate the fact that it is what happens when you implement communism. The result is that it is a failure with tens of Millions of Dead people in just one century, everytime leading to totalitarian dictatorship and godlike person cult. Breading on the positive intentions of the naivie dreamers to create a fall of the current structure to allow powerhungry maniacs, that don't want to obey conventional moral/cultural laws, to rise to the top, and rather use violence to achieve their goal namley being in power.
Making Democracy a just and legitimate system, while communism is a demagogic illegitimate system that leads to unnecessary harm and death.
I personally hope this ideology is dead for good.
I'll try to answer your last point re why there has been no communist society and, hopefully, cover some of your other points on the way.
Firstly, I'm going to focus on a Marxist approach as that's been the basis for most non-trivial attempts at forming a communist society.
So, what is communism? From a Marxist standpoint it is a society that follows the inevitable transformation from agrarian to bourgeois capitalist to state socialist to communist society.
Marx believed that it would be characterised by the lack of a state, lack of class difference and where each would produce according to their ability and each would consume according to their need. This is, presumably, the beautiful thing that you heard about.
Many people, particularly in the early 20C, also believed this to be beautiful. As such, there were numerous attempts to institute state socialism either from an existing capitalist state or bypassing that entirely (as was the case in Russia).
Up to this point, this analysis is reasonably uncontroversial. The next bit is my view that I've not heard elsewhere.
My view is that, up to a point, Marx was right. Although not inevitable (some societies spotted the flaw before the transformation), there does appear to be a natural transformation between societal structures. Unfortunately, the thing that follows state socialism, and consequently what many see as communism, turns out to have a somewhat different character to Marx's conception. Specifically, it turns out to be a totalitarian, police state where everyone is equally badly off except for a small, dictatorial elite.
So you see the dichotomy. In my view, we have seen communism i.e. what follows state socialism. It's just very, very different from what Marx thought (hoped?) it would be.
BTW following Marx's transformation idea, it does appear that there is also a natural transition from this totalitarian communism to democratic capitalism cf Eastern Europe. My personal view is that the reason for the Marxist concept of an "inevitable" progression is fairly straightforward: people tend to find similar solutions to similar problems and similar societies often have similar problems.
I'd also argue that anyone who thinks that democratic capitalism is the end state isn't really taking notice of history.
This is more of a political question than philosophical.
Democracy and dictatorship are polar opposites. A democracy is a state that's governed by the people, while a dictatorship is ruled by just one individual. There are many shades of gray in between. The U.S. calls itself a democracy but is actually an oligarchy - a state governed by a relatively small number of powerful people.
Communism is essentially an economic system in which the government owns the means of production, making it a form of government as well. It's an extreme form of socialism.
Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro could both be loosely described as communist dictators, but they were as different as night and day.
There have been a number of socialist/communist states, and judging their success is as difficult as judging the "success" of socialist states. As Castro said, "Where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?" Much of the "success" in the U.S. is more accurately described as exploitation and crime.
Almost any state that embraces socialism will come under attack by the U.S. and its allies, and the major weapons now used include internal destabilization. That's a major reason why there don't appear to be many successful communist states.
On the other hand, there are more homeless people in "progressive" Seattle than all of Cuba, and socialist Libya was Africa's brightest star.
Which isn't to say that communism is the BEST answer. Many people, myself included, are more enamored of a so-called "mixed economy" combining capitalism and socialism. The so-called "pink tide" that gripped Latin America so recently is a fabulous examples. They were making great progress, but now the revolution has been turned upside down by foreign meddling, including sabotaging Argentina's economy.
It's very difficult to make accurate comparisons between capitalism and socialism because of the endless games, not to mention an ocean of propaganda.
In an attempt to give you bare conceptual definitions:
Dictatorship : a form of governance in which absolute power is exercised by a sole authority
Democracy : a form of governance in which power is divided to the demos (the people)
Communism : a form of organization of an oikos in which one privileges the production of value that is shared in "common" (as opposed to exclusivizable forms of products, values and priviledges).
To me there's zero need to have hypercomplex definitions of these things as that's often used to obfuscate the underlying ideas and replace them with particular iterations or particular conceptions as though they somehow foreclose the human capacity to think anew. There are as many past, present and possible iterations of democracies as there are of communisms.
To your sub-question regarding iterations of communism, one needs to first ground it but understanding and articulating what is the meaning of a political concept. Is a concept a thing? Or is it designed to express the "essence" or necessary criteria of something? This is why I prefer bare concepts. You strip ones mental representations of what is contingent and unnecessary from it. If a US politician called some modest reform of capitalist exploitation "communism" but it does nothing to change or even alter the extent of exclusivizable privilege, you can say with relative certainty that although the name is used for purposes of epithet, it is not conceptually (factually) accurate to say it is communism. The same with a State that may have x y z as potential goals or slogans. Does something make an earnest attempt at or achieve something that undoes capitalist exploitation (as exercized by either capitalist or State)? If not, one should seek a more accurate, perhaps more nuanced description of it (e.g. Soviet State Capitalism).
If I were the first person to create a TV, and the TV kinda sucked, it had a lot of static, it's black and white, it's too big and clunky and complicated and expensive, it can be a TV, still have a shitload of problems, but I wouldn't even be aware of just what one could do with that idea 50 in the future. This is very basic and uncontroversial a statement in any area of discussion, with the exception of things that have the potential to disturb relations of established power. This is why despite being a planet of 7-8 billion people with tons of brilliant minds, we passively "buy-in" to this idea that there's only one form of economic relations of production that can work and more than that, we admonish people for even thinking about fixing the sources of the problem and global capitalist watchdogs like the US actually physically attack, subvert, and even promote coups in nations that want to exist outside of the sphere of neo-liberal capitalism.
I've read a few of the answers and have to agree that it can be a complex issue.
But, I take note of your question. You've asked someone to highlight the main differences between the three. That means avoiding all the various in-depth explanations that cut across political science, sociology, and economics.
However, before I give you my simple solution I'd like to provide some caveats and assumptions:
- There are many types and combinations of dictatorship, communism, and democracy.
- These are not mutually exclusive and can occur in varying strengths. You could say that authoritarianism is a soft form of dictatorship, socialism a soft from of communism, and democracy a form of populism.
- While there are ideological and social aspects of these terms, I'm assuming you are looking for the most common usage, which is political. The other perspectives are really based on the analysis of justification / ideology and impacts of these political concepts. That is, I'd argue that the more complex discussions on this topic are derivative and theoretical.
- That the simplest and most direct way to explain these concepts as political... that is, relate to the government and control structures of a society.
My 'simple' answer coming now..
Dictatorship: Control of government is concentrated in a single person. This is mostly bad. Some people have argued that Singapore is benefiting from a 'benevolent dictatorship' in Mr Lee. But by and large, dictatorships are corrupt, criminal, and in every case - repressive. Maybe it only works for very small populations who willingly accept a single-person ruler, but if that type of ruler has the genuine support of their people, then they are almost a type of perpetually elected president. The reality is that a dictator is not voted in or out, and only survives by force.
Communism: Control of government by committee - peers who nominate and support each other. Just like Dictatorship, there is no opportunity for the population to have any say, and the views of the committee are inflexibly applied to all. It's similar to a dictatorship in many ways. However, I'm sure there are many people who will want me to include the economic and ideological aspects of Communism, as these elements are intrinsically linked. Communism also differs from Dictatorships and Democracies in that it includes rules on how resources are allocated amongst its citizens. However, Communism is NOT intrinsically linked to religion or personal ideologies as some people state. That is Leninism, Stalinism, or Maoism. These leaders created additional layers to their version of Communism. There are many religious Kibbutz in Israel that practice Communism - so religion is not strictly an issue. Hippies also set up their own communes.
Democracy: Control by people who are only temporarily allowed to sit in a position, based on whether they can remain elected to those positions. The structure of these positions can vary, with concentration of power in a single person (president, but balanced by congress) or in a party (parliament, but balanced by the houses of parliament). Electoral power is held by voters, and over time this has included only the elites and educated, or the general population. Even until the recently, blacks and women were barred from voting in most democracies. The general concept is that one person carries one vote, but with the electoral college in the US, and the practice of gerrymandering, it's possible to give some votes more value than others. While still imperfect, the the advantage of this governing structure is that it provides far more incentive to remove corruption and govern for the good of the people.
Hope this is what you're after
A dictatorship is a society ruled over by a dictator. Democracy has been used to refer to various different political systems such as the voting system in ancient Athens, the first past the post voting system in the UK, and proportional representation in other countries such as Israel.
Communism is a system in which property (or just capital) is owned by the community and distributed from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Many people who hear about this think it sounds beautiful. In reality, communism is irrational and evil. Any particular physical object is controlled by some person or group. One way to decide who gets to control a resource is to have a system that assigns a right to dispose of that object to some particular - a system of ownership. The other way to decide who gets to have control of the resource is a war of all against all which awards deception, assault, battery and murder. What does it mean to say something is "owned by the community"? It might mean that there is some particular organisation that claims to represent the community who owns everything and gets to do whatever it likes. This group has the power to injure or kill anyone it likes. Or it might mean that nobody owns it and people fight like animals for control over stuff with no rules governing their conduct. Another alternative is that the group representing the community is supposedly bound by some rules. Since communists typically don't actually specify how their system is supposed to work, they do some ad hoc mix of all of those possibilities.
There are lots of problems with communism.
First, the formula from each according to his ability to each according to his need sez that some people deemed able are beasts of burden for everyone else. The able have no right to live unless they provide for those who are deemed not to be able. So communism is a system that endorses slavery. And since managing a slave requires being willing to use physical force against slaves who disobey or slack off, this underwrites assault, battery and murder as well as taking goods from the slaves without their consent.
Second, a system in which property isn't governed by agreements that people voluntarily enter into leads to irrationality. If property isn't transferred by such agreements then people have unanswered criticisms of the way in which property is being transferred. This leads to chronic mistakes in how property is transferred. It also makes planning for how to use property in the long term impossible since that property might be taken away at any time. Restricting this to capital isn't much use for a couple of reasons. A good is a capital good by virtue of how it is used: it is indirectly to satisfy consumer wants rather than directly. So stopping an owner from making plans about such a good doesn't just screw up the use of that particular item, but also all of the stuff it would have been used to make. Also, in many cases a good is sometimes used as capital and sometimes used as a personal item, e.g. - a computer may be used by an entrepreneur to run his business and also to conduct his personal life. So is he supposed to timeshare the computer with other people or what?
For some insight into the moral problems with communism see "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. For detailed criticisms of the economic ideas behind communism see "Time will run back" by Hazlitt.