Is true Marxism also a true democracy?

I am probably missing something major here, so pardon if I look like an idiot.





But since Marxism says that the nation is owned by and for the people, does that not mean that everyone gets a say, like in a true democracy?








And I do not mean failed Communism, such as Stalin and Zedong.Is true Marxism also a true democracy?
In a very small country in a perfectly altruistic world where no self-interest or greed exists, where there is little economic competiton and where there are no barriers to participation, then, yes, Marxism, could be a pure democracy.Is true Marxism also a true democracy?
The underlining concept of Marxism is that there's 2 classes of people - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The 2 classes have different roles - worker bees and kingpins or the powerless and powerful.





Sometimes the base view is they fulfill equal but different, necessary roles. More often, the view examines the power struggle, and romanticizes the proletariat as unjustly held down by the controlling bourgeoisie.





Whenever there is a power struggle inherent in a world view it's hard to call it a ';true'; democracy. Perhaps it could be better described as the ideal, but not the reality.
I think one of the big differences is the intent. In a true democracy, generally people vote for their own best interests, the majority rules. In Marxism, people are supposed to be supporting the best interest of the group, not the individual. This assumes, of course, that the collective group can decide the best course for the group.
Yes, technically, problems arise, however when the few decide to disagree with the majority. Then it inevitably becomes a gulag of one form or another. Always a good excuse for some form of Democracy. Do yourself a favor and avoid the buzz word of ';Socialism'; as it is mostly a Republican smoke screen for the general welfare of society, i.e. the common man, which, let's face it, most of us are.
Even Marx never fully defined how Marxist / Socialism / Communism would work completely enough to tell. Marx spent all of his time denouncing capitalism and talking about how much better communism would be, without ever answering some very fundamental questions about how exactly things in his communist state would occur. Marx just kinda assumed once capitalism was destroyed, people would just kinda all get along and share stuff.
I see Marxism as a passing fad. People either have what takes to make democracy work, or they slip into dictatorship. I can prove that by what is happening now.
I don't see how any organisation achieving power by a murderous rebellion and subsequently not allowing free multiparty elections can be seen to be democratic.
Yes. Political democracy without economic democracy is only half a democracy (at best).
what is the difference between marxism and communism?
no you need central planners.