Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 12:03:55 GMT -5
How much success do Leninists have in those same countries, Bob?
Social Democrats are still the biggest leftist parties in most of Europe, whether tankies want it or not.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2019 12:34:36 GMT -5
How much success do Leninists have in those same countries, Bob?
Social Democrats are still the biggest leftist parties in most of Europe, whether tankies want it or not.
Leninists had plenty of success...before they collapsed.
Social Democrats seem to be on a similar path. They are only poling in the single digits in some countries. "Biggest" indeed!
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 13:11:57 GMT -5
Do you actually have a point to make? Anything to refute in those replies of mine you quote so extensively?
Fact is that I am correct in my assessment, and since you have no facts to refute my claim, you have no recourse but to mock my opinion, for no particular reason than because you just can't bear the notion of agreeing with me on something that refutes Ayn Rand's sacred Revelations.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2019 14:17:46 GMT -5
Do you actually have a point to make? Anything to refute in those replies of mine you quote so extensively? Fact is that I am correct in my assessment, and since you have no facts to refute my claim, you have no recourse but to mock my opinion, for no particular reason than because you just can't bear the notion of agreeing with me on something that refutes Ayn Rand's sacred Revelations.
You yourself are citing no facts here. In fact, the only evidence that your assessments are correct is your unsupported claim that they are correct.
It is a FACT that Social Democratic parties in Europe are collapsing. I posted five articles to support that claim. In response, we have your word that you are correct. And of course you are trying to change the subject.
Sorry McAnswer, but such cheap tricks don't work here.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 21:05:42 GMT -5
It's a fact that Social Democracy has been far more successful politically than Leninism, throughout history as well as in recent times. Not a single Leninist party has ever led a democratically elected government in Europe or America, but plenty of Social Democrats have. And nothing you have shown has refuted this.
What is even the point of your objection here?
That you cannot conceive of a leftist party that is not run by genocidal Stalin fans?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2019 22:13:35 GMT -5
It's a fact that Social Democracy has been far more successful politically than Leninism, throughout history as well as in recent times. That depends on what you consider to be "success", doesn't it? Wasn't Chavez initially elected in Venezuela? My objection here is that even moderate left-wing systems slowly erode and break down, as the Social-Democratic parties in Europe seem to be doing now. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 0:16:59 GMT -5
It's a fact that Social Democracy has been far more successful politically than Leninism, throughout history as well as in recent times. That depends on what you consider to be "success", doesn't it? Sure, if "not being in power except in a handful of poor countries in the developing world" is success, then Leninists were the most successful socialist movement of them all. Chavez was not a Leninist. He wasn't even against private property. And what does this have to do with your claim that all Marxists are genocidal? Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 9, 2019 14:01:05 GMT -5
That depends on what you consider to be "success", doesn't it? Sure, if "not being in power except in a handful of poor countries in the developing world" is success, then Leninists were the most successful socialist movement of them all. Until the 1970's, Leninists were in power almost half the world: Soviet Union, Mao's China, Ethiopia, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and all of Eastern Europe. They failed because their system eventually broke. That breakdown now seems to be happening to many Social Democratic countries. Really? Then why did Chavez keep seizing private businesses? Right. This is a separate claim I am making. Very astute of you to notice. The economics of both Social Democrats and Communists eventually collapses because of their inner contradictions! Ironic, isn't it, that a Marxist concept successfully prophesied the end of both Communism and Social Democracy. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 11:48:10 GMT -5
Right. This is a separate claim I am making. Very astute of you to notice. And you have yet to support your claims that Social Democrats and Communists are either the same, or that the former aren't "real" socialists because socialism is defined as genocidal. Is that support forthcoming at any point in the near future, or are you abandoning the Randian idea that all "collectivists" are the exact same ideology?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 10, 2019 12:57:03 GMT -5
Right. This is a separate claim I am making. Very astute of you to notice. And you have yet to support your claims that Social Democrats and Communists are either the same, or that the former aren't "real" socialists because socialism is defined as genocidal. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I have no recollection of making either of those claims. It would be helpful if you could cut and paste what I actually said. What I did say is that both Socialism and Social Democracy are unstable systems that are doomed to eventually collapse. I never said that either. And indeed, it's a tautology that different ideologies are different. What Socialism and Social Democracy have in common is that their economic system grinds to a halt and collapses. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 13:28:01 GMT -5
Bob, do you know that you can literally scroll pages upwards and back?
Do you know that everyone, including yourself, can read what you wrote just days ago? That you can literally go back and read all of what you wrote and check it against your current statement? But don't worry, I will spare you the humongous effort of two clicks and repost what you said, just so you can argue that you didn't mean it that way and berate me for interpreting your objectively correct wisdom wrongly all this time.
This is not the first time you've done this, after all; changing your mind and then disavowing your words from days ago has been your standard MO for years. Two points: 1. How many of the people you have accused of being Khmer Rouge or Nazi stormtroopers factually adhere to Stalinism, Maoism, or Nazism? How many of the people you compared to Adolf Hitler were actual genocidal dictators or evidently the process of becoming one? Give me a list of the people I allegedly accused and I will tell you why I did that in each particular case. Please cut and paste the text of my alleged accusations. Please list the exact principles of Laissez Faire Capitalism that are toxic and that caused famines and genocide. If you can't do that, then please be open to the possibility that these crimes were committed in violation of these principles. Please list the exact principles of Objectivism that are consistent with Rand's justification of Native American genocide. Let me save you some time. There are none. A philosophy cannot be listed as "toxic" because its followers act in violation of its principles. By contrast, we can say that Nazi and Communist philosophies are toxic because the mass murders and genocide happened because their principles were being followed to the letter. Hitler said his followers had to get rid of the Jews (and gays, and Gypsies). Karl Marx said we had to get rid of Capitalists. That is exactly what happened. If you follow Nazi of Communist philosophy, you have to be prepared a murderer. Those philosophies require violence and killing. If you follow Objectivist Philosophy, you cannot initiate violence against anyone. A violent Objectivist is a hypocrite who is violating their own principles. A violent Nazi or Communist is simply acting in accord with their toxic philosophy. Bob You claim that Marxism is a toxic ideology that inevitably leads to genocide. You have yet to prove that Marx actually condoned interpretations of his work that would lead to genocide. Do you deny that one of the main tenets of Marxism it the theory of the "Class Struggle?" And what does this inevitably lead to? Why killing your opponents, of course. As for actual quotes, how about this one from Marx himself? "“There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” Karl Marx, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 136, November 1848. And here's one from Engels: "“The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.” (my emphasis) Friedrich Engels, “The Magyar Struggle,” first published in Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 194, January 13, 1849. Please note that these quotes are from the 1840's, from the beginning of Marxist philosophy. Marx and Engles are already talking about killing people. Exactly how many times do I have to repeat myself here? Rand's mistake here is totally inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy. With Marx and Engels however, the "Class Struggle" is one of their basic premises. That "Struggle" inevitably leads to killing all of your opponents. And sadly, this has led to millions of deaths. Complex Question Fallacy. You haven't demonstrated any of my conclusions are contradictory. You have merely claimed it and then treated your unsupported claim as a fact. Really? Of course you have the text of where I allegedly made those claims? I'm sure you simply forgot to post what I actually said. And once again, I'm sure you have the text of what I actually wrote to back up that claim. Where is the text? Could you please post it? Bob You are inferring an imperative meaning, but those quotes could just as well be interpreted as descriptive. "The period of transition between two social orders can be shortened with revolutionary terror" can be read as a hypothetical supposition, a statement of historical fact, a prediction of the future, or an imperative of action, but you have presented no evidence to suggest that the last interpretation is the only correct one, and your argumentation appears to rest primarily on the strength of your personal conviction. Marx and Engels talk about "terror" and extermination of "reactionary peoples" and you think it's merely descriptive. Yeah, right. They were not describing and event. They were lusting for it. They even formed organizations to bring it about. Hey, maybe you also think Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust? After all, he never signed any orders to kill the Jews. I'm sure Eichmann and the other members of the SS just misinterpreted what Hitler said.
It may be "consistent" but that's not what actually happened, is it? Russia became the hell hole called the Soviet Union. Italy was taken over by a former Socialist who added his own ideological twist. The "peaceful" Marxists were clearly in the minority, and they have been so ever since. After WWII, "peaceful" Socialists were elected in Great Britain. They were thrown out after five years. Sweden had Socialists in power for a few years as well. They didn't last either. The only Socialists who have been able to consistently take power and keep it for any length of time have been the Revolutionary Marxists. The key here is the Marxist concept of "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." If you do not advocate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, you are not following the plan that Karl Marx clearly set out. Yes! Exactly.If you are not in favor of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat ( which is a fundamental principle of Marxist Philosophy)then you are not a true Marxist. You are a "revisionist." Yes. At times I was. Once you are convinced that all the World's Troubles are due to evil Capitalists, it's a short leap to concluding that you can fix society by eliminating them all. I know this from experience because it almost happened to me. Bob Are you argueing that no Marxist who rejects genocide is a true Marxist?
Or are you argueing that everyone who calls themselves Marxist is by definition genocidal, even if they outwardly claim not to be?
´ The destruction of the bourgeois class is the basic principle of Marxism. It is possible to look for other ways to destroy that entire section of humanity rather than killing all of them. But so far, Marxists who are not ready to kill have never managed to hold power for any length of time. The only "successful" Marxists have been have been the violent ones. Bob
Also, given that we know for a fact that Ayn Rand approved of genocide, does that mean all Objectivists are genocidal? Unlike Marxism, where the destruction of an entire class of people is central to the philosophy, Objectivism has Non-Initiation of Violence as its fundamental principle. Genocide is consistent with "Destroy the Bourgeoisie." Genocide is not consistent with "Never Initiate Violence." Rand was contradicting her own basic principle by supporting seizure of land from Native Americans. By contrast, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were acting in accord with "Destroy the Bourgeoisie", the fundamental principle of Marxism. Of course millions of other people were killed as well. But they justified that because they were building an Ideal Communist State. Bob
If people have free will, then they can choose how to interpret a philosophical principle any way they want. People can also use free will and choose to jump off of a cliff. However, once they jump, they cannot take it back. Free will has its limits after all. In a like fashion, when you choose a philosophy that says a certain group of people are evil and must be eliminated, then you have crossed a line. Murder, tyranny, and genocide follow. No. They chose to follow Marxist philosophy, a philosophy that says a whole class of people must be "eliminated" in order for all human suffering to end. Of course you have quotes from the works of both of these men to show they actually believed that. And as I have already pointed out many times, that belief was in total and complete contradiction with the rest of her philosophy. By contrast, the Genocide, Mass-Murders, and Political Tyrannies established by the followers of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were in perfect accord with their philosophical principles. And you choose to believe that I said things I never said! Perhaps that's why you don't posts any quotes to support your claims. There are no such quotes. I never once said that all social problems are the fault of leftists. I never once said that the world would be better off without leftist PEOPLE. What I did say is that many (not all) of today's problems are caused by Leftist PHILOSOPHY. Do I have to list again the vast numbers of people who were murdered by following those evil principles? Millions died in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Venezuela, and North Korea. Thousands are starving to death right now in Venezuela. And yet you seem to be saying that Communist principles are pure and wonderful and it was only the actions of a few bad people who created all this carnage. There you go again. You are claiming that Communism is a wonderful philosophy if only it hadn't been corrupted by "bad people." But a philosophy that says the evil in the world can be greatly reduced if only we eliminate the "bad people" has ALWAYS ended up by butchering millions of innocents Rosa Luxembourg would have come to the point where she would either have to give up power or kill everyone who threatened her power. More typical of Communists is Eric Hobsbawm "In a 1994 interview on BBC British television with Canadian author and politician Michael Ignatieff (whose grandfather and great-grandfather were ministers of the Czar prior to the Bolshevik Revolution), he shocked viewers when he said that the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens under Stalin would have been worth it if a genuine Communist society had been the result.[5][48][49] Hobsbawm argued that, "In a period in which, as you might imagine, mass murder and mass suffering are absolutely universal, the chance of a new world being born in great suffering would still have been worth backing" but, unfortunately, "the Soviet Union was not the beginning of the World Revolution".[48][50]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hobsbawm#Praise_and_criticismSo I guess since Eric Schindler (of "Schindler's List) who was a Nazi Party member saved the lives of a few thousand Jews, that must mean that Nazi philosophy is is wonderful and humanitarian, right? After all, we have the proven that there was one good Nazi. So all Nazis must now be considered good. Leftists who are not "genocidal authoritarians" never seem to get power, do they? Or to hold it after they get it. By contrast, tyrannical leftists at one point governed over a third of the world's land surface (when you add up the territories covered by the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Soviet Eastern Europe, etc.) Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 13:35:07 GMT -5
This is not the first time you've done this, after all; changing your mind and then disavowing your words from days ago has been your standard MO for years. I typed this when I was angry, but I now realize that you might not even aware of this; if so, then this could be a serious issue. Bob, maybe you should talk to a doctor about these memory lapses, because these can be a serious concern and a possible sign of future dementia.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 10, 2019 13:41:54 GMT -5
This is not the first time you've done this, after all; changing your mind and then disavowing your words from days ago has been your standard MO for years. I typed this when I was angry, but I now realize that you might not even aware of this; if so, then this could be a serious issue. Bob, maybe you should talk to a doctor about these memory lapses, because these can be a serious concern and a possible sign of future dementia.
Ho hum. Another Ad Hominem.
Your EVIDENCE that I have done this is...your unsupported claim. Do you have actual quotes from my posts or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 12:23:23 GMT -5
Sure, whatever.
Did you read the quotes I provided?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 11, 2019 13:28:35 GMT -5
Sure, whatever.
Did you read the quotes I provided?
I read all of your posts and you seldom give any quotes at all. What quotes are you referring to? Which posts?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:12:02 GMT -5
The ones I put up when you denied that you ever argued that Marxists are genocidal. Scroll up.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 16:43:08 GMT -5
The ones I put up when you denied that you ever argued that Marxists are genocidal. Scroll up.
Sorry but I can't find them. Could you please give the dates and times of those posts?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 19:07:25 GMT -5
LOL
Seriously though, please read them.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 21:17:27 GMT -5
LOL
Seriously though, please read them.
Seriously, I can't find them.
Which posts are your referring to?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 9:50:41 GMT -5
Do you still remember why I posted them?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 14, 2019 14:08:52 GMT -5
Do you still remember why I posted them?
Okay. You see, that wasn't too difficult, was it?
Let me clarify. You can be a Marxist by accepting his theories, but that automatically does not make you genocidal or even a small-scale murderer. When Marxist theories are put into practice however, they have usually resulted in mass murder and even genocide. Do you want to to re-post the evidence again that millions were actually murdered?
Social Democrats have not committed mass murder. However, Economies of Social Democratic nations tend to be unstable and they can eventually collapse. As they seem to be doing lately.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 19:03:26 GMT -5
Let me clarify. You can be a Marxist by accepting his theories, but that automatically does not make you genocidal or even a small-scale murderer. When Marxist theories are put into practice however, they have usually resulted in mass murder and even genocide. Do you want to to re-post the evidence again that millions were actually murdered? But "putting Marxist" theories in practice includes Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Syndicalism (union-based socialist activity) and Libertarian Socialism - all of whom reject genocide and authoritarianism in favor of democracy and individual freedom. Evidently, Marxism only leads to authoritarian government and genocide when it is being put into practice by people who were already fine with including authoritarianism and mass murder in their political methods. I disagree, but regardless of whether they are or are not, it is irrelevant to our argument whether Marxism is a "toxic ideology" that inevitably ends in genocide.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 14, 2019 19:44:11 GMT -5
Let me clarify. You can be a Marxist by accepting his theories, but that automatically does not make you genocidal or even a small-scale murderer. When Marxist theories are put into practice however, they have usually resulted in mass murder and even genocide. Do you want to to re-post the evidence again that millions were actually murdered? But "putting Marxist" theories in practice includes Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Syndicalism (union-based socialist activity) and Libertarian Socialism - all of whom reject genocide and authoritarianism in favor of democracy and individual freedom. Evidently, Marxism only leads to authoritarian government and genocide when it is being put into practice by people who were already fine with including authoritarianism and mass murder in their political methods. I disagree. I have already posted direct quotes where both Marx and Engles specifically talked about violent revolution and, more telling,talked about eliminating the Capitalist class during a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." As for the other variations of Socialism you mentioned, only Social Democracy has managed to take power in several countries and last for more than a short time. Democratic Socialism was tried in Great Britain and Sweden briefly until their governments were voted out of power. I don't know of any country that had Libertarian Socialism or Syndicalism. Do you? And there is the case of Venezuela where a Socialist government was voted into power and became a murderous dictatorship. Social Democracy is clearly not full-fledged Marxism. There is no violent revolution, no Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and no massive government takeover of the means of production. They do not follow Marx's plan. They are not Marxist. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 8:46:54 GMT -5
But "putting Marxist" theories in practice includes Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Syndicalism (union-based socialist activity) and Libertarian Socialism - all of whom reject genocide and authoritarianism in favor of democracy and individual freedom. Evidently, Marxism only leads to authoritarian government and genocide when it is being put into practice by people who were already fine with including authoritarianism and mass murder in their political methods. I disagree. I have already posted direct quotes where both Marx and Engles specifically talked about violent revolution and, more telling,talked about eliminating the Capitalist class during a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." And I have provided direct quotes where they condemn state terror, and several more quotes by influential Marxists to the same extent. In the early 20th century, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were argueing that Leninism was Marxism applied correctly, and all other Marxist approaches were misguided or 'bourgeois'. What you are doing here is following and supporting Lenin in his assertion that authoritarianism and genocide are the only correct applications of Marxism. The Socialist Revolutionary Party was Democratic Socialist and Libertarian Socialist in outlook, and was the most popular political movement in democratic Russia before the Leninist coup. Libertarian socialism (AKA left anarchism) was the dominant political force in the Paris Commune of 1870 (destroyed by "democratic" French forces) during the Russian Civil War in the Ukraine, and during the Spanish Civil War in Catalonia (and subsequently destroyed by both Fascists and Leninists). Not really any more murderous than current and past US governments, mind you. A low bar to clear, sure, but so far you haven't denounced American nationalism as a toxic genocidal ideology despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So being against genocide disqualifies one from being a "full fledged Marxist". In other words, you do believe that all real Marxists are genocidal.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2019 12:22:21 GMT -5
I disagree. I have already posted direct quotes where both Marx and Engles specifically talked about violent revolution and, more telling,talked about eliminating the Capitalist class during a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." And I have provided direct quotes where they condemn state terror, and several more quotes by influential Marxists to the same extent. And I have seen quotes where Nazis claim that they only wanted peace and other countries started WWII. www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/nothanks/wwr00.htmlDoes that means the Nazis actually had good intentions? So you agree that Lenin and his followers were tyrants and genocidal maniacs! Did you read that whole link before you posted it? Did you see this part? "The party's policy platform differed from that of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP)—both Bolshevik and Menshevik—in that it was not officially Marxist (though some of its ideologues considered themselves such)." Also, this party was never in power, so there is no concrete evidence as to how their program would actually work out. None of these were in power for any length of time, were they? The Paris Commune was in power for less than three months. Therefore we have no evidence that any of these could have lasted for any length of time or of how they would have evolved. Argumentum ad Hominem, Circumstantial. The bad behavior of other governments does not demonstrate that the Venezuelan government is not tyrannical and did not oppress its own citizens. People are starving in Venezuela right now. Say what you will about the USA. At least we never had mass starvation. This from a Socialist government that was initially voted into power. To be a real Marxist, you have to believe in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Once again, let's look at the record. These are the actual governments that did create a Dictatorship of the Proletariat: The Soviet Union, Mao's China, Vietnam, North Korea, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Socialist Ethiopia, Castro's Cuba. MILLIONS DIED! The survivors lived under some of the worst tyrannies in history. These are the results when Real Marxists take power. As for,Social Democracy is not full-fledged Marxism because it does not establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and it still keeps private property and elements of a Free Market.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 12:41:35 GMT -5
You lend the same amount of credence to Nazi claims that they were pro-labor socialists, do you not? But it's interesting how, once again, you compare Karl Marx to Adolf Hitler. Is this solely for shock value, or you really not see a difference between the two? I have never argued otherwise. Remember, my main argument is that Marxism's bad press is due to a specific authoritarian interpretation spread by Lenin and his goons. But plenty of people who sought change by democratic or libertarian means were Marxists, too. You, however, deny that, in favor of the Leninist claim that if you want democracy, you're not a 'real' Marxist. Well, you never had mass starvation for white US citizens. Native Americans, foreigners in occupied territories, or immigrants are another matter of course. I don't know why we keep having this discussion. It seems clear that you are not interested in considering different points of view on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2019 15:28:58 GMT -5
You lend the same amount of credence to Nazi claims that they were pro-labor socialists, do you not? No. But I do give credence to Nazi actions as they steadily exerted more and more control over the German exonomy. I've posted links to supporting evidence on this in several previous threads. Yes, there is a big difference. Hitler was actually able to take power. Marx and Engles had to wait for Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot to put his program into action. "Lenin and his goons?" Good. We agree on that. There's hope for you yet! Please explain how you can have Democracy and a Dictatorship of the Proletariat at the same time. Would you happen to have any information that there was ever mass starvation in the USA for any "Native Americans, foreigners, in occupied territories, or immigrants?" Personally I don't know of any such incidents. Oh but I am interested in hearing different points of view. I just want to know the reasons for them. That way we can get to the truth. It was Marx and Engles who came up with the concept of Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Anarchists as far back as Bakunin, a contemporary of Marx, pointed out that this dictatorship would be no different from any other. The Anarchists were right about that. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 22:13:19 GMT -5
Please explain how you can have Democracy and a Dictatorship of the Proletariat at the same time. In the context Marx uses the term, "Dictatorship" does not mean authoritarian rule by a single person in power, but is closer to its original meaning as an office in the Roman Republic: A "dictator" was a supreme commander invested with special emergency powers, who was elected in times of serious crisis. So a Marxist "Dictatorship" would, similarly, be simply the name for a temporary government intended to transform the last vestiges of a capitalist society into a socialist one. But the structure of such a government was left open by Marx. It would only have to be a government "of the Proletariat" i.e. the working class - which, in any developed industrial society, would mean the majority of the adult population. How do we call a government supported by a majority of the population? Why, we call it a Democracy! So there you have it. You can have a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" that is in fact a Democracy. And this is basically how Marxist Social Democrats intended to transform their society into socialism. Democracy -> Social Democrats get elected into power -> society is transformed into socialism -> Profit
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 16, 2019 0:10:25 GMT -5
Please explain how you can have Democracy and a Dictatorship of the Proletariat at the same time. In the context Marx uses the term, "Dictatorship" does not mean authoritarian rule by a single person in power, but is closer to its original meaning as an office in the Roman Republic: A "dictator" was a supreme commander invested with special emergency powers, who was elected in times of serious crisis. So a Marxist "Dictatorship" would, similarly, be simply the name for a temporary government intended to transform the last vestiges of a capitalist society into a socialist one. But the structure of such a government was left open by Marx. It would only have to be a government "of the Proletariat" i.e. the working class - which, in any developed industrial society, would mean the majority of the adult population. How do we call a government supported by a majority of the population? Why, we call it a Democracy! So there you have it. You can have a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" that is in fact a Democracy. And this is basically how Marxist Social Democrats intended to transform their society into socialism. Democracy -> Social Democrats get elected into power -> society is transformed into socialism -> Profit
"Temporary Emergency Powers? Yeah, right. The Proletarian Dictatorships set up by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and North Korea were really "temporary." You should read The New Class by Djilas.
"This classic by an associate of Yugoslavia's Tito created a sensation when it was published in 1957 because it was the first time that a ranking Communist had publicly analyzed his disillusionment with the system."
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in every case simply turned into a dictatorship.
As far as Democracy, do the winners of a Democratic Election have the right to pass a law saying that everyone who didn't vote for them will now go to jail? After all, the majority rules, right?
What if the majority is very large, say 90% to 10%. Would the majority still have the right to take away the rights of that minority? Marx and Engles wanted to take away the rights of the Bourgeoisie. Lenin actually did that and thousands of "kulaks" were killed. Hitler did the same with Jews.
Democracy has to have a limitation. The winners of an election may not take away the rights of the loosers.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 11:25:06 GMT -5
Yes. That's the advantage liberal democracy has for capitalists: Nothing is allowed to change.
|
|