How should a dictator be selected

[Comrade Gorley]

In a communist/socialist society, how should a dictator be chosen from the masses? Election? I have a sneaking suspicion that that might inject some capitalism into the society. Shall we breed a dictator, as Plato (I believe) suggested? Or should whoever leads the proletarians to victory- the liberator- be the ruler, and select who will carry on after he dies?

I'm leaning towards Option B, myself.

What about YOU? ;)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

dictator? no thanks

[truthaddict11]

no thanks to a dictator :angry:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 05:29 PM
In a communist/socialist society, how should a dictator be chosen from the masses? Election? I have a sneaking suspicion that that might inject some capitalism into the society. Shall we breed a dictator, as Plato (I believe) suggested? Or should whoever leads the proletarians to victory- the liberator- be the ruler, and select who will carry on after he dies?

I'm leaning towards Option B, myself.

What about YOU? ;)
When you say dictator I assume that you referer to the dictatorship of the prolatait, and a representative of that body/organisation what ever you wish to call it.

As for democracy it is the most pure form of socialism that can possibly exist in theory.

The power is 100% in the power of the people, they can choose as a majority the path in which there country takes in all forms whether economic, social or political. Socialism is where the people have the control over the nations means of production and labour. Democracy is where the people make the desicions that affect the peoples control over the means of production etc etc.

Just because foolish capitalists (who fouly misuse the democratic system to there advantage), who wish to create devisions between the people and socialism, state that socialism is the enemy of democracy and liberty, does not make it so. It is there propaganda it is as false as there ideology, when you look at it democracy is clearly closer to socialism than it is toi capitalism.

Capitalism is designed to benefit the individual and make them rich at the expense of every body else, socialism is designed to benefit the masses. Democracy is designed to give the masses a vioce in the running of the country. Which is obviously closer to democracy socialism or capitalism.


Bahh Im in a bad mood after thinking about the idiot Kapitalists.

[bluerev002]

Sorry to say that the people could not be trusted to decide since they will most likely pick the guy who promises them all riches and "freedom"

Maybe the current dictator could teach all that he knows to the new one. This would only work IF the current dictator is not corrupt... :unsure:

But a dictator is no good, the people need to chose what they want, but like I said, what the people want isnt always the best thing for communism

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

please do not confuse the dictatorship of the proletariat with an autocratic dictatorship. A dictatorship of the proletariat is a democracy.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 07:52 PM
please do not confuse the dictatorship of the proletariat with an autocratic dictatorship. A dictatorship of the proletariat is a democracy.
I have confused nothing.

[Cassius Clay]

Yes I dont think a dictator is the way to go about things. Anyway we need the support of the CIA or a bunch of tired old demoralised and Capitalist politicians who fear revolution.

Hmm might wright a book!

[redstar2000]

In a communist/socialist society, how should a dictator be chosen from the masses? Election? I have a sneaking suspicion that that might inject some capitalism into the society. Shall we breed a dictator, as Plato (I believe) suggested? Or should whoever leads the proletarians to victory- the liberator- be the ruler, and select who will carry on after he dies?

I'm leaning towards Option B, myself.

Option A. Election

Option B. Breeding

Option C. The victorious Leader selects the one who will follow him.

And you are "leaning towards Option B"...??? :wacko:

This is the sort of thing that happens when Christians "try" to be "communists". Not just a muddle but a reactionary muddle to boot.

How about this? We take a poll of all the people who still believe in "god" and whoever they hate the most--that person becomes "dictator".

Hard to go wrong with that method. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade Gorley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 09:48 PM
In a communist/socialist society, how should a dictator be chosen from the masses? Election? I have a sneaking suspicion that that might inject some capitalism into the society. Shall we breed a dictator, as Plato (I believe) suggested? Or should whoever leads the proletarians to victory- the liberator- be the ruler, and select who will carry on after he dies?

I'm leaning towards Option B, myself.

Option A. Election

Option B. Breeding

Option C. The victorious Leader selects the one who will follow him.

And you are "leaning towards Option B"...??? :wacko:

This is the sort of thing that happens when Christians "try" to be "communists". Not just a muddle but a reactionary muddle to boot.

How about this? We take a poll of all the people who still believe in "god" and whoever they hate the most--that person becomes "dictator".

Hard to go wrong with that method. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Wow, Redstar, you are SO witty. Screw communist dictator, you should be a stand up comedian. Or, better yet, you could guest star on Friends, because you share the comedic ability- and apparently intelligence-of the writers.

Why exactly do you have a problem with someone being deliberately breeded to rule a country? A man and a woman have traits that would be good for ruling a country. Their genes are mixed. We have a near-perfect leader.

If you have a criticsm, feel free to share it. But lame-ass humour won't cut the mustard. :rollseyes:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Gorley, the idea of a dicator is an absolutely ludicrous one. Nobody wants a single man to have rule over everything, this is astoundingly ridiculous.

AK, I was talking to Gorley over here, who may have confused the communist idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is rule by the working class, in other words, and an autocratic dictatorship, which is rule by a single person, which is a manarchistic and barbaric notion.

[Neo Marx]

hmmm... I'm all for dictatorship of the proletariat(aka the working people), aka democracy.

[redstar2000]

Why exactly do you have a problem with someone being deliberately breeded to rule a country? A man and a woman have traits that would be good for ruling a country. Their genes are mixed. We have a near-perfect leader.

Because there are no such things as genes "for perfect leadership", dummy!

Does the name Adolph Hitler ring a bell??? Have you even the slightest notion of where that sort of "thinking" leads?

Pardon the expression, but Jesus H. Fucking Christ!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Don't Change Your Name]

No dictators please...but we could have leaders who have ideas to propose and that kind of things.

[Comrade Gorley]

So, Redstar, if two intelligent, naturally skeptical and analytical, are physically strong, and- most importantly- communists have sex, there's no possible way the child will inherit these traits?

Yeah, that logic makes a helluva lotta sense.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't think that Communism has anything at all to do with genetics, gorley. Perhaps leadership has something to do with genetics, but just because you're a great leader, it doesn't mean you should be a dictator.

[Comrade Gorley]

Hm, fair enough, Victor. Since neither us will (in all likeliness) ever run a communist country, your idea means as much as mine anyway.

[elijahcraig]

"Breeding" leaders sounds very similar to nazism and monarchism, I suggest you leave it behind completely.

The whole notion of choosing a "dictator" is nonsensical, it contradicts Marxian doctrine...and should be forgotten completely as well.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2003, 01:30 PM
So, Redstar, if two intelligent, naturally skeptical and analytical, are physically strong, and- most importantly- communists have sex, there's no possible way the child will inherit these traits?

Yeah, that logic makes a helluva lotta sense.
Did you even read what you wrote? Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 01:46 AM
"Breeding" leaders sounds very similar to nazism and monarchism, I suggest you leave it behind completely.

The whole notion of choosing a "dictator" is nonsensical, it contradicts Marxian doctrine...and should be forgotten completely as well.
I disagree. "Breeding" leaders is all Nazism.
The word you are looking for in the case of Monarchy is "Inbreeding"

[Ian]

This thread was looking good (the debate about one person being the dictator vs democratic dict. of the pro.) until the eugenics bit came into it, now I just have to cringe and think about what Gorley will think of what s/he has been saying when s/he 'sobers' up, which I hope s/he does!

To say that somehow the great mass of people will get together and find one dalai lama style kid (or two people who will make a dalai lama kid) who can lead the people to victory is stupid, and plus, the people will get pissed off, which self-respecting communist would hand over control over of their(sic) society to a zygote? It is fantasy to think that a Baby will become a benelovent dictator when it has been treated so fantastically from birth, if you ask me it would become a bit of a royal brat.

By the way Redstar, at least I enjoyed your comical stylings :P ;) :che:

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 10:30 PM
So, Redstar, if two intelligent, naturally skeptical and analytical, are physically strong, and- most importantly- communists have sex, there's no possible way the child will inherit these traits?

Yeah, that logic makes a helluva lotta sense.
no its complete utter bullshit, while youre at it why dont you breed a perfect race, all you need are physically strong and intelligent people (mostly white-anglos) and then thier children and children's children will become into a perfect race of humans. wow isnt eugenics great.
:D
if you follow the same "logic" of wanting to breed a "communist" dictator Gorley then you probally believe in the "logic" listed above. I know that Nazis would love to hear your "logic" on building a leader :lol:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Rastafari+Aug 1 2003, 06:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rastafari @ Aug 1 2003, 06:59 AM)
[email protected] 1 2003, 01:46 AM
"Breeding" leaders sounds very similar to nazism and monarchism, I suggest you leave it behind completely.

The whole notion of choosing a "dictator" is nonsensical, it contradicts Marxian doctrine...and should be forgotten completely as well.
I disagree. "Breeding" leaders is all Nazism.
The word you are looking for in the case of Monarchy is "Inbreeding" [/b]
But Nazi&#39;s did not breed there leaders, why would they? They are as suseptable to a power vacume as any other despotic capitalist regime. No Nazi leaders would ever accept it, as it would dammage there "favourate" minions chanse of getting power after they have gone to Ayrian heaven or where ever the hell they recon they go.

Also think about it from this persepctive if you have just had a revolution and then the leaders of the revolution instead of taking power turn around and say to you, we are going to put a genetic creation into power, sure you can trust it.... I dont theink any revolutionary would be happy.

Also its impossible, as somebody pointed out you cannot geneticaly breed political opinion, as they are not genetic traits.

[Comrade Gorley]

Well, "Ian Rocks", I&#39;ll "sober up" once you get a moniker (and a avator) that doesn&#39;t look like a seven year old chose it.

Listen, everyone, I never said a dictator would be naturally superior in every regard to everyone else, nor did I say anything about a "perfect race". In Marx&#39;s ideaology, a perfect society would be one in which people used their natural abilities, whatever they were, for the good of the rest of the population. If you excell in carpentry, you use your gifts to help build stuff for people. If you happen to excel intellectually and, preferably, physically, you should put it to the good of the people by helping produce a leader.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2003, 01:40 AM
If you happen to excel intellectually and, preferably, physically, you should put it to the good of the people by helping produce a leader.
And where did Marx say that?

[Comrade Gorley]

You seem to miss the point. I didn&#39;t claim that Marx said that, I said it was an example of what he was talking about.

[truthaddict11]

Listen, everyone, I never said a dictator would be naturally superior in every regard to everyone else, nor did I say anything about a "perfect race". In Marx&#39;s ideaology, a perfect society would be one in which people used their natural abilities, whatever they were, for the good of the rest of the population. If you excell in carpentry, you use your gifts to help build stuff for people. If you happen to excel intellectually and, preferably, physically, you should put it to the good of the people by helping produce a leader.


you want to create a genetic being breeded to be a dictator, since this person would have "leadership traits" they would be superior so you are contradicting yourself, and by making this arguement you can also make an argument to breed a perfect race.

[Comrade Gorley]

In order to breed a "perfect race", ALL intellectual traits and abilties would have to be passed on by genetics. Two people with the traits I listed have a fairlygood chance of breeding a good leader with traits necessary for one.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2003, 01:51 AM
You seem to miss the point. I didn&#39;t claim that Marx said that, I said it was an example of what he was talking about.
No it isn&#39;t. Prove how such a statementcould be supported by Marx.

[Comrade Gorley]

If Marx didn&#39;t directly address something, we can&#39;t claim he would support it, unless it blatantly contradicts his ideaology. We can&#39;t profess to know what his opinion would be.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2003, 02:12 AM
If Marx didn&#39;t directly address something, we can&#39;t claim he would support it, unless it blatantly contradicts his ideaology. We can&#39;t profess to know what his opinion would be.
But it does blatantly contradict his theory.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

first, you shouldn&#39;t acuse people of having avatars that look like they were draw by seven year olds, pal. Secondly, your entire theory of a dictator is extremely un Marxist. Your being absolutely ridiculous. A dictator? What will that lead to?

Anyway, breeding someone to have ideal genes for leadership, may create a person with good leadership skills, but this is Naziism. Not that Nazis would breed a leader, but the idea of having a geneticaly ideal individual is grossly barbaric and Naziist.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

On the subject of what is and what isn&#39;t Marxist.
Marx&#39;s prediction was that through revolution and the people&#39;s leadership, the working class will suppress the capitalist class and create a communist society. Having a dictator contradicts the bit about the people&#39;s leadership. mkay?

[Comrade Gorley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 05:42 PM
first, you shouldn&#39;t acuse people of having avatars that look like they were draw by seven year olds, pal.
Well, I like how this one sort of likes.. Atari-esque. I just found it on the internet somewhere (shrug). But a monkey chewing bubble gum.. seriously, now.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" = True Democracy (Good stuff in my opinion)
True Dictatorship disguised as communism = Bullshit (Powertrippin&#39; does not make geniune revolutionaries)
BREEDING LEADERS = Eugenics = fucking NAZIS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; = genocide = BAD&#33;&#33;&#33;
(forgive my rough equations--I never was good at advanced math&#33;)

[Sandanista]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2003, 03:30 AM
So, Redstar, if two intelligent, naturally skeptical and analytical, are physically strong, and- most importantly- communists have sex, there&#39;s no possible way the child will inherit these traits?

Yeah, that logic makes a helluva lotta sense.


U never heard of materialism???

the working class emancipates itself, it has no leader and no country.

[canikickit]

I have a good idea for selecting a dictator:

Round up all the guys who figure themselves to be "great leaders", put them in a room, and get them to play russian roulette. Beat the crap out of the winner with a baseball bat and send him home.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 08:21 PM
I have a good idea for selecting a dictator:

Round up all the guys who figure themselves to be "great leaders", put them in a room, and get them to play russian roulette. Beat the crap out of the winner with a baseball bat and send him home.
Its not really Russian roulette though. Only one person would die, unless they played multiple rounds of the game.

[Ian]

You have given me the best signature ever man, thank you&#33;

“In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” [On Feuerbach, 1845]

How does the above quote fit in with what you claim is Marx&#39;s ideology on what a perfect society would be? It doesn&#39;t mate, it says that no one has an exclusive sphere of activity, not even the glorious ubermensch dictators should (that is assuming that the people are more stupid than I would believe and thought it would be fun to breed a dictator).

Other than that, I don&#39;t like you much now, you teased my avatar, that is counter-revolutionary.

[Saint-Just]

This question hasn&#39;t been given the answer to it that is traditionally practised in socialist societies. The Central Committee should select the leader.

[Nick Yves]

Dictatorships are what ruined the USSR. A &#39;president&#39; so to speak should be used.

[bluerev002]

A new President every four or whatever years is too unpredictable, I mean, one can do something good and then the other comes up to fuck it all up.

It makes sense to have the kid of the current dictator become the next dictator. I mean, kids grow up and their biggest influence are their parents. From a young age it could be taught the ways of communism...
...of coures even if it does make sense...I dont like the idea :lol:

The new dictator must be someone who knows what the people want and someone who has suffered. A young person from the revolution would be an ideal canidate. But of course down the line the veterans of the revolution will die out.

So I STILL think that the new dictator should be chosen by the current dictator, like a pupil of some kind. :ph34r:

[elijahcraig]

Anyone who speaks of USSR dictators as in Lenin and Stalin...they don&#39;t know too much about the USSR.

[Som]

A new President every four or whatever years is too unpredictable, I mean, one can do something good and then the other comes up to fuck it all up.

yea and a new president thats not elected can fuck things up forever, and you cant get rid of em in 4 years and elect someone worthwhile.

Remember gorbachev, deng? eh?


So I STILL think that the new dictator should be chosen by the current dictator, like a pupil of some kind.

And if you get a caucusceceu?(sp) (I used him because i&#39;ve seen absolutly no good things said about him, by any totalitarian, for the rest of us theres far more examples).


Anyone who speaks of USSR dictators as in Lenin and Stalin...they don&#39;t know too much about the USSR.

Oh sure they do, Its just that anyone that speaks that way, wouldn&#39;t be able to speak too loud under those people that &#39;weren&#39;t dictators&#39;

[elijahcraig]

Oh sure they do, Its just that anyone that speaks that way, wouldn&#39;t be able to speak too loud under those people that &#39;weren&#39;t dictators&#39;

Does this have any purpose? Random, foundationless assertions? You are pathetic if you go the route of pathetic people.

[Som]

Does this have any purpose? Random, foundationless assertions? You are pathetic if you go the route of pathetic people.

It was a foundationless assertion in response to a foundationless assertion.

It&#39;s your maze, I just wandered in. Pathetic or otherwise.

Seemed fitting considering its not really the topic of this thread.

[elijahcraig]

You asserted that the USSR was run by dictators, the burden is on YOU to prove this. This is your maze rat.

[Som]

Yes, in response to your assertation that they weren&#39;t.

Prove an negative, prove a positive, prove some cheese.

Why would it be my burden?

Oh those pointless mazes, where will they lead.

[elijahcraig]

As RAF says, "the burden lays on the accuser". So, unless you can prove your assertion, you can shut up now.

Really, it&#39;s like walking past a man on the street and shouting "murderer". Without proof. He is innocent until proven guilty. Let&#39;s go from there.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 07:54 AM
Yes, in response to your assertation that they weren&#39;t.

Prove an negative, prove a positive, prove some cheese.

Why would it be my burden?

Oh those pointless mazes, where will they lead.
Are you not accusing Lenin and Stalin of being dictators?

Yes, indeed you are. Now, for lesson one son, I would like you to actually open up a dictionary (they define words used in language) and look up the word "dictator". I would like you then to prove with empirical evidence how Both Lenin and Stalin qualified as "dictators".


In any logical debate (you do subscribe to logic yes?) the burden of proof lies with the accuser. This is called rational thought. (you do subscribe to rational thought yes?) I normally would not bother until after your predictable response of "why don&#39;t you provide proof" but I sincerely am bored with predicting with almost perfect accuracy what individuals like you will say so I&#39;m just going to spell it out for you right now son.

Logical debate and rational thought are the cornerstones for philosophical evolution and growth. If you choose not to provide proof to support your allegations, your opinions will be taken with about as much seriousness as I take Mighty Mouse.

Are you a man or mouse my friend?


P.S.

You&#39;re not going to skirt out of your original post that "dictators" ruined the USSR as well. That&#39;s lesson number two my boy. First prove that Lenin and Stalin were dictators.

EDIT:

Nevermind that...the original post was a different kat.

[Som]

As RAF says, "the burden lays on the accuser". So, unless you can prove your assertion, you can shut up now.

Really, it&#39;s like walking past a man on the street and shouting "murderer". Without proof. He is innocent until proven guilty. Let&#39;s go from there.

Well, I think in more practicle terms regarding these fellows, the burden would lay on those contradicting loads of documented history. Someone whos saying something entirely different so to speak. A man for condemned in a court as a murderer, while you build up the claim that the jury was just rascist.

But I&#39;ve noticed that argueing history here is a rather useless matter, considering quite a few will simply dismiss nearly everything negative about them as &#39;western propaganda&#39; and will only rely on those who support them to &#39;tell the truth&#39; as though they have nothing to gain from their history and their bias. If its negative and from communists, its likewise trotskyite filth, and if its from an anarchist other notions of biased lies will come up. Those anarchists weren&#39;t exactly too happy about being rounded up and shot after being generally helpful to the russian revolution.

I could of course post loads of sources to have them quickly dismissed. Might be best for a thread about which myths we decide to agree on.
For example, ive seen a general attitude saying that &#39;since theres no paper on it, and they had official records it surely didn&#39;t happen&#39;, but generally speaking I think this is a bit simplistic, considering a regime of the nature its accused of might be inclined to not keep records, or destroy those records of &#39;disapearing people&#39; and that sort of thing.

With that i&#39;ll say i won&#39;t bother with this argument too far, for the reasons above, just found your original claim that anyone who didn&#39;t see your version of things is &#39;ignorant&#39; was a bit of an arrogant assumption.

[elijahcraig]

Well, I think in more practicle terms regarding these fellows, the burden would lay on those contradicting loads of documented history. Someone whos saying something entirely different so to speak. A man for condemned in a court as a murderer, while you build up the claim that the jury was just rascist.

Well, show me some documented history hambone.

But I&#39;ve noticed that argueing history here is a rather useless matter, considering quite a few will simply dismiss nearly everything negative about them as &#39;western propaganda&#39; and will only rely on those who support them to &#39;tell the truth&#39; as though they have nothing to gain from their history and their bias. If its negative and from communists, its likewise trotskyite filth, and if its from an anarchist other notions of biased lies will come up. Those anarchists weren&#39;t exactly too happy about being rounded up and shot after being generally helpful to the russian revolution.

And the Communists weren&#39;t exactly happy about the anarchists rebelling like the utopianist fools they are against the newly formed workers&#39; state in a time when a civil war, and mass famine were occuring&#33; Anarchists are fools.

I guess hambone abdicates?

I could of course post loads of sources to have them quickly dismissed. Might be best for a thread about which myths we decide to agree on.
For example, ive seen a general attitude saying that &#39;since theres no paper on it, and they had official records it surely didn&#39;t happen&#39;, but generally speaking I think this is a bit simplistic, considering a regime of the nature its accused of might be inclined to not keep records, or destroy those records of &#39;disapearing people&#39; and that sort of thing.

Simplistic? Castro, "Blaming everything on Stalin would be historical simplism." I think it is up to you to show me something which proves the wild accusations of Stalin&#39;s enemies. Lenin, I assume, was not a dictator in your eyes? Only fools would say he was a dictator.

With that i&#39;ll say i won&#39;t bother with this argument too far, for the reasons above, just found your original claim that anyone who didn&#39;t see your version of things is &#39;ignorant&#39; was a bit of an arrogant assumption.

No, I think you should have to show me what you mean when you say "dictator", etc. Show me the proof. Arrogance? Only a fool would say such a thing when he has produced nothing as evidence.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Just as I suspected Som.


If you are in fear of having your "evidence" dismissed then perhaps it&#39;s not evidence at all and merely editorials...or even worst, heresy.


I believe comrade Ealijah has summed it up well enough;


No, I think you should have to show me what you mean when you say "dictator", etc. Show me the proof. Arrogance? Only a fool would say such a thing when he has produced nothing as evidence.

Unrefutable statement comrade. Good work.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Well, I think in more practicle terms regarding these fellows, the burden would lay on those contradicting loads of documented history. Someone whos saying something entirely different so to speak. A man for condemned in a court as a murderer, while you build up the claim that the jury was just rascist.



I do not believe you are thinking practically at all. It is obvious from your back-peddling that you have nothing substantial in your arsenal.

In this case, you alleged practicality of thinking is more like fantastic thought.

[Felicia]

as far as I know, most dictators aren&#39;t "selected", unless it&#39;s by the CIA ;)

[Cassius Clay]

Yes thankyou for stealing my little joke there Felicia. :lol:

Anyway back to how to &#39;select&#39; a dictator, you fools know nothing. When the glourious Empire arrives our great leader Emperor Palpatine will reward me with the title of Lord of the Earth.

[redstar2000]

In common usage, "dictator" is understood to mean autocrat...one guy makes all of the substantive decisions--though he may have a circle of advisors and may temporarily delegate some of his power.

This is "oriental despotism" in its classical form...and probably cannot exist in a society more advanced than the Roman Empire.

To suggest that Lenin or Stalin or Mao had autocratic powers--as bourgeois "popular" historians generally do--is thus technically incorrect. The material conditions of the modern era make that impossible (Czar Nicholas II tried and failed in such an effort...even before the revolution overthrew him).

On the other hand, there was clearly a situation in Russia where Lenin&#39;s views (and even more) Stalin&#39;s views clearly outweighed the views of others by a wide margin. The same thing was true in China and is true in Cuba today.

There&#39;s no instance on record--to the best of my knowledge--where a resolution sponsered by Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Castro was permanently defeated by any collective organ in their respective countries. (I think Lenin lost a few votes initially but, upon reconsideration, Lenin&#39;s views prevailed.)

Coincidence cannot carry the burden of that result.

So, even if they were technically not autocrats...nevertheless the outcome of their presence was such that, for all practical purposes, the word "dictator" is understandably applied.

Those who wish to defend the "historical reputations" of those figures face an "uphill battle" to remove the tag...it&#39;s close enough to what actually happened as makes no difference to the average person and only the most careful historians will note the minor inaccuracies.

Of course, they can always try the argument that the reason those guys won all those votes is because they were "always right". :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I agree they had weighted opinions, but they cannot be called dictators because they argued better, or debated better.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Stalin and lenin were leaders of a beurocratic oligrachy, so they&#39;re technicaly not dictators, but the fact that they had much power over many aspects of the government (seemingly much more than what Westerners expect from a leader), can be used to clasiffy them almost as dictators. I hope that the form of rule found in the USSR does not repeat.

[elijahcraig]

Oligarchy? I don&#39;t agree. That&#39;s just being picky. Analyzing things without viewing it in its context. That&#39;s what anarchists do, I would advise against it.

[truthaddict11]

why should communism have a selected "leader" at all? I think the working class can do more if they govern themselves, enough of this talk about communism "needing" a "leader".

[elijahcraig]

I don&#39;t see anything wrong with a "leader" like Lenin or Mao or Gonzalo, etc., but I&#39;m sure need of a "leader" is non-existent. Although public relations, etc., might need one.

[truthaddict11]

public relations? what do you mean? communism should be controled by the workers alone.

[elijahcraig]

Cultural revolution, all of that. The complete change from capitalism to socialism to communism is essential. Not just economic change, but cultural as well.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by Cassius [email protected] 4 2003, 08:43 AM
Yes thankyou for stealing my little joke there Felicia. :lol:

lalala, that&#39;s what I&#39;m here for ^_^ :rolleyes:

[Cassius Clay]

Well seeing as I&#39;m in a good mood for once, I forigve you.

BTW people do we think we could have one debate which doesn&#39;t actually turn into a debate on a Gerogian Revolutionary from the 19th Century. I never thought I&#39;d say this but it&#39;s getting really annoying. We are NOT historians, on with todays struggle I say. Yes we should take what was best in the democratic examples in the USSR, Cuba and PRC and apply them, but obviously they aren&#39;t perfect since there is no longer any USSR. &#39;Selecting Dictators&#39; has NOTHING to do with Socialism or Communism, we should be putting faith in the masses not a &#39;great leader&#39;.

Besides the only great leader around here is me.