Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

[NoPlaceForHeroes]

I have run this scenario by several people and many say that it sounds like a revisionist theory on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

A leader gains a majority rule in a 1st world, democratic nation. Using that majority, they slowly eliminate all ways in which the can be removed from power. Essentially, they become a dictator. While being dictator, all corporations and businesses are brought under government control. They become what is known as "Crown" corporations in Canada. With all corporations under government control, prices of goods and wages of workers are fixed and standardized across the country for the time being. All businesses the deal in the same thing are combined, creating several super-corporations. As the government centralizes the economy, the corporations are merged until everything is under one corporation, which is under government control. With this in place, the leader starts introducing communistic principles, slowly reforming the country. When the introduction and reformation of the country is complete, the government is then reformed as well, back to democracy. This time however, the election and decision making process is more democratic. With this complete, the dictator steps down and the country is fairly socialist and democratic.

Does anyone have any opinions on this?

[redstar2000]

A leader gains a majority rule in a 1st world, democratic nation. Using that majority, they slowly eliminate all ways in which they can be removed from power. Essentially, they become a dictator.

Pretty clever fellow; none of his supporters will presumably "leak" his diabolical scheme to the media "ahead of time".

As the government centralizes the economy, the corporations are merged until everything is under one corporation, which is under government control. With this in place, the leader starts introducing communistic principles, slowly reforming the country. When the introduction and reformation of the country is complete, the government is then reformed as well, back to democracy. This time however, the election and decision making process is more democratic. With this complete, the dictator steps down and the country is fairly socialist and democratic.

A long-lived fellow too, as well as being remarkably benevolent.

Actually, all this has nothing to do with the dictatorship of the proletariat. It's a bourgeois fantasy of a "benevolent despotism".

Try again.

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

[YKTMX]

Dictatorship of the Reformists, nice.

[Morpheus]

They tried this in Italy & Germany (or something very close to it). It was called National Socialism. They both started integrating the corporations with the state, merging things together as you advocate. Italy had state planning boards with representatives from corporations, the state and labor unions. Germany had a series of three year plans. In Italy the dictator was Benito Mussolini, in Germany it was Adolf Hitler. There were similar things done in South Korea, Argentina, Spain and elsewhere. Usually this phenomenon is called Fascism.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 06:16 PM
They tried this in Italy & Germany (or something very close to it). It was called National Socialism. They both started integrating the corporations with the state, merging things together as you advocate. Italy had state planning boards with representatives from corporations, the state and labor unions. Germany had a series of three year plans. In Italy the dictator was Benito Mussolini, in Germany it was Adolf Hitler. There were similar things done in South Korea, Argentina, Spain and elsewhere. Usually this phenomenon is called Fascism.
No, because private ownsership still existed in those countries and individuals could still accumulate capital.

In the model described by 'NoPlaceForHeroes' (although I disagree with it) - I would assume private ownership does not exist.

[ONE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 08:50 AM
... With this complete, the dictator steps down and the country is fairly socialist and democratic.

Power corrupts. How would you guarantee that this dictator will step down?

Has there ever been a dictator that decided to "step down"?

[Vladimir]

Originally posted by ONE+Aug 7 2003, 08:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ONE @ Aug 7 2003, 08:06 PM)
[email protected] 7 2003, 08:50 AM
... With this complete, the dictator steps down and the country is fairly socialist and democratic.

Power corrupts. How would you guarantee that this dictator will step down?

Has there ever been a dictator that decided to "step down"? [/b]
Power can corrupt. Just happens that most/all maybe have never stepped down.

However, no country has been &#39;fairly socialist and democratic&#39; in the end after a &#39;dictator&#39;. The countries affairs would need to be working quite well if the dictator were to step down in the first place and the thorn of US imperialism would also have to be gotten rid of, so it&#39;s not very easy for the dictator to step down.

The task of getting elected democratically with a secret ideaology is intruiging but seems very hard although working examples might be Hitler and Moussilini, apart from their economic policies but this would also have an effect. The ruling class would not allow you to win if it was not in their favour, which, Hitler and Moussilini had. Both right wing favouring big industrialists :huh:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 7 2003, 06:54 PM
No, because private ownsership still existed in those countries and individuals could still accumulate capital.
Actually, most Fascist states including Nazi Germany nationalized many industries, though not all of them. Those that were not nationalized were subjected to varying degrees of state control. The model NoPlaceForHeroes put forth would eventually abolish private ownership, but at first the corporations would be put under state control and price, wage, etc. controls established. Corporations would be combined together, just like in Mussolini&#39;s Italy, and the economy centralized. After this communistic reforms are to be implemented. The beginning of this looks at lot like Fascism to me, the main difference being that somehow this system is supposed to lead to Communism.

[elijahcraig]

Nazism isn&#39;t fascism. Mussolini&#39;s fascism is different than Hitler&#39;s nazism.

I just thought I&#39;d let out some info.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I will have to concur with RS on this one. (I hate having to do that)


Comrade Elijah, please do something about the length of your sig. It&#39;s way out of order.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Morpheus+Aug 7 2003, 10:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Morpheus @ Aug 7 2003, 10:58 PM)
Chairman [email protected] 7 2003, 06:54 PM
No, because private ownsership still existed in those countries and individuals could still accumulate capital.
Actually, most Fascist states including Nazi Germany nationalized many industries, though not all of them. Those that were not nationalized were subjected to varying degrees of state control. The model NoPlaceForHeroes put forth would eventually abolish private ownership, but at first the corporations would be put under state control and price, wage, etc. controls established. Corporations would be combined together, just like in Mussolini&#39;s Italy, and the economy centralized. After this communistic reforms are to be implemented. The beginning of this looks at lot like Fascism to me, the main difference being that somehow this system is supposed to lead to Communism. [/b]
If I didn&#39;t know that I would be rather unknowledgable and hardly competent of debating this subject. Its impossible to debate this since we don&#39;t know precisely how NoPlaceForHeroes model of socialism would work.

I think you&#39;ll find that nationalisation, wage controls etc. are the socialist aspect of fascism. But in Italy and Germany individuals were still able to accumulate vast sums of capital.

[NoPlaceForHeroes]

The wage controls and nationalisation of industries was not to last. That was to be put into place until the country was stabalized. After that, they would be given to public ownership. The wage controls would also be abolished once socialism had taken root.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 08:06 PM


Has there ever been a dictator that decided to "step down"?
charles taylor- 1100 this morning.

[ONE]

Originally posted by kingbee+Aug 11 2003, 02:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kingbee @ Aug 11 2003, 02:34 PM)
[email protected] 7 2003, 08:06 PM


Has there ever been a dictator that decided to "step down"?
charles taylor- 1100 this morning. [/b]
He didn&#39;t do it out the goodness of his heart; he was under pressure from the US, and close to being ousted by the rebels. It was basically a choice between living in Exile or death.

[crazy comie]

A dictatorship of the prolitarian means the prolitarian dictate in other words democracy.