some of my thought- incomplete, but would like

[Unrelenting Steve]

Democracy is wrong- decisions that should be made to affect a whole group should never be restrictive in any social sense if that decision is not unanimous, in which case why make it permanent as contracts are entered into with a certain state of mind which hopefully should is not permanent as people develop and grow.

Law should be restrictive when humans interact, as it is required to have a neutral third party to instil justice when an arbitral force is needed. This law should be defined as humanitarian and then simple logic should follow to derive what laws should be made. The judiciary handles this well as it has from its creation. We don’t need a parliament after that if freedom is to be preserved to the fullest extent possible, but we do, this is created from having an unstable problematic economic system. This proves my earlier assessment as law is needed to amend and restrict people when they interact, and with all the problematic positions people put each other in, in capitalism; we will forever need a parliament to cope with the faster paced problems that need to be diverted and disguised as new debates and subjects just made from earlier “amending conclusions” that basically just come from capitalism not working when it is applied to a moral constitution. This procrastination is also aided by the vote; letting people think they have some influence that can be used to economically aid them while on their quest for wealth and hedonism is another powerful ally for the real controlling powers. In the end all politics in the third world is a sham, representation for the people is non existent, usually it is the small minority usually the bousigoue is in control of the government through tools like the media to keep themselves in power with the support of multinational corporations and governments of advanced capitalist imperialists nations abroad: this however is doomed to failure of an extended amount of time (e.g. China). Now a new balance ahs been struck, infiltrate the peoples party and pay them off, the ANC does not disclose its international seemingly anonymous benefactors, why would these forces of good want to remain nameless, especially as this whole subject of secrecy threatens what should be the specific interests of the state- which should be restricted to representing the people. Truth invites examination, that equivalates to if they are being secretive there is obviously some crime being perpetrated; this is accepted by the wise, questioned by the meek and disbelieved by stupid.





It is not finsished, the form is terrible i know, but after i have all my points i will then try to dissasemble them and put them in someone kind of structure. Please I would like corrections and constructive disagreementsor a why im just wrong. I do not want to be "slaughtered" this is how i make sure i am not on some weird totaly incorect tangent. (that last bit is for someone in particular, u know who u r)

[Unrelenting Steve]

sorry if that it extemely repetitve and i have just largley reproduced some of the more superfiacial facts of moaism est. But this is what i understand and belive, i have not the energy to do ne more work on that till tomorrow- but I have alot still to add. Basicly i will conclude form my mininalist approch that the dictatorship that Moa spoke of is required...... is that stalinism?

sorry if this is all very incoherant and my post does not the contain what it should and what im questionaing, its 3am - i will amend this tomorrow :) sory for potencialy wasting the forums time

[Unrelenting Steve]

this is in reply to ak47 on that previous post. although i think this whole topic does also in a way.

Maoism:

(In about 1966). He tried to squash all the emerging bourgeois elements, elitism, beaurocracy etc.. He stressed egalitarianism and the value of the peasants' lack of sophistication; city workers were forced to receive "profound class education" through agricultural labour with the peasants.

This is how Mao fought the class struggle in the DoP.

Maoists nowadays say that Mao was the only person who recognised that there was a ‘new bourgeoisie’ in socialist society. One that could infiltrate all ranks of socialist society. They say that it can only be combated by an event like in China from 1966 to1976 – the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. They criticise other socialist nations for not using something such as the GPCR and only ever fighting the ‘class struggle’. I am not going to discuss this as things get so complex as to being incomprehensible. In addition my own view is pragmatic such that I view all socialist countries as have sufficiently fought the class struggle.

Here are some quotes from Mao that quite-well define his views on socialist society:

Democratic Dictatorship:

‘Our state is a people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the worker-peasant alliance. What is this dictatorship for? Its first function is to suppress the reactionary classes and elements and those exploiters in our country who resist the socialist revolution, to suppress those who try to wreck our socialist construction, or in other words, to resolve the internal contradictions between ourselves and the enemy. For instance, to arrest, try and sentence certain counter-revolutionaries, and to deprive landlords and bureaucrat-capitalists of their right to vote and their freedom of speech for a specified period of time--all this comes within the scope of our dictatorship. To maintain public order and safeguard the interests of the people, it is likewise necessary to exercise dictatorship over embezzlers, swindlers, arsonists, murderers, criminal gangs and other scoundrels who seriously disrupt public order. The second function of this dictatorship is to protect our country from subversion and possible aggression by external enemies. In that event, it is the task of this dictatorship to resolve the external contradiction between ourselves and the enemy. The aim of this dictatorship is to protect all our people so that they can devote themselves to peaceful labour and build China into a socialist country with a modern industry, agriculture, science and culture.’

‘The people's democratic dictatorship uses two methods. Towards the enemy, it uses the method of dictatorship, that is, for as long a period of time as is necessary it does not let them take part in political activities and compels them to obey the law of the People's Government and to engage in labour and, through labour, transform themselves into new men. Towards the people, on the contrary, it uses the method not of compulsion but of democracy, that is, it must necessarily let them take part in political activities and does not compel them to do this or that, but uses the method of democracy in educating and persuading them.’
Mao from Quotations from the Chairman Mao Zedong:

‘The history of mankind is one of continuous development from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. This process is never-ending. In any society in which classes exist class struggle will never end. In classless society the struggle between the new and the old and between truth and falsehood will never end. In the fields of the struggle for production and scientific experiment, mankind makes constant progress and nature undergoes constant change; they never remain at the same level. Therefore, man has constantly to sum up experience and go on discovering, inventing, creating and advancing. Ideas of stagnation, pessimism inertia and complacency are all wrong. They are wrong because they agree neither with the historical facts of social development over the past million years, nor with the historical facts of nature so far known to us (i.e., nature as revealed in the history of celestial bodies, the earth, life, and other natural phenomena).’



-------- this was Pmed to me by Chairman Moa.

in moas writting, i only see truth, practicle truth. What dont i know ak47, what is ur argument against Moasim (which is supoosedly also stalinism)??? what dont i know

[Invader Zim]

Democratic dictatorship... good one, made me chuckle. That my friend is an oxymoron, they are ideological oppersits. A dictator is not democratic and never will be.

dic·ta·tor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dkttr, dk-t-)
n.

An absolute ruler.
A tyrant; a despot.


de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.

And quotes show what Mao said, not what Mao did. A fundermental differance. I could go round saying that I am God, and you could quote me, that does not make it the case.

[Bolshevika]

When a Marxist says "dictatorship" he does not mean it in the literal term. Dictatorship, in the times of Marx and Lenin (before it was perverted by western media and used to label autocrats), meant centralism, not necessary autocracy.

Centralism is the centralization of all branches of government into one whole, this can be democratic, although it avoids the parliamentary bureaucracy that you seem to be defending.

Cuba is a great example of democratic centralization.

The problem is that "democracy" is quite relative. If you mean bourgeois "democracy", than yes, it is not democratic, but if you mean peoples democracy that is something else.

You seem to be pretty unforgiving of Chairman Mao and Stalin. The reason some of their policies seemed like those of a "dictator" was because of the unfortunate situations they were met with. Lenin accomplished many things, but some of the isolated parts of the Soviet Union were still feudalistic.

In China most peasants could not even read or write, so how in the world will they be able to democratically control China? Where would they find the criteria to elect representatives and democratically control factories?

In fact Mao tried to atleast take a step towards changing China's society and attempted to make the almost savage (they're treatment of women and ethnic minorities was horrid!) post-feudal peoples of China into civilized, Communist, compassionate, educated, human beings.

So to completely forget the situations Mao and Stalin were met with and completely ignore what they did to improve the lives of their people is ridiculous.

[sc4r]

I almost cant believe I read that.

Dictatorship my friend literally means rule by a single person. And it always has. Ever since Plato. Its not too bad to use it when you mean actual rule, without the need to refer to the populace in general, by a small group (technically oligarchy) but to use it when talking about anything else simply impedes communication.

Polemic about 'bourgeois democracy' really meaning dictatorship is simplistic bollox. It does not. It may not be desirable, it may have flaws, but it is not the same as dictatorship. 'Bourgeois democracy' itself is a pretty dreadful term to use. I know what is meant by it and I oppose that thing, but even to me it conveys the unmistakeable message that the person using it will be an extremist who wont even try to talk realistic turkey. To most people it conveys that message at volume 11.

IF you want to overthrow or change an institution as imbedded in social consciousness as representative democracy, it's going to be a lot easier to do if you actually understand what it is, how it works, and why it is so attractive to so many people. Using the language of the 'militant left' might work wonders for rallying the already converted and the faithful, it makes a neta battlecry, but in terms of convincing the 90% of people who reckon we are whining nutters it will actually be a turn off.

AS to the original point about democracy being 'wrong' its hard to know what to say. Yes it might be lovely if a non democratic system could work as described. But the actual question is would it ? How ? The answer is that it never has, probably never will. Practicalities matter.

I could just as easily show democracy (or any other system) to be perfect if I ignore the practical dynamics and simply assume unrealistic attitudes.

Social systems are all about balance. No such system is remotely capable of being totally fair to everyone from everyones point of view, because the POV's are all so different. Democracy is not a perfect system. No method of social organisation is. But democracy is (to my mind) easily the most reliable way of optimising and reconciling the different POV's.

Not all methods of achieving democracy are equally good of course, and like everything else some are better at one thing, some at another. I personally feel that Representative democracy within the parameters of a large liberal state and modern mass communication is absolutely bound to end up failing to reflect peoples views very well. And I reckon that the time has long since come for a change to a much more directly democratic system., but this would still be democracy, just a better sort.

The problem is straightforward. person A may not want what person B wants. It may be that he does not want even what everyone else does. And it can be the case that those other people cannot get what they want so long as person A is satisfied. In such circumstances some method or another is needed to allow a decision about which persons desires will be satisfied, they cannot all be. The democratioc solution is to allow the prevailing view to dominate; a sensible democracy will ensure that it is not allowed to dominate almost abitrarily by setting bound on what a majority can impose; by giving individuals 'rights'. This is something which any self interested individual ought to support (because if you allow a majority to abitrarily dominate someone else, then it may decide at some point to do the same to you).

The extent of those rights and how they are defined is what actually distinguishes the various political ideals. At one extreme Capitalism gives almost unlimited individual rights based only on contract. This has severe practical problems in situations where an individual can either prevent something that is clearly in the common good and also runs into problems whenever a 'contractual right' to anything is not already established. At the opposite extreme a simple 'majority rule' is capable of destroying individual dignity and creating massive resentment. The trick is to find the best balance and combine it with layers of control to ensure it stays that way.

All such systems must be self supporting. Thats to say they must have feedback and education loops to prevent them turning into something different. It makes it a complex subject to assess. One that cant be properly addressed simply by listing 'should be's'.

best wishes.

[Saint-Just]

Dictatorship my friend literally means rule by a single person. And it always has. Ever since Plato. Its not too bad to use it when you mean actual rule, without the need to refer to the populace in general, by a small group (technically oligarchy) but to use it when talking about anything else simply impedes communication.

I can't quite fathom what exactly you are trying to say. I suspect, though, this this statement is in disagreement:

'The proletariat, when it seizes power should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique - dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.' -Rosa Luxemburg

[RevolucioN NoW]

Any dictatorship, whether a military, proletarian or 'democratic' will esentially lead to the unrestrained rule of one person or a small minority over the will of the majority, it will lead to a massive security apparatus to keep this rule in place and will not reresent the democratic will of the people.

there should be a truly democratic desicion making process, a free media and little to no repression in the composition of a socialist state

:ph34r:

[Unrelenting Steve]

Easier bloody said than done, with what you propose you have to play their game and win at it. Publicity through advertisment through having huge reasources perhaps could be matched by some act of God, but it becomes impossible when you factor in they control the Media blah blah blah, and then in the end, on the eve of the election, you'll probably be assasinated anyway....the method of which will probably be so compelling of its resemblance of a freak honest natural incident (as it was probably constructed by the CIA over 30 years; intitled: If some group of exceeding stupid lefists actualy take winning an election seriously and are close to doing it) that everyone would turn Christain and proclaim; 'this is the will of God'.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 29 2003, 09:57 AM
Dictatorship my friend literally means rule by a single person. And it always has. Ever since Plato. Its not too bad to use it when you mean actual rule, without the need to refer to the populace in general, by a small group (technically oligarchy) but to use it when talking about anything else simply impedes communication.

I can't quite fathom what exactly you are trying to say. I suspect, though, this this statement is in disagreement:

'The proletariat, when it seizes power should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique - dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.' -Rosa Luxemburg
I am saying that dictatorship means rule by one person.

I say that because that is the definition. And words mean what the definitions say they mean.

I'm also saying that slightly loose usage to mean rule by a few is common enough to be acceptable, and near enough in meaning that it causes no meaningful confusion.

A 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is actually not a dictatorship. It's a slogan which as a whole does not mean what it seems to mean. Like many slogans it doesn't have to actually make perfect sense as long as it coveys the gist of the feeling and meaning behind it. I've never been convinced that this particular slogan actually does that, to my mind it hides what is actually meant, but no matter.

It is not particularly uncommon in english to have groups of words which taken together refer to a concept which is not related closely (or at all) to the concept that would be being expressed by the type description included in the phrase. For example a catfish is not a cat; a dogfish is not a dog; green treacle is actually black; etc. Nonetheless the phrase 'dictatorsgip of the proletariat' like rather too many marxist slogans serves not to aid communication but to hinder it. Use it on 90% of americans and the discusion will go like this :

USA 'So you are admitting that Marxists are all dictators'
You ' No Dictatroship of the proletariat means .........'
USA 'You are just wriggling, you've already admitted it. YEWWZZAYYYY RRUKES, Commies suxors.'

Great job boys! AS if our job to convince them was not hard enough you want to actually feed their eroneous pre-conceptions by using phaseology which seems to support those pre-conceptions.

[Saint-Just]

So sc4r, your qualm is that the term DoP should not be used since it has bad implications as far as the western bourgeoisie is concerned.

[elijahcraig]

Whether you like it or not, there will always be a dictatorship. This does not mean rule by one man, but in Marxist terms: rule by a single class. Under Capitalism there is a dictatorship by the Capitalist class, Marxism seeks to establish a dictatorship by the working class. This does not mean one man can rule alone, in fact that is not a possibility from a Marxist persepctive, you are always stamped with your class imprints, you always act in allegiance with your class under Capitalism, and under Socialism the workers act as the class who rules. The state's only function is to destroy opposition of the classes not in power. The objective of this is to destroy all classes except for one class, ie classless since only one exists. We seek a dictatorship of the proletariat because they are in the majority, they should be the rulers, they are the ones who should run the democratic functions of the country, and by this, and this only, can their ever be put an end to all minority dictatorships.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 08:25 PM
Whether you like it or not, there will always be a dictatorship. This does not mean rule by one man, but in Marxist terms: rule by a single class. Under Capitalism there is a dictatorship by the Capitalist class, Marxism seeks to establish a dictatorship by the working class. This does not mean one man can rule alone, in fact that is not a possibility from a Marxist persepctive, you are always stamped with your class imprints, you always act in allegiance with your class under Capitalism, and under Socialism the workers act as the class who rules. The state's only function is to destroy opposition of the classes not in power. The objective of this is to destroy all classes except for one class, ie classless since only one exists. We seek a dictatorship of the proletariat because they are in the majority, they should be the rulers, they are the ones who should run the democratic functions of the country, and by this, and this only, can their ever be put an end to all minority dictatorships.
OK...one question....what happens to the former ruling class?

Do you kill them all....or opress them?

Also you realize that the entire dictatorship of the proletariate isn't feesible don't you?

During a revolution there is always a leader who comes to power after the revolution.

They never step down....never.....I mean that is alot of power to give up.

THey never turn power over to theworking class.

How exactley do you plan for this to happen

[elijahcraig]

OK...one question....what happens to the former ruling class?

Do you kill them all....or opress them?

Kill them? No, some of course will rebel and will have to be put down. Most will be integrated into the new socialist society, but suppression of bourgeois reactionaries would be absolutely necessary to developing a new form of socialist man.


Also you realize that the entire dictatorship of the proletariate isn't feesible don't you?

The Party will be the representation of the proletariat, the most militant members of the class. Direct voting on every issue is obviously not a possibility. Recallable officials at any time, workers countcils, trade unions, and that sort of thing could be set up to become more democratic and fully functional.


During a revolution there is always a leader who comes to power after the revolution.

They never step down....never.....I mean that is alot of power to give up.

THey never turn power over to theworking class.

How exactley do you plan for this to happen

The working class had power in USSR up to 1953, and their power went far down after that. They recalled 48% of their officials in one year for example.

Leader? Yes, there is always a type of symbol for the people, Che talked about this in "Man and Socialism in Cuba", in the section "Fidel and the Masses". This leader is not a dictator and should not be labeled as one by any straight-thinking individual.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 08:43 PM

OK...one question....what happens to the former ruling class?

Do you kill them all....or opress them?

Kill them? No, some of course will rebel and will have to be put down. Most will be integrated into the new socialist society, but suppression of bourgeois reactionaries would be absolutely necessary to developing a new form of socialist man.


Also you realize that the entire dictatorship of the proletariate isn't feesible don't you?

The Party will be the representation of the proletariat, the most militant members of the class. Direct voting on every issue is obviously not a possibility. Recallable officials at any time, workers countcils, trade unions, and that sort of thing could be set up to become more democratic and fully functional.


During a revolution there is always a leader who comes to power after the revolution.

They never step down....never.....I mean that is alot of power to give up.

THey never turn power over to theworking class.

How exactley do you plan for this to happen

The working class had power in USSR up to 1953, and their power went far down after that. They recalled 48% of their officials in one year for example.

Leader? Yes, there is always a type of symbol for the people, Che talked about this in "Man and Socialism in Cuba", in the section "Fidel and the Masses". This leader is not a dictator and should not be labeled as one by any straight-thinking individual.
First of all define reactionary...does reactionary mean willing to fight...or does reactionary mean speak out against the new govt.

Will they retain natural human rights? Freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly?

The party is a representation? ANd how can you garuantee this?

And who called anyone a dictator? I just said they wont step down. If the party is truly a representation of the people should it be headed by a single individua l?

And shouldn't it be a democracy wherethe people can elect their leader?

[elijahcraig]

First of all define reactionary...does reactionary mean willing to fight...or does reactionary mean speak out against the new govt.

Take the 76 dissidents arrested in Cuba lately, they were planning to overtrhow the government. They had already bombed a hotel, and attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro. That is the kind of people which need suppression.



Will they retain natural human rights? Freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly?

Not the above group I mentioned. The workers and all cooperative petty bourgeois. In Cuba, people can talk harshly about any government leader they wish, just not plan the attack on the state.


The party is a representation? ANd how can you garuantee this?

Guaratnee? There are no sure-fire guarantees in a revolution. This is something which will need to be guarded, the destruction of revisionism and bourgoies tendencies within the party, as Stalin and Mao and Lenin all fought against these elements.


And who called anyone a dictator? I just said they wont step down. If the party is truly a representation of the people should it be headed by a single individua l?

The Chairman is not hte absolute leader, he is elected by the party. He is merely a head to lead the people into a new way of life.


And shouldn't it be a democracy wherethe people can elect their leader?

Well, there is debate over that.

Since anyon can join the party who meets certain guidelines, I think voting by the masses is a good thing. That is what the workers councils and trade unions are there for also.


You'd get a varying opinion on that question, I don't have a 100% correct answer, I am not sure completely.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 08:57 PM

First of all define reactionary...does reactionary mean willing to fight...or does reactionary mean speak out against the new govt.

Take the 76 dissidents arrested in Cuba lately, they were planning to overtrhow the government. They had already bombed a hotel, and attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro. That is the kind of people which need suppression.



Will they retain natural human rights? Freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly?

Not the above group I mentioned. The workers and all cooperative petty bourgeois. In Cuba, people can talk harshly about any government leader they wish, just not plan the attack on the state.


The party is a representation? ANd how can you garuantee this?

Guaratnee? There are no sure-fire guarantees in a revolution. This is something which will need to be guarded, the destruction of revisionism and bourgoies tendencies within the party, as Stalin and Mao and Lenin all fought against these elements.


And who called anyone a dictator? I just said they wont step down. If the party is truly a representation of the people should it be headed by a single individua l?

The Chairman is not hte absolute leader, he is elected by the party. He is merely a head to lead the people into a new way of life.


And shouldn't it be a democracy wherethe people can elect their leader?

Well, there is debate over that.

Since anyon can join the party who meets certain guidelines, I think voting by the masses is a good thing. That is what the workers councils and trade unions are there for also.


You'd get a varying opinion on that question, I don't have a 100% correct answer, I am not sure completely.
OK I see where you are going with reactionary...any govt. has the right to dessimate violent dissedents

>Guaratnee? There are no sure-fire guarantees in a revolution. This is something which will need to be guarded, the destruction of revisionism and bourgoies tendencies within the party, as Stalin and Mao and Lenin all fought against these elements.<

That is a large problem...ther are no garuantees in violent revolution......so if they take power and become opressive what are the people to do?

Sure another revolution may be inorder...but a new govt. would be more likely to cripple them in the early stages for fear of the power shifting again

...also why must they be part of the party to vote in for the new leader?

[elijahcraig]

It is the chance you take in a revolution. But if a revolution is not had, you can expect to forever be oppressed by the tyranny of capiatlism and its imperialist outreach programs.

On your last question, I am not sure enough to answer.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 09:09 PM
It is the chance you take in a revolution. But if a revolution is not had, you can expect to forever be oppressed by the tyranny of capiatlism and its imperialist outreach programs.

On your last question, I am not sure enough to answer.
We wouldn&#39;t need the revolution if we went back in time and did these things

1. Killed adam smith

2. Stopped the Republicans and democrats from stealing socialist policies in the early 1900&#39;s

3. or if We showed the nfounding fathers of america the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital

so lets get to the time machine