Dicktatorship of the Prolitarian

[crazy comie]

This is my model of it.There are elected soviets for each town/village and they electe there members to the reigion counsill and they electe theres to the main council.The same happens in industries accept for factories then there elected to that type of industries counsil and finnally to the economic council.But for evry new law/bill there is a refferendum in wich the entire country can vote in.For the economic referandums applying to certain industries only the pepole working in that industrie can vote.

[Saint-Just]

A referendum in which the entire country can vote in?

To me this idea seems unnecessary and wasteful. I think economic decisions should be discussed between economists and elected leaders as they have recieved the consent they need to make decisions through their election to those posts. I do not think every individuals decision they make requires a referendum.

The vast majority of the public does not understand these economic decisions. In addition, there are so many economic decisions made that there would have to be massive numbers of referendums each year and it is unlikely many would be voted on.

As class struggle reaches a new height under socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat) certain members of society should not be able to exercise any political opinions they have. Therefore constant referendums to vote on the policies of the communist party would enable opposition to working-class policies from the reactionary classes in society which would hinder the progress of socialism and make a mockery of the idea of class struggle.

I would certainly assume since you subscribe to the dictatorship of the proletariat you must subscribe to the concept of class struggle.

[chamo]

Your idea sounds not unlike Cuba's democracy in which each square block of the CDR (Committee for the Defence of the Revolution) elects a representative, that elected person goes onto district, then regional and finally national elections.

[crazy comie]

if we did not have true democrasy certain pepole would turn it into a dicktatorship of the beuracrates. You could also ban from voteing any one whoe before the revoulotion had over a 150% of the avredge salary.

[crazy comie]

can any one who votes no say why please.

[RED CHARO]

My answer; Yes,
If we just look at Venezuela (and keep looking back....), we see that the rich (with there capitalist allies), will always look at there intrests first and use them (i.e there companies, resources and political parties) to put an end to ANY socialist system that deprives them of there profits, and people can always bee conned into things for there oun gain to help out there capatalist intrests!

[crazy comie]

And don't forget all industry must be taken away from the capitalists and put in the workers hands.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 11 2003, 02:42 PM
You could also ban from voteing any one whoe before the revoulotion had over a 150% of the avredge salary.
I do not think we should have referendums on every economic bill even if people with previously high salaries were exlcuded from the vote for the reasons I explained previously that it is unproductive and very cumbersome as a method.

Democracy lies in other facets of socialist ideologies. Most decisions should be taken by the political leadership that has the collective national interest in mind rather than the scattered ideas of many individuals.

[革命者]

I voted NO- a referendum is bollocks....

[Vinny Rafarino]

Five lines to describe the entire implementation of a new government.


I will have to vote no.

[sc4r]

I'd certainly have each and every new block of laws subjected to a full referndum. This does not have to be particularly cumbersome. Yoiu dont have a separate opinion poll on each and every clause, just a yes no to large blocks.

You could do it once or twice a year.

you do have to put the day to day business of administration into somebodies hands. Quite apart from anything else someone has to knock the block of law into shape, and discuss them in detail.

I'd see it as totally impractical to have a mass referendum on every economic decision (this could include for example whether to put joice into 1litre or 1/2 litre bottles, there are simply too many of them).

I cannot see any reason to disenfranchise people earning more than any set amount before the transformation. One will have negated their economic muscle anyway (by nationalising all means of production) so why exclude them except out of spite?.

[crazy comie]

I did say law or bill not evry deccesion.Not evry miner deatail like how much you put in a bottele of cola.

Those 5 ideas where just ruf ideas raf.

[Rastafari]

I thought of something similar the other day, so I voted yes.

But then I realized that It wouldn't work out, so I made a mistake. Isn't one well-qualified leader better than 10 mediocre regional ones? Of course, your way would solve the problem for large countries like the U.S.S.R. and China, but not enitrely

[crazy comie]

As isaid there only rugh ideas. If you don't have a transparnt and Democratic system the once good leader could becume courupt.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 11 2003, 02:52 PM
can any one who votes no say why please.
Because I am opposed to all dictatorships, states and hierarchies. See http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secHcon.html

[crazy comie]

Fine i should add no one who disagrees with dicktatorship of the prolitarian should vote any way.This system would only be until there is no class.It woulod be only for supresion of the bourgeoisie.

[crazy comie]

i'm supprised redstar hasn't shown his opinion yet.

[Comrade lex]

I think that a dictatorship, like Hittler or Stalin, is bad. But a dictatorship of the proletariat is a neccessity of any successful take over. Becasue it isn't really a dictatorship, it's a council. True Some might be tempted to abuse their power and become greedy; just look at what greed did to Stalin, but most people are willing to better the common man, if the common man is that person

[crazy comie]

A dicktatorship of the prolitarian means prolitarian democracy.

[sc4r]

An informative question might be why anybody want to talk of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

All it means is effective democracy; In essence direct democracy.

But to at least 90% of americans and other westerners the term automatically re-inforces their idea that all socialist and communists are evil oppressors in favour of a totalitarian regime.

So why use it? Its a historical relic which has long since past its sell by date.

Do we use this and other arcane terms because what we realy want is not a new and better society, but to be part of an exclusive club with all the arcane mysteries and insider terminology that such clubs always have? are we just posing?

Junk the term. Its a hindrance not a help. Think about junking all the other such oitmoded terms too and start talking in plain english. Unless that is you want to show off just how commited you are by demonstrating how many such slogans you can regurgitate.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 03:13 PM
An informative question might be why anybody want to talk of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

All it means is effective democracy; In essence direct democracy.

But to at least 90% of americans and other westerners the term automatically re-inforces their idea that all socialist and communists are evil oppressors in favour of a totalitarian regime.

So why use it? Its a historical relic which has long since past its sell by date.

Do we use this and other arcane terms because what we realy want is not a new and better society, but to be part of an exclusive club with all the arcane mysteries and insider terminology that such clubs always have? are we just posing?

Junk the term. Its a hindrance not a help. Think about junking all the other such oitmoded terms too and start talking in plain english. Unless that is you want to show off just how commited you are by demonstrating how many such slogans you can regurgitate.
I do not think that DoP means 'in essence direct democracy'. You are not a Marxist anyway so why should you be talking of DoP at all?

[sc4r]

I reackon I am a marxist. please tell me why I should not be counted one ?

Course f you djont want my support feel free to say so. I stand for what I stand for, I'm not bound by some bloody book of 150 year old slofgans.

If'n you can explain why dictatrorship of the proletariarrt is not equivalent to genuine democracy then I suggest you say so.

[redstar2000]

You folks might want to look at this thread...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...=6&t=16845&st=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=6&t=16845&st=0)

I reckon I am a marxist. please tell me why I should not be counted one ?

A "marxist" who has stated that classes are "no longer significant" and may not even "exist" in the advanced capitalist countries.

Not even the worst of the pre-World War I German Social Democrats ever sank so low. If the reformist is a "marxist", then so is Tony Blair!

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Blair believes in eliminating proivate ownership in the means of production and in direct democracy does he ?

Funny I dont recall him ever saying so.

I'm not an 1850's Marxist its true; All that piece of mine says is that Marx's analysis of class is inappropriate to the first world in the 21st century. That's hardly a rejection of Maxism. In fact all it amounts to is saying that in the first world today the 'proletariat' as seen by Marx is not a large majority but a small minority, and that if we want to establish a Marxist society here we need to recognise this in any plans. Not quite the stuff of which outright rejection of his vision is made.

I'm not a dogmatic Marxist. Thats true too

Do you believe in the Marxist notion of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat RS?

[Saint-Just]

I understand now. So you, in your opinion, are a Marxist. You also subscribe to DoP in your view of it as direct democracy.

Do you believe in the eventual transition to a stateless society?

[sc4r]

Yes, although I would not usually use the term I do believe in the exact same idea expressed in the notion of 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. I find the term unattractive because to me it reeks of dogmatism but the idea it expresses is sound. I can see why it was introduced. As an attractive slogan to be used while genuine revolutionary activity is going on it is fine; but today in the first world it is an immediate turn off for most people.

I do not see a stateless society in the sense of a society without any central administration as even making much sense. If you are using it to mean a society in which decision making is as fully delegated to people as possible, ie one in which 'the state' has no meaning distinct from simply adminstration carried out for and under the control of society in general then yes I do want it.

Once again the term 'state' when used in conjunction with dogma causes endless confusion. It implies a separate body of people with special powers and authority. I do not accept that this is a good idea at all. I would not want such a state.

But used to mean 'co-ordination and administration of common concerns' I do not believe for one second that it even makes practical sense to talk of not having such a function. A 'society' without co-ordination and common laws / rules/ practises is not really a society at all. Just a collection oif unconnected individuals doing their own thing; just intelligent animals really. It is precisely our amazing ability to communicate and co-operate that sets us Homo Sapiens apart from other animals.

I'm a marxist in everything but terminology. In substance I am very much closer than the likes of RS.

[Saint-Just]

Don't you think that the term 'Marxist' is also too unattractive to be used?

[crazy comie]

I was using the term dicktatorship of the prolitarian to be proper and correcte.I also used that term so pepole don't confuse dicktatorship of the prolitarian with dicktatorship over the prolitarian.

[redstar2000]

Do you believe in the Marxist notion of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat RS?

Sounds like I'm being queried by an archbishop: do you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son?

Well, here is what the fuss is about...


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/m.../gotha/ch04.htm (http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)

This is Marx himself speaking, in a pamphlet that was not even published until some years after his death.

And you have the famous Engels quote from the early 1890's saying flatly that the Paris Commune was the "dictatorship of the proletariat". ("Dictatorship of the artisans" would have been more historically accurate.)

And that's it.

What kind of wine would you like to fill that empty bottle with?

When we speak of a "state", we mean an organ that claims a monopoly of "legitimate" violence. Thus, any political authority that is directly controlled by the working class which successfully asserts a claim to a monopoly of "legitimate" violence is a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Once you have met that fundamental requirement, you may proceed as you wish and shape the content of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" according to your desires.

There's nothing in Marx or Engels that says it "must" look like the USSR or German Social Democracy or Barcelona under the anarcho-syndicalists or anything else in particular. The only absolute requirement is that the working class must actually run the show.

This would be a rather difficult requirement for the reformist to meet...as he doesn't think there is a working class any more. How could you have a dictatorship of the proletariat if the proletariat "doesn't exist?"

That has to be at least as difficult as determining the precise origins of "the Holy Spirit"!

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 18 2003, 04:37 PM
Don't you think that the term 'Marxist' is also too unattractive to be used?
No. why? because there is nothing misleading about it. A 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is very misleading in an unattractive way. It is not a dictatorship.

I'm a Marxist; proud if it; And thats that. But frankly if I though it would really help I'd call myself a fucking dancing queen from mars.

I have to explain what a Marxist is to peoiple, true. In particular I have to explain that it is not about totalitarianoism. The last thing theat I want ,having done so, is to say 'and I belive in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Great tactics that; I might as well say 'and I'll distort anything, my words dont mean what they seem to mean'.

Do you care what i call myself, or what terms I use? Is the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat;' more important to you than getting one ?

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 07:26 PM
Do you believe in the Marxist notion of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat RS?

Sounds like I'm being queried by an archbishop: do you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son?

Well, here is what the fuss is about...


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/m.../gotha/ch04.htm (http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)

This is Marx himself speaking, in a pamphlet that was not even published until some years after his death.

And you have the famous Engels quote from the early 1890's saying flatly that the Paris Commune was the "dictatorship of the proletariat". ("Dictatorship of the artisans" would have been more historically accurate.)

And that's it.

What kind of wine would you like to fill that empty bottle with?

When we speak of a "state", we mean an organ that claims a monopoly of "legitimate" violence. Thus, any political authority that is directly controlled by the working class which successfully asserts a claim to a monopoly of "legitimate" violence is a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Once you have met that fundamental requirement, you may proceed as you wish and shape the content of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" according to your desires.

There's nothing in Marx or Engels that says it "must" look like the USSR or German Social Democracy or Barcelona under the anarcho-syndicalists or anything else in particular. The only absolute requirement is that the working class must actually run the show.

This would be a rather difficult requirement for the reformist to meet...as he doesn't think there is a working class any more. How could you have a dictatorship of the proletariat if the proletariat "doesn't exist?"

That has to be at least as difficult as determining the precise origins of "the Holy Spirit"!

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
I take it that, shorn of all the evasive distractions that's a no? or at least No not in the sense that anyone except you means it. Not in any sense that doesnt simply mean whatever the fuck you decide to say it means. 'Dictaroship of the proletariat' most definitely does not simply mean 'any sort of society which supposedly operates with worker interests as its stated goal (workers meaning anybody I Redstar choose to include)'. It very definitely does not include a society with no state appartus to function as the 'dictatorship'.

Frankly you disgust me. You will never ever honestly defend your actual views; instead you court popularity by hiding them behind distorted redefinitions and whatever popular slogans you think will endear you to the unwary and inexperienced.

You are Slogan man, the evasive pied piper. We all know who the pied piper lured.

[redstar2000]

Frankly you disgust me. You will never ever honestly defend your actual views; instead you court popularity by hiding them behind distorted redefinitions and whatever popular slogans you think will endear you to the unwary and inexperienced.

Translation: I tried to lay a trap for the bastard, but he got away. Damn!

Actually I did give an honest answer...as I always do. You just don't like my answers, period.

They are outside of the bourgeois paradigm (with a socialist gloss, to be sure) that you accept.

Too bad, squire.

Try again.

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 04:31 AM
Frankly you disgust me. You will never ever honestly defend your actual views; instead you court popularity by hiding them behind distorted redefinitions and whatever popular slogans you think will endear you to the unwary and inexperienced.

Translation: I tried to lay a trap for the bastard, but he got away. Damn!

Actually I did give an honest answer...as I always do. You just don't like my answers, period.

They are outside of the bourgeois paradigm (with a socialist gloss, to be sure) that you accept.

Too bad, squire.

Try again.

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Rubbish.

You were asked whether you believed in a dictatorship of the proletariat.

You have not clearly answered yes, or no, or even yes except...

What you have done is leave people with the impression that you are agreeing with it. Without saying so; and made reference to a definition of your own which would mean that anyone at all who believes in any form of society which they can say is 'for the proletariat' constitutes a 'dictatorship of the proletariat.

It means something very much more specific than that. AS you well know.

Does anyone really think that a term which includes the word 'dictatorship' can honestly mean a system which does not even include a state ?

You are simply pulling your usual trick of avoiding a question by answering a different one.

You would do well in what you call 'bourgeois politics'. You have the same mentality.

Do you believe redstar in having a democratic state run under direct democracy ? Thats what the term means in a nutshell. If you want to be completely pedantic about what it meant to Marx specifically it was ' a state run by democratic consensus of workers'. It should be apparent to anyone that Marx only saw this as a feasible situation because he envisaged 'workers' being by far the biggest majority anyway. Its pretty self evident that if they are in a minority it dont matter how much you or anyone else wants it, it wont come to pass. Its worth observing also that in Marx's time the number of people entitled to vote was vastly less than it is today. He saw 'bourgeoise democracy' as being almost exactly that; if you were not bourgeois in 1850 you probably did not have a vote even in the 'democracies' of the time. In essence Marx was not doing much more than demanding that all people be enfranchised. He thought that if they were they would never in a month of sundays want anything but Socialism/ Communism, and would 'dictate' that they got it. Regretably he was wrong.

You disgust me because you are using Marxism as camouflage for whatever it is that you actually want. you adopt the terminology and shout how sincere your belief in it is alright , buit then you constantly say how 'I redstar think the term means xyz - you've even admitted that you see no reason not to do so. But there is harm of course. The harm lies in that the unperceptive or uninformed come to see you as a true supporter, or even an interpreter. They start to go along with your thoroughly non Marxist ideas, as well even as the nonsensically distorted Marxist ones.

I see through you. So do quite a few others, but many do not because quite frankly many here have only a very vague comprehension of what Marxism means and none at all of social or economic realities. I wont sugar the pill like you will. I wont say that people who say 'I am a now a marxist' but have to ask 'is Marxism democratic' or 'what is Liberalism' or 'what would motivate people' or any of the other naive questions that get regularly asked, are informed. Those people are better termed as 'interested potential supporters'; and YOU BLODDY WELL MISINFORM THEM BY PANDERING TO THEIR DESIRE TO BE PROMISED THE MOON AND THE STARS FOR NOTHING.

Why exactly do you do this ? I dont know.

[crazy comie]

The dicktatorship of the prolitarian would only be for a short time after te revoulotion. But it only opresses the bourgeoisie.

[sc4r]

Great. So substituting the less emotive, but in context more useful term 'controls' for 'opresses'. You are proposing that a government be set up which lets anyone 'of the proletariat' behave as they wish?

tell me how you are : a) going to decide who is proletariat and who is not AFTER THE 'REVOLUTION' b) going to produce a society which isnt filed with murderers, rapist, and thieves, filled with people who decide not to contribute, filled with people who might decide to simply help themselves to whatever is going.

are you seriously assuming that anybody who is not 'bourgeois' ( a term which loses all definitive meaning after the revolution separates individuals from rights to own production anyuway) will not need governing.

Or are you personally going to decide who can be trusted and who cannot be. Will everyone not vetted by you (or perhaps Redstar) or some committe you nominate be judged to be 'potentially bourgeois'. Do you think these people will stand still for being made 3rd class citizens?

Sorry but in practical terms a 'dictaroship of the proletariat' means nothing more complex than universal democracy with everyone being equally 'oppressed', or as I would say governed. Not by self declared leaders, not even maybe by elected 'leaders', but certainly by the expressed majority wishes.

[Saint-Just]

I do not think the leftist movement has much chance in the first-world sc4r. This is because of the situation of a labour aristocracy in existence.

I do not think we should reform our ideas to gain popularity in the first-world. Rather I think that we can only succeed when our first-world economy and the existence of a labour aristocracy received a major blow.

I would not hesitate in saying I believe in a dictatorship of a proletariat. You say you are willing to explain Marxism but not willing to explain dictatorship of the proletariat. I would be willing to explain both.

[sc4r]

Well I rather agree.

I would not be so reticent to use the term outside the first world. Elsewhere it still has the same sort of connutations and relavence that it did in 1850 for Marx.

I dont actually recall even suggesting that anybody 'reform' any ideas, ever.

I suggest reforming terminology in the first world (because to use the older terminology is to practically guarantee rejection).

I suggest using whatever is available and may concievably work in the first world to at leats try and gain acceptance there. Partly because I live there and it seems nonsensical not to even try, and partly because I dont myself see that establishing socialism in the thoird world without at least tacit acceptance from the first is a very viable plan.

And I suggest not rejecting economic appoaches which were not even considered by marx et al just because it was not Marx who though them up. When Marx spoke of 'the market' you surely dont think he was talking of anything except the capitalist market? All his criticisms relate to that market not to other sorts.

I'm not a reformist in any sense which means anything as a classification. I absolutely defy anyone to find anyone who has not actually heard my views who will get within a thousand miles of what they are by being told 'he is a reformist'. What will anyone informed immediately suggest ? Answer they'll say 'ahha so he'd keep libaral property right then?' errrr No ' Surely he'd keep representative democracy' errrr no ' reform the prison system?' errrr not really ' well then he must be pro increased welfare bnefits' errrr no again.

'Look' they would say 'in that case how the Fuck can he be a reformist'.

To which Redstar will presumably answer 'well you see he thinks that its better to try and do something which at least might usher in socialism in the first world rather than wait until complete chaos breaks out and hopefully we all spontaneously adopt anarchist mores and practises in a revolution - I rckon 150 -500 years time'.

'hmmmm' they will reply 'you dont sound like you are exactly a committed person yourself - 500 years dont sound like you feel any great urgency to actually do anything mate'.

I have BTW often said that I feel a more conventional approach to instituting Socialsim outside the first world is the best approach. I'm not a leninist because I do not think that a vanguard party of unelected leaders is a good basis even as an interim measure. I wont say that such a situation can never ever result in success (it seems to be doing OK in Cuba), but I dont trust it and could not support it in general. Having said that if I were were forced to choose between Redstarism and Leninism I'd pick Leninism (or mao'ism, or Stalinism) in a second.

I'm having to live with this bloody insulting label purely because Redstar stuck it on me. He's as dishonourable as any right winger I've ever met. And he uses similar tactics of distprtion, evasion, self serving definitions, and name calling.

[Saint-Just]

Interesting. I knew you would be incensed if I once again called you a reformist, I wanted to see how you would defend yourself since I have not seen the full extent of your rebuttal of redstar2000's labelling you as a reformist.

What would you do with representative democracy then?
Replace it with direct democracy?
What would you do with the Parliamentary system (I think you live in the UK)?

[sc4r]

Mao I've ansered that question directly at least half a dozen times.

Yes, I would replace represntative democracy with direct democracy imediately.

The parliamentary system in the UK is one of represntative democracy. Hence I'd be shot of that post haste.

Is that clear enough ?

what the heck, whats the point. rest of post deleted. Call me what you like. it wont help your cause to do so unless you, like RS, actually enjoy making enemies.

[crazy comie]

Obveaously pepole in jail would not be able to vote. This tempory opresion of the bourgeosie would only be until evry one was made monetrly equal.For example anyone who erend 150% of the capit pera G.D.P or over could not vote.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 10:11 PM
Mao I've ansered that question directly at least half a dozen times.

Yes, I would replace represntative democracy with direct democracy imediately.

The parliamentary system in the UK is one of represntative democracy. Hence I'd be shot of that post haste.

Is that clear enough ?

what the heck, whats the point. rest of post deleted. Call me what you like. it wont help your cause to do so unless you, like RS, actually enjoy making enemies.
I think I am the least likely person to make enemies. I would support any movement on the left if it was popular. Although I cannot hide the fact that ideologically we are different.

I have seen many posts about your view of society. However I generally read posts here whilst posting little. I generally skim read most stuff, so not any posts in great detail. 75% of the time I grasp what you are saying from reading redstar2000's responses to what you say.

Anyway, I was going to ask if you would keep the multiparty system we have.

[sc4r]

OMFG !!!!

And people wonder why I detest fucking Redstar ???????????

Lets be crystel clear here too. Redstar goes way beyond misrepresenting what I say, and DEEP into outright bloody lying about it.

To judge my views by reading Redstar would be like judging Socialism by reading Ayn Rand.

Still he has fooled you. Nothing much I can do about it. He fools many. It wont help the socialist cause to have dissembing persons like him attach themselves to it, but I guess I should just regard him in the same way I regard the noisest right wingers. Simply obstaclrs which regreattably maust be overcome/

Woulkd I keep the multiparty system? what the fuck f=do you think, given the answers I've already given? are you merely trying to wind me up. Take a wild Fucking guess and unless yoiu have joined the RS party stop asking questions which make me seem on trial , and to which the answers have either already been given or are totally obvious.

If you cant see the sense in my views then try bloody well questioning them as Severian has., not me. I'm not, after all, applying to join soenthing.

[Saint-Just]

Well he is a good writer. You are relatively good too though having seen some of your recent posts. I do read whatever Severian says too.

I know what you mean about redstar2000 being selective about what you say and such. redstar2000, in my opinion you really did not answer sc4r's question about proletarian dictatorship.

He hasn't fooled me, he could never fool me, I'm far too different from him and although not a great intellect, I posses enough to be independant of his ideas.

If you would not keep the multi party system I would not call you enitrely remformist

[redstar2000]

redstar2000, in my opinion you really did not answer sc4r's question about proletarian dictatorship.

Gee, I thought I did. Any social order that is controlled by the working class would technically qualify as a "dictatorship of the proletariat" by definition.

There is something implied there that I didn't explicitly spell out: the old ruling class is specifically excluded from political life.

The reformist does not even accept the existence of classes (except in places sufficiently distant such as to not disturb his repose), so your discussion with him, in my opinion, is moot.

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 02:00 AM
redstar2000, in my opinion you really did not answer sc4r's question about proletarian dictatorship.

Gee, I thought I did. Any social order that is controlled by the working class would technically qualify as a "dictatorship of the proletariat" by definition.

There is something implied there that I didn't explicitly spell out: the old ruling class is specifically excluded from political life.

The reformist does not even accept the existence of classes (except in places sufficiently distant such as to not disturb his repose), so your discussion with him, in my opinion, is moot.

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Excluded from actually taking part in what?

You dont want a state, and presumably therefore you dont have any voting system.

You dont have anything that would be recognisable as a 'poliytical life'

And - HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE 'PART OF THE OLD RULING CLASS' ?

[crazy comie]

I think i have answeard that question for him.

[sc4r]

Then you think wrong.

Unless of course RS would like to confirm that he is enamouered of a hierarchic structire which involves 'referendums over ther entire populace'.

I doubt that 1 in 10 of RS's supporters actually understand what he is saying he belives in. You all read the slogans and think he means the same as you do doncha? he dont; he is using the slogans. nothing more.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 02:00 AM
redstar2000, in my opinion you really did not answer sc4r's question about proletarian dictatorship.

Gee, I thought I did. Any social order that is controlled by the working class would technically qualify as a "dictatorship of the proletariat" by definition.

There is something implied there that I didn't explicitly spell out: the old ruling class is specifically excluded from political life.

The reformist does not even accept the existence of classes (except in places sufficiently distant such as to not disturb his repose), so your discussion with him, in my opinion, is moot.

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
I did not think you did answer the question really. But it does not matter since I have seen you answer very clearly before. I know your view on it. However you did seem to avoid any kind of clear answer when sc4r asked it.

I would assume sc4r does accept the existence of classes. I do not think you can refer to yourself as being a Marxist if you see no classes, not just in the 19th Century but now.

[sc4r]

Of course I accept the existence of classes.

What I dont do though is to suggest that anybody belongs immutably to a particular class. Its one of those terms that can only be applied as a description of what someone is, right now. It isn't an intrinisic attribute like say having red hair would be.

My deesire is to see a world (or a part of the world) which does not have some people oppressing others. Some people benefitting at th expense of others. So obviously I want to see class eliminated, because in large measure 'the bourgeoise class' and 'those beenfitting at the expense...' means exactly the same thing under capitalism.

What I wont do is say that anybody who at any time has ever been 'bourgeoise' (i.e in possession under Liberal laws of rights to production (implicitly rights to the production 0f others) is ipso facto excluded from participatiing and helping to institute socialism.

In the first world this has the very practical consequence that my potential support comes from 99% of the population rather than about 25% (or less). I reckon this matters more than just somewhat.

In terms of drawing support it may be realistic to seek it from those who are least bourgeoise (and in the undeveloped world this means people who genuinely fo have no bourgeoise characteristics at all); but thats all. If support is offered by Rupert Murdoch I might be supicious and look for the catch; but I'd have no problem otherwise taking it.

Ditto if after installing a socialist government Rupert agreed to play by the new rules I'd have no problem accepting him.

The bourgeoise as a class is (obviously) in direct opposition to socialism, we want to eliminate it. Ditto the person who wishes to remain bourgeoise is an enemy. But the person who today is 'bourgeoise' by definition may actually support socialism. And, BTW, without resources from those who actually are somewhat bourgeoise today we will have a bloody small warchest and very limited opportunities even for the 'teaching and waiting' RS wishes to do.

And no Mao despite what you think RS does not believe in a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in any meaningful sense. Thats why he is avoiding a direct answer - He knows that in this thread his actual view might be forced out of him; and he does not want to elaborate too clearly on what that is. Thats because he knows full well that his view of what it means is so generalised and vague it could cover anything; while what he actually wants would fit almost nobody else's definition. He wants to be able to continue using the slogan alright; but he sure dont want what it actually means.

It is not, after all, rocket science. A dictatorship of the proletariat comes into play during the transition from capitalism through socialism; NOT under communism. RS wants to go straight to communism. That tells the entire story as far as I'm concerned on this issue. If he were honest he'd simply admit it. But he is not, he wants all the slogans to play with and distort so that he can carry on misinforming and attracting the naive.

[crazy comie]

Socialism is the leninest word for the stage of dicktatorship of the prolitarian or the lower stage of communism. I was just suggesting a way of adminestring the dicktatorship of the prolitarian.

[sc4r]

I know you were.

But RS would not agree with your vision. Hence you were not answering for him about what he believes in.

Of course if I'm wrong and RS is prepared to say that he does after all agree with you, then I'll eat humble pie.

How about it RS? Say it clearly though; I know you are an expert in dissembling.

[Saint-Just]

sc4r, of course someone from the bourgeois class can be revolutionary in thought and someone from the proletariat can be bourgeois in thought. I think all Marxist accept this.

I also criticised redstar2000 previously saying that he wants to go straight to communism where as Marx pointed out a transition period called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

redstar2000 specified the dictatorship of the proletariat as a situation where the working-class has a monopoly of power. I agree, this is rather vague.

[crazy comie]

Okay i wasn't answearing for redstar.

[redstar2000]

redstar2000 specified the dictatorship of the proletariat as a situation where the working-class has a monopoly of power. I agree, this is rather vague.

Blame Marx, not me.

Things would certainly be "simpler" if Marx and Engels had been less ambiguous in some of their more "visionary" statements.

But since they were ambiguous, then, as I said earlier, you can pour the wine you prefer into those empty bottles.

Keep in mind, of course, that it won't change the taste.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 01:33 AM

redstar2000 specified the dictatorship of the proletariat as a situation where the working-class has a monopoly of power. I agree, this is rather vague.

Blame Marx, not me.

Things would certainly be "simpler" if Marx and Engels had been less ambiguous in some of their more "visionary" statements.

But since they were ambiguous, then, as I said earlier, you can pour the wine you prefer into those empty bottles.

Keep in mind, of course, that it won't change the taste.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
HOHOHO.

I guess thats as close to a forthright NO, as we are ever likely to hear from the Evasive Hack and his pied pipes.

Theres nothing so ambiguous about Marx's meaning chummy that it could possibly not mean democracy during a socialist transition, it's even spelled out that it would end with the inception of communism. AS everyone else knows.

Mao was clearly saying it was you that was being vague (as you are still atempting to be) not Marx.

The problem with the hack is that he will happily pour his white vinegar into bottles everyone else has taken the trouble to label RED WINE, claim it is what is meant by 'red', and denounce anyone who want to put actual red into any of the bottles. Then he will tell you that you cant drink it for 500 years, by when he says it will have become red (although he will also say it already is) and that all wine drinking prior to that date is forbidden. He'll also assure you that the 'wine' in his bottles will cure warts, bring true love, and probably raise the dead.

[Saint-Just]

Mao was clearly saying it was you that was being vague (as you are still atempting to be) not Marx.

Yes, that is correct. Redstar2000, we could argue about how 'vague' Marx was being. Anyway, what is your own view of the dictatorship of the proletariat and what it will be?

[redstar2000]

Anyway, what is your own view of the dictatorship of the proletariat and what it will be?

Well, there's this...

http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/r...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1062863128&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

But I will readily concede that the shape of communist society as it emerges during and immediately after proletarian revolution is a tough one to anticipate. Even the most "radical" departure from the bourgeois paradigm now may well look absurdly conservative in 50 or 100 years.

As we have seen on this board, it is difficult for some folks to see beyond their own immediate temporal horizons.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

WOW! The future is not known ?

Can this really be true ?

Another fantastic relevation direct from the probing thoughts of the Hack.

[crazy comie]

A Dicktatorship of the Prolitarian just means prolitarian rule/democracy marx is very clear about that .

[Saint-Just]

I read most of your view of what the dictatorship of the proletariat will be like.

The thing I noticed most is that you seem to have some kind of allergic reaction to authority and any kind of heirarchic power structure. Have you ever had a job with a boss redstar2000 or taken an order?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 24 2003, 12:07 PM
I read most of your view of what the dictatorship of the proletariat will be like.

The thing I noticed most is that you seem to have some kind of allergic reaction to authority and any kind of hierarchic power structure. Have you ever had a job with a boss redstar2000 or taken an order?
Indeed I have...for more than 40 years!

Why else do you think I utterly despise the bastards?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

I dissagree with any one being significantly more powerfull than the masses becuse that is not equlity.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 25 2003, 02:47 PM
I dissagree with any one being significantly more powerfull than the masses becuse that is not equlity.
And curiously I too agree with that; and I'll bet a small sum that both RAF and Mao do too. Where does that leave us? Someone is misunderstanding something.

[crazy comie]

hmm.
It defently isn't me