What to do with a democratically chosen dictator?

[The Cheshire Cat]

What to do with a democratically chosen dictator? For example Desi Bouterse from Suriname. He was democratically chosen, but he was/is a dictator (he was part of a murdering regime some years ago) and a murderer. Ofcourse dictators are bad, and I don't think saying 'yes' or 'no' once every 4 years or so is not democracy, but I hipe you get the idea.

So it doesn't necissarily have to be about Desi Bouterse. It could also be about a hypothetical democratically chosen dictator/criminal as president.
Should you take all his power away in some manner, even if the people want him to keep his power? His should this be done?

[The Jay]

The answer to that question is the same as what to do in a capitalist society: revolution.

[gorillafuck]

if the population opposes class politics, do you think we should give up class politics?

[The Cheshire Cat]

Ofcourse, that is the only way. But what if the people isn't ready yet, and they want their chosen dictator? Just get rid of the dictator and force the people into communism (I think this would fail) or make the people more class conscious and get a revolution going?

[The Jay]

To fully answer this question, someone would have to write a book haha. I don't think that I will be able to answer this question for a few years tbh.

[The Cheshire Cat]

if the population opposes class politics, do you think we should give up class politics?

I'm not sure what you mean with class politics, but communism is the people in my opinion. The people have all the power. So if they would oppose class politics, whatever it may be, I think we have no other choice to give it up.

That is, ofcourse, under the condition that the people are well informed on that subject.

[Ostrinski]

I agree with zeekloid. In a socialist society, why would people do this in the first place? Besides, a political dictatorship can't sustain itself without an economic class to enable it.

[The Cheshire Cat]

To fully answer this question, someone would have to write a book haha. I don't think that I will be able to answer this question for a few years tbh.

Hmm, yeah, I think it does require some kind of research. And ofcourse it greatly depends on the circumstances, wealth, etc of the people.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I agree with zeekloid. In a socialist society, why would people do this in the first place? Besides, a political dictatorship can't sustain itself without an economic class to enable it.

It's not in a socialist society. It's capitalist.

[Ostrinski]

Then you're fucked.

[The Cheshire Cat]

The only way I could think of is destroying a country's economy and get a terrible crisis and a famine going... that is mostly the time where people start to realise capitalism is a fail and they face to socialism...

But getting a country in a famine is the last thing we would want. So this is not an option. So I will have to think of another way.

[Ostrinski]

The point is not to oppose political dictatorships in and of themselves, only liberals do that. We oppose capitalism wherever it is, no matter what political structure the bourgeoisie needs to hold onto its class power.

[Rafiq]

Dictators do not exist. Only a dictatorship of a class can exist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Dictators do not exist. Only a dictatorship of a class can exist.

This seems to ignore different ways in which class rule can manifest itself, and different ways in which the ruling class decides to mediate between different factions of itself or other classes. It is true that in many bourgeois states in history, the "ruling class" has chosen a singular figure to act as a mediator. As the term goes back to the days of the Roman constitution, I see nothing wrong with referring to such a figure as a "dictator". Perhaps people's understanding of the class relations behind the dictator figure is overly simplistic, but I wouldn't say that dictators as such don't "exist". Franco may have relied on an entire economic class and state superstructure to support his rule, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a dictator in that the system was designed such that he ultimately acted as the final mediator in conflicts within the ruling class, and sometimes in conflicts between the ruling class and the ruled. No, he wasn't an absolute ruler and he was not the sole figure driving Spanish history, but he was still a dictator.

Denying the existence of dictators altogether seems like the opposite intellectual extreme of the "Great Person Theory" of history, one that is no less absurd.

[Rafiq]

This seems to ignore different ways in which class rule can manifest itself, and different ways in which the ruling class decides to mediate between different factions of itself or other classes. It is true that in many bourgeois states in history, the "ruling class" has chosen a singular figure to act as a mediator. As the term goes back to the days of the Roman constitution, I see nothing wrong with referring to such a figure as a "dictator". Perhaps people's understanding of the class relations behind the dictator figure is overly simplistic, but I wouldn't say that dictators as such don't "exist". Franco may have relied on an entire economic class and state superstructure to support his rule, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a dictator in that the system was designed such that he ultimately acted as the final mediator in conflicts within the ruling class, and sometimes in conflicts between the ruling class and the ruled. No, he wasn't an absolute ruler and he was not the sole figure driving Spanish history, but he was still a dictator.

Denying the existence of dictators altogether seems like the opposite intellectual extreme of the "Great Person Theory" of history, one that is no less absurd.

The notion of a dictator implies that the policies and "decisions" made by "The guy" are made based on his own interest separate from his class all together, which is a fallacy. A "Dictator" is a Liberalist concept that should be avoided.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The notion of a dictator implies that the policies and "decisions" made by "The guy" are made based on his own interest separate from his class all together, which is a fallacy. A "Dictator" is a Liberalist concept that should be avoided.

I don't think that's what the term "Dictator" implies, so much as it is a misunderstanding of the term. It goes back to the Roman Constitution, and so I don't know why exactly the liberal definition of "dictator" is the only functioning one, and from the point of view of political science it is important to have a term which refers to a singular figure chosen by the ruling class to act decisively without as much oversight or public accountability.

One could make a similar argument about "kings", but we wouldn't say that "kings" don't exist. They were not a separate class but a member of the nobility, and the kind of kingship and how absolute or limited it was reflected the needs of the economic establishment. But the fact that the King was merely the executive noble doesn't mean that he didn't exist as a King, it merely meant that the way people see their kings as the absolute locus of all political and economic power and a class unto himself was mistaken (and probably based somewhat in the Monarchy's propaganda). You could even make the argument to say "Presidents" or any other executive position "don't exist" because it implies what you say.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think that's what the term "Dictator" implies, so much as it is a misunderstanding of the term. It goes back to the Roman Constitution, and so I don't know why exactly the liberal definition of "dictator" is the only functioning one, and from the point of view of political science it is important to have a term which refers to a singular figure chosen by the ruling class to act decisively without as much oversight or public accountability.

In classical Greek philosophy the term was, in fact, (elected, non-hereditary) "monarchy."

In terms of Third World conditions, what to do with a socially radical yet politically revolutionary people's elected, non-hereditary, de facto monarchy is a provocative question (http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html).