Dictatorship is needed

[Elysian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

[danyboy27]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

no.

[Railyon]

Because socialism can be brought about by a small cadre staging a coup, yes sure whatever.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I'm not even going to take the time to explain why this is wrong. Just take my word for it that it is...

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Fuck this, I don't even know how to respond.

[hatzel]

I don't understand how every single one of your threads manages to advocate a totally different political ideology...

[durhamleft]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

No.

You make it out to be this 'capitalist conspiracy'. The reason I, as a proponent of capitalism also support democracy is because I believe in liberty and maximising people's choices. Capitalism does that. You get your salary and you chose how to spend it out of thousands of goods and services. Democracy is also choice.

The reason why people don't vote communist is because of your ideas being useless, your parties being split and the fact nobody trusts you. If you were genuinely supported by the 'proles' then all you would need to get would be £1 off every member of the working class over a 5 year time horizon and you'd have more money than the main parties (in the UK).

Sort yourself out and stop trying to blame the failings of your ideology on everyone else. And of course Marxism will involve a dictatorship, but don't tell that to half the Marxists here as they'll insist "MARXISM IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY YE".

[Misanthrope]

It's a dictatorship of the proletariat as a social class not a dictatorship in the political sense.

Listen man, you are just learning communism. Keep learning and keep reading before you make such bold declarations.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Elysian's threads are always good for a laugh, we can at least give him that.

[danyboy27]

the way this thread should end:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1WJqxwP0lbnTBQbJIa9GbSyFz4TyLO ICkyOZJ23cPebQBwGY8n4_GhN_o

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.
That's because dictatorship didn't mean the same thing then as it does today. It meant, like Los Lobos de Paris said, a dictatorship of the proletariat as a class. A class dictatorship. Not a Mussolini style character popping up and declaring "socialism!" This is not to be taken as an argument for democracy in the modern sense, as that's a completely different issue.

I'm completely convinced at this point that you're a troll, Elysian.

[Sasha]

So how is this trying to get unrestricted going so far?

[Grenzer]

I'm completely convinced at this point that you're a troll, Elysian.

Took you this long? :closedeyes:

C'mon people, don't feed the troll.

[Omsk]

A dictatorship of the proletariat is the main point in the Leninist ideological line.Will it be a classical dictatorship? No.

I now see it's completely pointless to write in this thread.

[Ocean Seal]

I don't understand how every single one of your threads manages to advocate a totally different political ideology...
Its called being a massive troll who should for obvious reasons be banned by now.

[Yugo45]

You're a good troll, I'll give you that.

[durhamleft]

A dictatorship of the proletariat is the main point in the Leninist ideological line.Will it be a classical dictatorship? No.

"The dictatorship of the proletariat is the instrument of the proletarian revolution, its organ, its most important mainstay, brought into being for the purpose of, firstly, crushing the resistance of the overthrown exploiters and consolidating the achievements of the proletarian revolution, and secondly, carrying the revolution to the complete victory of socialism. The revolution can defeat the bourgeoisie, can overthrow its power, even without the dictatorship of the proletariat. But the revolution will be unable to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie, to maintain its victory and to push forward to the final victory of socialism unless, at a certain stage in its development, it creates a special organ in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat as its principle mainstay."

(The lines above are from the work: "The Foundations of Leninism" which can be found online,and is a good starting read.)

But it is wrong to see this Dictatorship of the proletariat as an event,a short phase,because as Karl Marx himself said:

"You will have to go through fifteen, twenty, fifty years of civil wars and international conflicts," Marx said, "not only to change existing conditions, but also to change yourselves and to make yourselves capable of wielding political power" (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 506).

While the Dictatorship of the Proletariat should be the main focus,for the revolutionaries,it is important to realize that the struggle of the old society,the reaction to the revolution,and the resistance of the reactionary elements always gets stronger.

Another issue is the means which the proletariat needs in order to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, - and the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat can not be achived trough calm and silent development of the society,but trough the revolutionary period which includes the struggle against the bourgeois state machine.

Although,i guess trying to explain these things to you is pointless.

Dictatorship of the party surely?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Took you this long? :closedeyes:

C'mon people, don't feed the troll.
I figured he was a troll back in his "Anarcho-Calvinist" days, but for some reason I thought he'd made a legitimate attempt at learning about communism. But I don't frequent the OI forum, so I must have missed a lot of his asshattery post-restriction.

[Omsk]

Dictatorship of the party surely?

Read what i wrote.The dictatorship of the proletarian class,where the exploited,not the exploiters have their words.

A note: this thread can become an official : "Dictatorship of the Proletariat,an introduction for right-wing types." If you agree. (It would be more useful than what it is now.)

[Franz Fanonipants]

you dummies are aware that elysian is an infiltrator right

[PC LOAD LETTER]

you dummies are aware that elysian is an infiltrator right
Infiltrator? As in a cop?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Infiltrator? As in a cop?

yeah a cop

or a troll either way his shit is suspect and we shouldn't be responding to him

[Rooster]

The dotp is basically just a form of state as based on the Paris commune (well, as some early socialists thought) which was set up with the idea of maximum democracy.

[durhamleft]

The dotp is basically just a form of state as based on the Paris commune (well, as some early socialists thought) which was set up with the idea of maximum democracy.

Really? Dictatorship of P I always understood to mean workers seizing control and stamping out any remnants of the capitalist class via a, well, dictatorship.

How is this maximum democracy?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Really? Dictatorship of P I always understood to mean workers seizing control and stamping out any remnants of the capitalist class via a, well, dictatorship.

How is this maximum democracy?

lol lookit this guy he answers his own question

[durhamleft]

lol lookit this guy he answers his own question

So how is a dictatorship of the workers more democratic than say, the UK is at the moment?

[Rooster]

Really? Dictatorship of P I always understood to mean workers seizing control and stamping out any remnants of the capitalist class via a, well, dictatorship.

How is this maximum democracy?

If you know anything about the Paris Commune then you'd know that the major feature is that it was highly democratic.

[Railyon]

Infiltrator? As in a cop?

Reverse Entryism

[Rooster]

Reverse Entryism

Pooping? :confused:

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It's obvious that Elysian has no idea what he is talking about and every post he makes he look more and more like an idiot. :D

[durhamleft]

If you know anything about the Paris Commune then you'd know that the major feature is that it was highly democratic.

I know a lot about it, I just remain unconvinced how it's any more democratic than elections.

[Franz Fanonipants]

So how is a dictatorship of the workers more democratic than say, the UK is at the moment?

because the workers control their means of employment and production

[durhamleft]

because the workers control their means of employment and production

How is that democratic versus elections? If workers wanted to control the means of production in a way you propose, surely they would vote for communist parties, and then they'd get power?

I dont get it.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I know a lot about it, I just remain unconvinced how it's any more democratic than elections.

Why won't their be voting in the DOTP? I don't think anybody has advocated that! Maybe someone like Bordiga....

Marx viewed capitalist democracy as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and thought that this could only be replaced by proletariat democracy, or a dictatorship of the proletariat. This isn't a socialist society, but a transition stage to reach socialism.

I imagine for a country with the material conditions like the United States, the DOTP would run in a direct democratic way through council institutions. Delegates could be elected and recalled at anytime, etc. etc.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=932

[Franz Fanonipants]

How is that democratic versus elections? If workers wanted to control the means of production in a way you propose, surely they would vote for communist parties, and then they'd get power?

you'd think that if the workers wanted to control the means of production in the way i propose they'd stop being poor and just get rich and buy them right

e: which is to say that process is important and that using capitalist modes of political appointment to end capitalism is pretty funny

[Brosa Luxemburg]

How is that democratic versus elections? If workers wanted to control the means of production in a way you propose, surely they would vote for communist parties, and then they'd get power?

I dont get it.

Because it isn't that simple. This still leaves the institutions of bourgeois power in tact. Not one group or one man can change these material conditions through the same power they are trying to abolish. That is known as the "great man theory" and is very simple and unhistorical.

[Art Vandelay]

How is that democratic versus elections? If workers wanted to control the means of production in a way you propose, surely they would vote for communist parties, and then they'd get power?

I dont get it.

You cannot vote in significant change; the system is not set up to allow communists to take power and if you honestly think that would be possible then you are mistaken.

Also the Paris Commune was more democratic, because direct democratic decision making, is more democratic than representative democracy.

[Railyon]

How is that democratic versus elections? If workers wanted to control the means of production in a way you propose, surely they would vote for communist parties, and then they'd get power?

I dont get it.

"False consciousness"

[durhamleft]

You cannot vote in significant change; the system is not set up to allow communists to take power and if you honestly think that would be possible then you are mistaken.

Also the Paris Commune was more democratic, because direct democratic decision making, is more democratic than representative democracy.

Why not? In the elections I can vote for a Marxist party, left of centre party, liberal party, right of centre party, nationalist party and national socialist party if I wish. How much more choice can I want?

I understand why Marx wrote his books at the time he did - when workers had no political participation - but surely this is not the case now?

Why is a revolutionary road needed rather than evolutionary? I fundamentally don't see the argument. You can label elections capitalist 'til you're blue in the face but it doesn't address the fundamental question, which is if Marxism is in the interests of the majority of workers, why don't the SWP and SP have more members? Why doesn't TUSC get more votes at elections? I don't get it.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Guys we're not taking this far enough
Dictator sounds enough like Tater
And I mofugging love tater tots

[durhamleft]

"False consciousness"

"I'm a Marxist, I reject all forms of elitism, but I know what's best for most workers while they're all just deluded gullible fools..."

[durhamleft]

Why won't their be voting in the DOTP? I don't think anybody has advocated that! Maybe someone like Bordiga....

Marx viewed capitalist democracy as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and thought that this could only be replaced by proletariat democracy, or a dictatorship of the proletariat. This isn't a socialist society, but a transition stage to reach socialism.

I imagine for a country with the material conditions like the United States, the DOTP would run in a direct democratic way through council institutions. Delegates could be elected and recalled at anytime, etc. etc.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=932

A direct democracy with 250 million members? Really? How exactly is that going to work?

Or if you're talking about delegates then how exactly does that differ from a representative democracy?

Other than in socialist countries you can only stand if you are in the single party.

[Railyon]

"I'm a Marxist, I reject all forms of elitism, but I know what's best for most workers while they're all just deluded gullible fools..."

Didn't put it in quotation marks for nothing. How you view the world is shaped by your material conditions and your socialization, that's I guess the less elitist version. Also the "there is no alternative" propaganda of neoliberalism shaped a huge chunk of political discourse and its effects on the public.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

A direct democracy with 250 million members? Really? How exactly is that going to work?

Delegate power out to elected people who are apart, not separate, from the masses.


Or if you're talking about delegates then how exactly does that differ from a representative democracy?

Re-callable at anytime, stricter term limits, etc.


Other than in socialist countries you can only stand if you are in the single party.

Those countries are not socialist. No workers control of production and industry, there exists generalized commodity production, wage labor, classes, etc.

[Franz Fanonipants]

"I'm a Marxist, I reject all forms of elitism, but I know what's best for most workers while they're all just deluded gullible fools..."

lol who said i reject all forms of elitism

if a dumb motherfucker is dumb, welp

[durhamleft]

Delegate power out to elected people who are apart, not separate, from the masses.



Re-callable at anytime, stricter term limits, etc.



Those countries are not socialist. No workers control of production and industry, there exists generalized commodity production, wage labor, classes, etc.


(i) But if the masses vote for people who are separate to the masses, surely that is that choice of the masses?

(ii) How strict? I believe in right to recall but at the same time you need politicians to have some certainty in their term to make decisions- not just do exactly what public opinion says at the time

(iii) No, they're not, but they're as close as you'll ever get. They're the natural result of attempts at socialism.

[durhamleft]

lol who said i reject all forms of elitism

if a dumb motherfucker is dumb, welp

Nice, I'm an elitist. Thought it was contradictory to Marxism.

[Art Vandelay]

Why not? In the elections I can vote for a Marxist party, left of centre party, liberal party, right of centre party, nationalist party and national socialist party if I wish. How much more choice can I want?

I understand why Marx wrote his books at the time he did - when workers had no political participation - but surely this is not the case now?

Why is a revolutionary road needed rather than evolutionary? I fundamentally don't see the argument. You can label elections capitalist 'til you're blue in the face but it doesn't address the fundamental question, which is if Marxism is in the interests of the majority of workers, why don't the SWP and SP have more members? Why doesn't TUSC get more votes at elections? I don't get it.

Because during revolutionary times in history people's views are polarized into one end or the other of the political spectrum, as the line of class contradictions is drawn. Not sure if you consider yourself a marxist at all, or have ever read much about it (I am guessing your not considering your pic) but that would pretty much be materialism 101. The material conditions which will put the final nail in capitalism coffin have not materialized yet.

[durhamleft]

Didn't put it in quotation marks for nothing. How you view the world is shaped by your material conditions and your socialization, that's I guess the less elitist version. Also the "there is no alternative" propaganda of neoliberalism shaped a huge chunk of political discourse and its effects on the public.

I support some aspects of neo-liberalism. I don't see that as due to 'propaganda', rather seeing the different policy options and siding with it?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Nice, I'm an elitist. Thought it was contradictory to Marxism.

i wouldn't put a lot of money on what you think marxism is about being accurate

[durhamleft]

Because during revolutionary times in history people's views are polarized into one end or the other of the political spectrum, as the line of class contradictions is drawn. Not sure if you consider yourself a marxist at all, or have ever read much about it (I am guessing your not considering your pic) but that would pretty much be materialism 101. The material conditions which will put the final nail in capitalism coffin have not materialized yet.

I used to be a Marxist, I'm well read in it.

I'm not a Marxist now, I'm left leaning but very socially liberal would sum me up.

The pic is ironic FYI, I've had it since I was a Marxist.

[Art Vandelay]

(i) But if the masses vote for people who are separate to the masses, surely that is that choice of the masses?

(ii) How strict? I believe in right to recall but at the same time you need politicians to have some certainty in their term to make decisions- not just do exactly what public opinion says at the time

(iii) No, they're not, but they're as close as you'll ever get. They're the natural result of attempts at socialism.

(i) It will not be in their class interests to do so, so they will not do it.

(ii) Why should they not do what the public wants? Why should people not take and active role in the decisions which ultimately shape their lives?

(iii) They were the natural results of a revolution which failed to spread and surpass the capitalist mode of production.

[Railyon]

I support some aspects of neo-liberalism. I don't see that as due to 'propaganda', rather seeing the different policy options and siding with it?

Then, tell me what aspects you support. Genuine interest.

I hope that at least I somehow got across what I mean by material conditions and socialization, and how it shapes us; kind of like how computers today are totally natural to us and some guy from the middle ages would go like, what is this devilish sorcery?! Same with social relations in production, during the transition from feudalism to capitalism there was a lot of resistance when landowners tried to tell the serfs to fuck off and work for a wage because that was totally not cool with them... but today it feels entirely "natural" to most people.

(The fact that you had to ask why people don't vote for communist parties even though it's in their material interest to overthrow capitalism tells me you didn't delve into Marxism hard enough though...)

[durhamleft]

i wouldn't put a lot of money on what you think marxism is about being accurate

Well look.

I've studied it to university level, I've read a lot of books, from Trotsky to Lenin to Marx to Luxemburg to Gramsci to Habermas to Chomsky to Packard.

I'm probably no-where near as well read as half as you lot - but nor am I an idiot.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I used to be a Marxist, I'm well read in it.

yeah thats why you think that marxism is about abolishing elitisms

[Brosa Luxemburg]

(i) But if the masses vote for people who are separate to the masses, surely that is that choice of the masses?

I would agree, and if these people make choices that the masses find awful then they are recalled.


(ii) How strict? I believe in right to recall but at the same time you need politicians to have some certainty in their term to make decisions- not just do exactly what public opinion says at the time

I agree. It will depend on different situations of course, and I am not going to pretend I have the perfect formula for the future society. No one is that smart.


(iii) No, they're not, but they're as close as you'll ever get. They're the natural result of attempts at socialism.

The NATURAL result of attempts at socialism? THERE IS NOTHING NATURAL ABOUT THEM! As soon as the Bolsheviks took power in Russia they were attacked by counter-revolutionaries, then civil war came about, and with this invasion from the United States and other Western nations and with this economic devastation, famine, etc. After this came Nazi invasion, cold war, sabatoge attempts, etc. until it's final collapse. The Soviet Union had not ONE DAY of NATURAL development, and to claim otherwise is ridiculous. When the Sandinistas took power in Nicaragua, they were continually and constantly attacked by the Contras who were funded by the United States. In Cuba, as soon as the July 26th Movement took power they faced counter-revolutionary attack, foreign invasion, blockade, intimidation, threats, etc. To claim that these countries, that were maimed and deformed as soon as they came into existence were the natural developments of socialism is stupid.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm probably no-where near as well read as half as you lot - but nor am I an idiot.

so don't say dumb shit comrade

its too bad that you apparently have chosen some really bad shit despite knowing that marxism is correct

[Art Vandelay]

Well look.

I've studied it to university level, I've read a lot of books, from Trotsky to Lenin to Marx to Luxemburg to Gramsci to Habermas to Chomsky to Packard.

I'm probably no-where near as well read as half as you lot - but nor am I an idiot.

I would say that for any non-leftist that I have seen post on the site, you have the best understanding of revolutionary left politics, obviously you abandoned your studies so its not complete, but neither is mine.

[Railyon]

I've studied it to university level, I've read a lot of books, from Trotsky to Lenin to Marx to Luxemburg to Gramsci to Habermas to Chomsky to Packard.

http://sadpanda.us/images/931004-UC44FG6.jpg

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I would say that for any non-leftist that I have seen post on the site, you have the best understanding of revolutionary left politics, obviously you abandoned your studies so its not complete, but neither is mine.

agreed.

[durhamleft]

Then, tell me what aspects you support. Genuine interest.

I hope that at least I somehow got across what I mean by material conditions and socialization, and how it shapes us; kind of like how computers today are totally natural to us and some guy from the middle ages would go like, what is this devilish sorcery?! Same with social relations in production, during the transition from feudalism to capitalism there was a lot of resistance when landowners tried to tell the serfs to fuck off and work for a wage because that was totally not cool with them... but today it feels entirely "natural" to most people.

I agree to a certain extent pal, you certainly get 'consensuses' at different times; Keynesianism 1945-79, Thatcherism 79 - now etc.

The issue I have with false consciousness theory is it seems to go that little bit further than that. It seems to imply that capitalists are this evil manipulative class of people who are very sneaky and in order to stave off revolution play mind games to get us to believe they are good for us. Is that really the case?? It seems too much 'conspiracy theory' esque for me.

Re. neo-liberalism I think the benefits are
(i) increased globalisation; more trade; = economic efficiency & pulls people out of poverty
(ii) lower unemployment
(iii) stable & low inflation
(iv) higher standards of living
(v) promotion of more labour mkt flexibility.

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

China once believed in dictatorship of the proletariat and this is why its non-democratic capitalism is now outperforming democratic capitalism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The issue I have with false consciousness theory is it seems to go that little bit further than that. It seems to imply that capitalists are this evil manipulative class of people who are very sneaky and in order to stave off revolution play mind games to get us to believe they are good for us. Is that really the case?? It seems too much 'conspiracy theory' esque for me.

yeah this is pretty much your problem

no one actually thinks of false consciousness in this way.

i have to wonder how much of your study of marxism was just a received, useless version of left liberalism

[Railyon]

I used to believe the capitalists in tophats conspiring in shady backdoor lounges stuff too.

Then I read Capital Vol1... (again, one does not simply etc)

[the zizekian]

China once believed in dictatorship of the proletariat and this is why its non-democratic capitalism is now outperforming democratic capitalism.

This is precisely the reason why we need today a super- or meta-dictatorship of the proletariat.

[durhamleft]

I would agree, and if these people make choices that the masses find awful then they are recalled.



I agree. It will depend on different situations of course, and I am not going to pretend I have the perfect formula for the future society. No one is that smart.



The NATURAL result of attempts at socialism? THERE IS NOTHING NATURAL ABOUT THEM! As soon as the Bolsheviks took power in Russia they were attacked by counter-revolutionaries, then civil war came about, and with this invasion from the United States and other Western nations and with this economic devastation, famine, etc. After this came Nazi invasion, cold war, sabatoge attempts, etc. until it's final collapse. The Soviet Union had not ONE DAY of NATURAL development, and to claim otherwise is ridiculous. When the Sandinistas took power in Nicaragua, they were continually and constantly attacked by the Contras who were funded by the United States. In Cuba, as soon as the July 26th Movement took power they faced counter-revolutionary attack, foreign invasion, blockade, intimidation, threats, etc. To claim that these countries, that were maimed and deformed as soon as they came into existence were the natural developments of socialism is stupid.



See, if you'd spoke to me 2 years ago, I would have echoed the same opinions as what you say.

And certainly nothing that's developed has been socialism true to Marx. But I started to ask myself, why is this the case? I was a Trot, and basically was well into blaming Stalin for a lot of it. (Don't get me wrong, loads of factors in each case, but give me a sec).

But is that honestly why the USSR failed? Because of Stalin or the civil war? I would argue it failed because it became (a) too authoritarian and (b) too bureaucratic.

They, to me, are the big, underlying reasons beneath it all in my opinion.

If Trotsky had won the power battle with Stalin, do you not think the USSR would have gone the same way?

I do.

Because how is authoritarianism avoidable when you have 'The Dictatorship of the Party'? How is avoidable when you have a ban on factions? How is avoidable when your entire ideology wants to in effect, stamp out a different set of economic ideas?

And regarding bureaucracies. How is this avoidable in pure command economies? How is it avoidable to have these shortages and surpluses? Government simply cannot do the job of the market in my opinion. Governments are great at things like healthcare, and education, I'd argue, but fish and chip shops, or clothes? I just don't see it.

[durhamleft]

yeah this is pretty much your problem

no one actually thinks of false consciousness in this way.

i have to wonder how much of your study of marxism was just a received, useless version of left liberalism

Really? I read Gramsci 'One-dimensional man' and he seemed to argue that capitalists just throw cheap goods and people, brainwash them with advertising and this = the new form of totalitarianism? I don't get it.

Or Packard, Hidden Persuaders. Just strikes me as them grasping at straws to explain why there's been no revolution.

And most my Marxism was taught by Marxists.

[Omsk]

It seems to imply that capitalists are this evil manipulative class of people who are very sneaky and in order to stave off revolution play mind games to get us to believe they are good for us.
Today,they are actually funding wars and being violent as much as they can,with the exploiting classes using all of their enslaving tools,mainly the state.

In the past,they funded wars,helped the reactionary elements of society,slaughtered those who wanted change and had a great impact on WWII. (Why do you think Hitler took controll of Germany?)

[Art Vandelay]

I agree to a certain extent pal, you certainly get 'consensuses' at different times; Keynesianism 1945-79, Thatcherism 79 - now etc.

The issue I have with false consciousness theory is it seems to go that little bit further than that. It seems to imply that capitalists are this evil manipulative class of people who are very sneaky and in order to stave off revolution play mind games to get us to believe they are good for us. Is that really the case?? It seems too much 'conspiracy theory' esque for me.

I do not think it seems very conspiracy theory esque at all. I think we could all agree that capitalism has to continually create artificial wants to continue to expand and thus make a profit. No one needs McDonalds or the shit that they are buying from the dollar store. To sell this stuff artificial needs, need to be created through pumping in billions of dollars into adds.

Also no communist really thinks capitalists are "evil," if they do then they are wrong, they are just people who are acting in their class interests according to the material conditions.




Re. neo-liberalism I think the benefits are
(i) increased globalisation; more trade; = economic efficiency & pulls people out of poverty
(ii) lower unemployment
(iii) stable & low inflation
(iv) higher standards of living
(v) promotion of more labour mkt flexibility.

(i) Neo-liberalism has not pulled people out of poverty. Capitalists have been saying this for the last half century, always promising the grass is greener just around the corner. Its crap and you should know its crap. Increased global trade has resulted in benefits for the few and the same old same old for the many.

(ii) Capitalists have a vested interest in keeping a portion of society unemployed, as a former marxist you should know this.

(iii) Can't really talk about this, economics is not my strong suit. I would just be talking out of my ass.

(iv) Half of the worlds population lives on less than 2$ a day. Higher standards of living for some, sure.

(v) Not sure what you meant by this one?

[the zizekian]

This is precisely the reason why we need today a super- or meta-dictatorship of the proletariat.

The "reinforced" dictatorship of the proletariat should be characterised by the conviction that science has no guidance to offer us.

[DinodudeEpic]

As for direct democracy, the best word to describe the way it would be organized is federalism, or confederalism in international vocabulary. The federal legislative government would merely be a unicameral congress that has 3-month terms that merely enforce the constitution (Protect the rights of the people), have taxation, and take part in foreign affairs. The states, counties, and townships would all be direct democracies. Much more manageable then 300 million people.

Finally, capitalism is anti-democratic because it has an inherently undemocratic structure. (As opposed to socialism, which has a democratic structure, at least in cooperatives.)

And, capitalism does not equal a free market, and socialism is inherently AGAINST dictatorships. (I do prefer dictatorships to monarchies though.)

[Brosa Luxemburg]

But is that honestly why the USSR failed? Because of Stalin or the civil war? I would argue it failed because it became (a) too authoritarian and (b) too bureaucratic.

I also agree that these were factors.




If Trotsky had won the power battle with Stalin, do you not think the USSR would have gone the same way?

I do.

So do I. (Well, maybe not to the same extent). I am not a Trotskyist. I am a left-communist apart of the German/Dutch tradition of council communism. I am opposed to Trotskyism as well as Stalinism.


Because how is authoritarianism avoidable when you have 'The Dictatorship of the Party'? How is avoidable when you have a ban on factions? How is avoidable when your entire ideology wants to in effect, stamp out a different set of economic ideas?

You assume that everyone who supports the DOTP supports banning fractions, etc? I don't want to stomp out the ideas of capitalism, I want to stomp out the system of capitalism. If people still want to study it, support it, etc. I don't give a shit as long as they aren't violent counter-revolutionaries. A dictatorship of the party is in no way the same thing as a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

We need a renewed dictatorship of the proletariat precisely because democracy and capitalism don’t go hand in hand.

[durhamleft]

I do not think it seems very conspiracy theory esque at all. I think we could all agree that capitalism has to continually create artificial wants to continue to expand and thus make a profit. No one needs McDonalds or the shit that they are buying from the dollar store. To sell this stuff artificial needs, need to be created through pumping in billions of dollars into adds.

Also no communist really thinks capitalists are "evil," if they do then they are wrong, they are just people who are acting in their class interests according to the material conditions.





(i) Neo-liberalism has not pulled people out of poverty. Capitalists have been saying this for the last half century, always promising the grass is greener just around the corner. Its crap and you should know its crap. Increased global trade has resulted in benefits for the few and the same old same old for the many.

(ii) Capitalists have a vested interest in keeping a portion of society unemployed, as a former marxist you should know this.

(iii) Can't really talk about this, economics is not my strong suit. I would just be talking out of my ass.

(iv) Half of the worlds population lives on less than 2$ a day. Higher standards of living for some, sure.

(v) Not sure what you meant by this one?


(a) I don't agree with your first point.

How does these companies 'create' wants? Surely, what happens is they create a good, it's bloody excellent and they can do it cheaply, so the company grows and grows until you end up with something like MacDonalds.

How is it them manipulating our wants? Surely the consumer manipulates what companies sell. When we buy a certain good, they will produce that good in higher quantities. The customer is king, so to speak.

(b) Neo-liberalism has pulled people out of poverty- just look at China. As a result of international trade, globalisation and neo-liberal economics literally 100s of millions of people are being pulled out of poverty.

That's fact mate. There's still awful poverty, but the overall picture is that incomes are rising in the East at phenomenal rates. The only area yet to develop is Africa, and I could talk for hours about why I think that's the case, but it's not just capitalisms fault.

(c) Yes, you need a level of unemployment, not just as a Marxist but an economist- there's nothing worse than everyone having a job for an economy, however, over the last 20 years the average rate in the UK has been less than the average rate from say '65 to '85.

(d) /

(e) Yeah, but do you really think if you got in power you'd be able to suddenly sort countries like, well, not just countries but the whole of Africa out? I think not. What they need is to industrialise, like Britain did in the 1800s and like China is doing now. If they do that, then they'll get the same standards of living as the West, but while capitalism produces some injustices, it doesn't logically follow that Marxism is the answer.

(f) /

[durhamleft]

I also agree that these were factors.





So do I. (Well, maybe not to the same extent). I am not a Trotskyist. I am a left-communist apart of the German/Dutch tradition of council communism. I am opposed to Trotskyism as well as Stalinism.



You assume that everyone who supports the DOTP supports banning fractions, etc? I don't want to stomp out the ideas of capitalism, I want to stomp out the system of capitalism. If people still want to study it, support it, etc. I don't give a shit as long as they aren't violent counter-revolutionaries. A dictatorship of the party is in no way the same thing as a dictatorship of the proletariat.

(a) How do you avoid these though? As I suggested, surely they are the inevitable consequence of Marxism?

(b) Would you not agree though that it's easy to criticise Stalin, Trotsky, Mao et all, and pretend if you had power the same wouldn't happen, when it probably would?

(c) No, I don't assume that, I was just trying to give examples of my point. However, as a sweeping generalisation, I would suggest most Marxists are more authoritarian than they like to admit!

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

We need a renewed dictatorship of the proletariat because a strong democracy can only lead to it.

[durhamleft]

Think I need a break from this thread- will get stuck in at a later point.

Enjoyed the discussion everyone.

Take care.

[l'Enfermé]

yeah a cop

or a troll either way his shit is suspect and we shouldn't be responding to him
Yeah cops don't have anything better to do.



Really? Dictatorship of P I always understood to mean workers seizing control and stamping out any remnants of the capitalist class via a, well, dictatorship.

How is this maximum democracy?
The self-organization of the vast majority of people, the working class, and their conquest of power from a small capitalist class, the power which rightfully belongs to the people, is not "maximum democracy"? Perhaps you prefer the continuation of the current social organization, where the few rule over the many, but I'm much more in favor of the many ruling over themselves.

So how is a dictatorship of the workers more democratic than say, the UK is at the moment?
Hahahahah, the UK is democratic? Even in the in-direct, representative democracy sense? The UK is Constitutional Monarchy. Notice the Monarchy part? The supreme legislative body in the UK is the bicameral Parliament, made up of 1436 members, of whom only the lower house, the House of Commons(650 members)is actually elected. The upper house is made up of 786 unelected members, appointed the Head of State, the hereditary monarch, of whom 26 are Bishops of the Church of England(of which the Monarch is also the head), except the 92 members who are hereditary peers.

Anyways, democracy essentially the Kratia(rule) of the Demos(People). Rule by aristocrats and political and economic elites, which is the case in the United Kingdom, is not a democracy.


I know a lot about it, I just remain unconvinced how it's any more democratic than elections.
What's so democratic about replacing old representatives of the ruling class with new representatives of the ruling class every couple of years? Representative democracy still remains to this day the "most aristocratic form of government".

No.

You make it out to be this 'capitalist conspiracy'. The reason I, as a proponent of capitalism also support democracy is because I believe in liberty and maximising people's choices. Capitalism does that. You get your salary and you chose how to spend it out of thousands of goods and services. Democracy is also choice.

The reason why people don't vote communist is because of your ideas being useless, your parties being split and the fact nobody trusts you. If you were genuinely supported by the 'proles' then all you would need to get would be £1 off every member of the working class over a 5 year time horizon and you'd have more money than the main parties (in the UK).

Sort yourself out and stop trying to blame the failings of your ideology on everyone else. And of course Marxism will involve a dictatorship, but don't tell that to half the Marxists here as they'll insist "MARXISM IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY YE".
Marxism is not an ideology(you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word, according to Marx, and this is rather funny, as it was Marx who basically created our modern concept of "ideology"), nor is it a form of government. Marxism is Marx's and Engel's analysis and criticism of Capitalism, and Marx's materialist conception of history and(arguably)Marx's dialectical materialism.

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

A weak democracy is only a dictatorship of the majority, a strong democracy is a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[l'Enfermé]

This is precisely the reason why we need today a super- or meta-dictatorship of the proletariat.
Are you actually replying to your own posts?

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

Here’s the etymology of the word democracy:

demotic: 1822, from Gk. demotikos "of or for the common people, in common use," from demos "common people," originally "district," from PIE *da-mo- "division," from base *da- "to divide" (see tide). In contrast to hieratic. Originally of the simpler of two forms of ancient Egyptian writing; broader sense is from 1831; used of Greek since 1927.

http://www.etymonline.com/ index.php?term=demotic&allo wed_in_frame=0 (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=demotic&allowed_in_frame=0)

[Franz Fanonipants]

Really? I read Gramsci 'One-dimensional man' and he seemed to argue that capitalists just throw cheap goods and people, brainwash them with advertising and this = the new form of totalitarianism? I don't get it.

haha what

the key is to use gramscian theory as a base. cheap goods and the construction of hegemony are all part of a survival strategy of capitalism/ists. that said, if you think that's a conscious choice and agenda of capitalism/ists i think you're being pretty credulous.

systems work in internally consistent ways. capitalists do not go out saying shit about "I AM GOING TO DIVORCE THIS LABORER FROM THEIR LABORING POWER" instead a contract is devised and labor is reciprocated with wage because it helps the system to commodify further.

hegemony works in the same way. what you're arguing is a cartoon version.

[Art Vandelay]

Are you actually replying to your own posts?

I have no idea what hes going on about.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yeah cops don't have anything better to do.

you fucking dummy do you even know anything about the internet

[durhamleft]

Yeah cops don't have anything better to do.



The self-organization of the vast majority of people, the working class, and their conquest of power from a small capitalist class, the power which rightfully belongs to the people, is not "maximum democracy"? Perhaps you prefer the continuation of the current social organization, where the few rule over the many, but I'm much more in favor of the many ruling over themselves.

Hahahahah, the UK is democratic? Even in the in-direct, representative democracy sense? The UK is Constitutional Monarchy. Notice the Monarchy part? The supreme legislative body in the UK is the bicameral Parliament, made up of 1436 members, of whom only the lower house, the House of Commons(650 members)is actually elected. The upper house is made up of 786 unelected members, appointed the Head of State, the hereditary monarch, of whom 26 are Bishops of the Church of England(of which the Monarch is also the head), except the 92 members who are hereditary peers.

Anyways, democracy essentially the Kratia(rule) of the Demos(People). Rule by aristocrats and political and economic elites, which is the case in the United Kingdom, is not a democracy.


What's so democratic about replacing old representatives of the ruling class with new representatives of the ruling class every couple of years? Representative democracy still remains to this day the "most aristocratic form of government".

Marxism is not an ideology(you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word, according to Marx, and this is rather funny, as it was Marx who basically created our modern concept of "ideology"), nor is it a form of government. Marxism is Marx's and Engel's analysis and criticism of Capitalism, and Marx's materialist conception of history and(arguably)Marx's dialectical materialism.

Had to bite!

(a) The few do not rule over the many. If the few elected themselves then that would be the case, but since almost every citizens bar a few exceptions has the vote I don’t see this. 150 years ago what you say is the correct, but how is it so now? Besides, I trust MPs more than the average citizens on many issues- they tend to be better educated and less reactionary, I echo Schumpeter when he said ‘Public opinion is like a stampede’.

(b) Yes, if you take it all on face value sure, in the same way if you take it on face value Russia protects rights and liberties as it has a bill of rights. It’s a bollocks argument though isn’t it as the queen in practice cannot veto anything (though I wish to see the monarchy abolished). However key point is 70% of people odd support the monarchy, so from a democratic view on things, it’s hard to argue for abolition. Re. the HoL they have again, very little power and in practice just revise laws and make amendments.

( c) Again, how is representative democracy not a form of democracy? What would you rather? We all huddle in the amphitheater once a week and argue for hours about policies? I think not mate.

(d) People the general population choose! Its like if 10% of the population are black but only 5% of MPs are. You can say it’s not a microcosm of wider society but if people chose to vote for them, how is it not democratic? How is it not democratic is the working class chose to vote for elites?
(e) Marxism is an ideology man, it has a conception of human nature, a conception of the good society, a conception of how to get there, what more do you want from an ideology? Of course is a bloody ideology. Even when I was a dyed in the wool Marxist I thought it was an ideology!

[durhamleft]

haha what

the key is to use gramscian theory as a base. cheap goods and the construction of hegemony are all part of a survival strategy of capitalism/ists. that said, if you think that's a conscious choice and agenda of capitalism/ists i think you're being pretty credulous.

systems work in internally consistent ways. capitalists do not go out saying shit about "I AM GOING TO DIVORCE THIS LABORER FROM THEIR LABORING POWER" instead a contract is devised and labor is reciprocated with wage because it helps the system to commodify further.

hegemony works in the same way. what you're arguing is a cartoon version.
Just realised I said Gramsci when I meant Marcuse. Sorry, it's been a long day and the neo-marxists tend to blur into one another for me.

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

For the etymology of "democracy", we can see that the people is, in fact, the proletariat.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Just realised I said Gramsci when I meant Marcuse. Sorry, it's been a long day and the neo-marxists tend to blur into one another for me.

ugh marcuse is your problem

[Revolution starts with U]

So how is a dictatorship of the workers more democratic than say, the UK is at the moment?


How is that democratic versus elections? If workers wanted to control the means of production in a way you propose, surely they would vote for communist parties, and then they'd get power?

I dont get it.

Because voting != elections (!= means "does not equal"). Demos = people, Cracy = power/rule of; Democracy means power of the people. So when you ask "Dictatorship of P I always understood to mean workers seizing control and stamping out any remnants of the capitalist class via a, well, dictatorship.

How is this maximum democracy?"

it's really kind-of dumb because you're, in Franz' own words, "answering your own question." Or to put it another way, see below:


A weak democracy is only a dictatorship of the majority, a strong democracy is a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Art Vandelay]

Marxism is not an ideology, it is a way of analyzing certain things.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I have no idea what hes going on about.

he's being fucking great is what he's going on about

[durhamleft]

ugh marcuse is your problem

Always thought he was a bit of a dick!

[durhamleft]

Marxism is not an ideology, it is a way of analyzing certain things.

That's what an ideology is!

[Offbeat]

And of course Marxism will involve a dictatorship, but don't tell that to half the Marxists here as they'll insist "MARXISM IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY YE".
Marxism is not a system of government.

[Art Vandelay]

he's being fucking great is what he's going on about

Probably just a bit over my head then.

[durhamleft]

Marxism is not a system of government.

So dictatorship of P ---> state withering away ---> communism doesn't involve conceptions of what a state should look like?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Always thought he was a bit of a dick!

the whole frankfurt school is pretty shitty

"totalitarianism" and using marxism to apologize for the west is no good

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

The people is, in fact, the proletariat because, in Greece, the people were those who were dispossessed.

[Revolution starts with U]

Having the right to vote really doesn't matter when you're alienated from the means of attracting political support. Old and rich people are more politically active than your average citizen because they can be.

Ask your average citizen why they don't vote. The answer is, with 99.99% certainty, going to be "because it doesn't matter anyway." If the majority of people feel disempowered; that is not democracy.

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

Demos means district, a district cuts from society.

[Rooster]

I can't really concentrate right now but here's an extract from Draper's Two Souls of Socialism



"We are not among those communists who are out to destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic workhouse. There certainly are some communists who, with an easy conscience, refuse to countenance personal liberty and would like to shuffle it out of the world because they consider that it is a hindrance to complete harmony. But we have no desire to exchange freedom for equality. We are convinced ... that in no social order will personal freedom be so assured as in a society based upon communal ownership... [Let us put] our hands to work in order to establish a democratic state wherein each party would be able by word or in writing to win a majority over to its ideas..."
The Communist Manifesto which issued out of these discussions proclaimed that the first objective of the revolution was "to win the battle of democracy." When, two years later and after the decline of the 1848 revolutions, the Communist League split, it was in conflict once again with the "crude communism" of putschism, which thought to substitute determined bands of revolutionaries for the real mass movement of an enlightened working class. Marx told them:
"The minority ... makes mere will the motive force of the revolution, instead of actual relations. Whereas we say to the workers: 'You will have to go through fifteen or twenty or fifty years of civil wars and international wars, not only in order to change extant conditions, but also in order to change yourselves and to render yourselves fit for political dominion,' you, on the other hand, say to the workers: 'We must attain to power at once, or else we may just as well go to sleep.'"To clarify; the first quote there is from a communist newspaper that both Marx and Engels were affiliated with and it can be found in some copies of the Manifesto, most of it can be found here: link (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N5YfoW8fhzkC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=We+are+not+among+those+communists+who+are+out+t o+destroy+personal+liberty&source=bl&ots=c19E4kh0KP&sig=O9wJvmi9Wt7t48Arl-_hSizCWrY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DoqWT7XFDamw0QWLoa2hDg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false)

The second is Marx and the rest of that second quote is:


“The point of view of the minority is dogmatic instead of critical, idealistic instead of materialistic. They regard not the real conditions but a mere effort of will as the driving force of the revolution. Whereas we say to the workers: ‘You will have to go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil wars and national struggles not only to bring about a change in society but also to change yourselves, and prepare yourselves for the exercise of political power’, you say on the contrary: ‘Either we seize power at once, or else we might as well just take to our beds.’ Whereas we are at pains to show the German workers in particular how rudimentary the development of the German proletariat is, you appeal to the patriotic feelings and the class prejudice of the German artisans, flattering them in the grossest way possible, and this is a more popular method, of course. Just as the word ‘people’ has been given an aura of sanctity by the democrats, so you have done the same for the word ‘proletariat’. Like the democrats you substitute the catchword of revolution for revolutionary development,”http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/revelations/ch01.htm

Wonder why Omsk left out the rest of that... hmmm...

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

The Demos was cut from society and this cut refers to the most important cut: the watershed separation line.

[ColonelCossack]

It's a dictatorship of the Proletariat in the same sense that we have a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie at the moment- it's just the domination of one class over the other (if I've got it right).

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

Pay attention to the link between the etymologies of Demos and Tide:

O.E. tid "point or portion of time, due time," from P.Gmc. *tidiz "division of time" (cf. O.S. tid, Du. tijd, O.H.G. zit, Ger. Zeit "time"), from PIE *di-ti- "division, division of time," suffixed form of base *da- "to divide, cut up" (cf. Skt. dati "cuts, divides;" Gk. demos "people, land," perhaps lit. "division of society;" daiesthai "to divide;" O.Ir. dam "troop, company"). Meaning "rise and fall of the sea" (mid-14c.) is probably via notion of "fixed time," specifically "time of high water;" either a native evolution or from M.L.G. getide (cf. also Du. tij, Ger. Gezeiten "flood tide"). O.E. had no specific word for this, using flod and ebba to refer to the rise and fall. O.E. heahtid "high tide" meant “festival, high day.” The verb meaning "to carry (as the tide does)" is recorded from 1620s, usually with over. Related: Tided; tiding.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tide&allowed_in_frame=0 (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tide&allowed_in_frame=0)

[Rooster]

Why not? In the elections I can vote for a Marxist party, left of centre party, liberal party, right of centre party, nationalist party and national socialist party if I wish. How much more choice can I want?

I understand why Marx wrote his books at the time he did - when workers had no political participation - but surely this is not the case now?

Why is a revolutionary road needed rather than evolutionary? I fundamentally don't see the argument. You can label elections capitalist 'til you're blue in the face but it doesn't address the fundamental question, which is if Marxism is in the interests of the majority of workers, why don't the SWP and SP have more members? Why doesn't TUSC get more votes at elections? I don't get it.

Maybe, but I doubt that it's possible. The party that won would have to have unimaginable political leverage and a desire to dissolve itself. Besides, the revolution were are talking about are social-economic ones, not political ones.


(i) But if the masses vote for people who are separate to the masses, surely that is that choice of the masses?

(ii) How strict? I believe in right to recall but at the same time you need politicians to have some certainty in their term to make decisions- not just do exactly what public opinion says at the time

(iii) No, they're not, but they're as close as you'll ever get. They're the natural result of attempts at socialism.

I think you're thinking about the state in the wrong way here. The state should be thought of, in the dotp, as a means of organising production (and maybe suppression). It's not one of mitigating between classes or private enterprises.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Democracy = majority rule
Capitalism = Bourgeois rule
Bourgeoisie = minority
Bourgeois electoralism is not democracy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Democracy does not mean majority rule. That's a really simple and dangerous form of democratic expression. A nation of 90% whites expressing their majority rule of subjugating black people is not a form of "people's power."

Democracy != voting.

[Offbeat]

So dictatorship of P ---> state withering away ---> communism doesn't involve conceptions of what a state should look like?
Marxism has conceptions about future systems, but in itself is not a political, social or economic system - you can't have a Marxist society or a Marxist system of government, it doesn't make any sense. Marxism is a way of analysing history and working out what is likely to happen next.

[Revolution starts with U]

Democracy does not mean majority rule. That's a really simple and dangerous form of democratic expression. A nation of 90% whites expressing their majority rule of subjugating black people is not a form of "people's power."

Democracy != voting.

To further elucidate upon this;

Democracy must protect individual rights (to an extent), or it's not a democracy. This is so because "people" are just an abstraction of actually existing individual persons.

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

Demos is about the struggle for water and the dictatorship of the proletariat is about the class struggle: it is the same struggle articulated differently (one in concrete terms, the other in abstract terms).

[Brosa Luxemburg]

(a) How do you avoid these though? As I suggested, surely they are the inevitable consequence of Marxism?

I do not believe that authoritarianism (which, of course, is a useless term without a proper class background to it) and bueracracy are an inevitable consequence of socialism. Stalinism? Yes. Socialism? No.



(b) Would you not agree though that it's easy to criticise Stalin, Trotsky, Mao et all, and pretend if you had power the same wouldn't happen, when it probably would?

No, I realize that when revolutionaries take power there will always be a counter-revolutionary and reactionary backlash, which is why I support Marx's version of the DOTP as a transition stage to reach socialism.


(c) No, I don't assume that, I was just trying to give examples of my point. However, as a sweeping generalisation, I would suggest most Marxists are more authoritarian than they like to admit!

Maybe, but who cares?

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.


The intimate link between democracy and communism has been established by Jacques Rancière:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ranci%C3%A8re (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ranci%C3%A8re)

[Rafiq]

Only is Democracy to be supported im it's origin with Aristotle: Violent Emancipatory Dictatorship (Of the proletariat).

Not so much this "Direct Democracy" nonsense. Democracy is no means sacred, nor it is a tenet of communist ideology. We do not favor Liberty, Individualism, etc. But *emancipation*. Was the army of run away slaves under Spartacus democratic? We do not know, but this (question) divulges from the point: This mentality that as slaves we have nothing to lose, that we would rather die in battle against our masters in honor than to live as slaves, for the very act of dying in battle in this case is Revolutionary in nature, you die having already escaped.

So, it depends on what you mean in regards to Democracy, as this could mean a wide range of things. So long as the emancipatory act is carried out, there is not so much of a need of classical democracy in every case. There will not be a vote on whether the revolution happens, just as there was none in the slave revolt of Spartacus.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

From what we have seen recently in the USA, in Italy and Greece, capitalism go hand and hand with technocracy not with democracy.

[Positivist]

No.

You make it out to be this 'capitalist conspiracy'. The reason I, as a proponent of capitalism also support democracy is because I believe in liberty and maximising people's choices. Capitalism does that. You get your salary and you chose how to spend it out of thousands of goods and services. Democracy is also choice.

The reason why people don't vote communist is because of your ideas being useless, your parties being split and the fact nobody trusts you. If you were genuinely supported by the 'proles' then all you would need to get would be £1 off every member of the working class over a 5 year time horizon and you'd have more money than the main parties (in the UK).

Sort yourself out and stop trying to blame the failings of your ideology on everyone else. And of course Marxism will involve a dictatorship, but don't tell that to half the Marxists here as they'll insist "MARXISM IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY YE".

Yea Cuz those homeless kids dying in the streets have it great in this beautiful democracy

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

Zizek wrote: Political conflict proper thus involves the tension between the structured social body, where each part has its place, and the part of no-part, which unsettles this order on account of the empty principle of universality, of the principled equality of all men qua speaking beings.

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/zizek-a-leftist-plea-for-eurocentricism/

[Ostrinski]

We as Marxists put little to no emphasis on political processes and systems, as we understand that the route to be pursued is not the route that is most popular or that seems most ideal, but the route that can best facilitate class hegemony and serve best as medium of carrying out ruling class policy.

This is not to say that political dictatorships don't exist - they most certainly do, and many are quite brutal. But we recognize that all political dictatorships, and indeed all political systems in general are paper tigers. Meaning, they are only legitimized by the class that enables them. The political structure is just the skeleton, the medium by which a ruling class communicates its decree to the subordinate classes.

So we are against bourgeois dictatorships and bourgeois democracies all the same. Our enemy is the bourgeoisie, no matter what means they rule by. What are we for? We are for whatever can carry out proletarian edict most effectively. I personally don't think an autocratic system can do this, as observed throughout the world today and through history, these systems are very contradictory and unstable, and thus shouldn't be pursued. We definitely need a democratic arrangement, but direct democracy is definitely irresolute itself. But the point is that it is irrelevant.

We are for whatever means can facilitate the proletarian's task most competently: The task of abolishing itself.

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.


Zizek also wrote: In the Marxist tradition, for instance, proletariat can be read as the subjectivization of the part of no-part that elevates its injustice into the ultimate test of universality and, simultaneously, as the operator that will bring about the establishment of a postpolitical, rational society.

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zi...urocentricism/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/zizek-a-leftist-plea-for-eurocentricism/)

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Okay, what the fuck is the zizekian doing?

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

To me, democracy can only show the problem, communism can solve it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Okay, what the fuck is the zizekian doing?

Further ellucidating on his point.

[the zizekian]

no.

Dictating a “no” is saying “yes” to dictatorship.

[Orlov]

I agree, however it should not be a conventional dictatorship it should be a strict leadership of the party made up of the revolutionary proletariat with the sole purpose to maintain and control the progress of the revolution for future generations to come. This is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[#FF0000]

I agree, however it should not be a conventional dictatorship it should be a strict leadership of the party made up of the revolutionary proletariat with the sole purpose to maintain and control the progress of the revolution for future generations to come. This is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

no that's dictatorship of the paternalistic fucks that run the party

[RGacky3]

Democracy as defined as "people involved and/or affected in a situation have a say in the situation," is the integeral part that socialism is based on.

Even when talking about a dictatorship of the proletariat, if you use it in the same way marx did its basically just a workers democracy.

When people say democracy is'nt sacred to socialism, its kind of self defeating, its like saying private property is'nt sacred to capitalism.

[The Machine]

nothing is sacred

[The Machine]

the whole frankfurt school is pretty shitty

"totalitarianism" and using marxism to apologize for the west is no good

Yeah it sucks when the frankfurt school gets in the way of my third-worldism.

[RGacky3]

nothing is sacred


Your missing my point, my point is that socialism is by definition democratic.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The reason I, as a proponent of capitalism also support democracy is because I believe in liberty and maximising people's choices. Capitalism does that. You get your salary and you chose how to spend it out of thousands of goods and services. Democracy is also choice.What does this really mean when you push aside the buzz-words? Those thousands of goods and services - where do they come from? In capitalism, production is collectively performed (rather than individual artisans and craftsmen) but under individual organization and ownership. So then the wage-system is actually not an opportunity to enjoy this collective effort, but a way to ration the products of this collective effort. So arguing that capitalism gives us choices, is like saying slavery gave slaves freedom to decide what they wanted to do, within some guidelines, while they were off-work and in their quarters.

Since wages are not based on the price of the products produced or the revenue made or on the inherent usefulness of the object (otherwise farm-workers would be paid much more than jewlery-makers) but on various other economic factors, wages actually limit and regulate what is available to individuals in capitalism.


Sort yourself out and stop trying to blame the failings of your ideology on everyone else. And of course Marxism will involve a dictatorship, but don't tell that to half the Marxists here as they'll insist "MARXISM IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY YE".Considering that large swaths of the contemporary revolutionary left don't support so-called socialist dictators, this argument is pretty weak. Those systems did involve autocratic rule most definitely, the also didn't have worker's power, so if you take that to be the fundamental definition of Marxist communism, the argument is a straw-man since communism was never achieved in the first place.

But leaving that aside, to argue that communism supports dictatorships on that basis is true from a particular viewpoint, but to argue that capitalism is better doesn't work. Not only have capitalist countries regularly prevented, waged war, and corrupted the democratic process in their home countries and abroad, but unlike the non-worker's power base "communism" of the 20th century, the capitalist dictatorships actually had market economies that adhered to the ideological capitalist frameworks and theories or neoliberalism or whatnot!

EDIT: Crap, I didn't know this went on for 7 pages when I responded to a post way back on page 1 :D

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree, however it should not be a conventional dictatorship it should be a strict leadership of the party made up of the revolutionary proletariat with the sole purpose to maintain and control the progress of the revolution for future generations to come. This is the dictatorship of the proletariat.At best this could only be a "dictatorship FOR the proletariat" no OF or BY it.

I don't think proletarian democracy is some principle, but I do think it would be essential (or some other analogous method) for a large class to exert it's rule and make large decisions. How the mechanisms of this democracy function would have to be built out of the networks and conditions of the time, but some kind of method of mass collective decision making would definitely be needed in a society run by the majority class.


(a) The few do not rule over the many. If the few elected themselves then that would be the case, but since almost every citizens bar a few exceptions has the vote I don’t see this. 150 years ago what you say is the correct, but how is it so now? Besides, I trust MPs more than the average citizens on many issues- they tend to be better educated and less reactionary, I echo Schumpeter when he said ‘Public opinion is like a stampede’.First of all you are mistaking political rule with social rule. If you're playing a game of football you might need a referee to determine fouls or close-calls, but you don't need a referee to tell you if someone double-dribbled because this is outside the scope of the game and the equipment available. In other words once society has been organized around capitalist relations, you no longer need direct political dictates in order to rule in most cases. Institutions founded and built apon capitalists norms create their own internal pro-capitalist logic that doesn't need daily intervention. You say yourself that a more obvious class-bias in governance is self-evident in modern capitalist countries in the past, so right there you can see how the "game is rigged" or set up as a tool for regulating trade, ensuring "fair" business practices, internal forces for keeping (capitalist) order in society, external forces to defend or open up trade routes or access to resources.

Once there is no serious threat from old aristocratic power returning, and when there is no risk of workers revolution, then most people must accept the daily fact of life in capitalism. At this point it is no loner necessary to have overt-class interventions in governance, for the most part individuals and institutions will accept (willingly or grudgingly) the logic of capitalism. If people believe that there is no alternative, then they will play the game without being forced to overtly because the alternative is not getting wages.

And when it comes down to it, the ruling class will intervine directly when it's absolutely necessary. They'll support coups or dictators like Pinochet, they'll prevent democratic votes if it goes against their interests like the US in Vietnam, they'll even turn to fascists to "restore order" if things are really dire for them. And most capitalist democracyies have softer built-in checks to popular opinion. In the US we have "checks and balances" (which is not really to keep the government from being taken over by one party, but to prevent "hasty" reforms passed because of popular pressure) and an unelected Supreme Court. So even if there was a left-populist movement in the US and they gained seats in Congress, if they tried to attack "property rights" they'd be ruled as unconstitutional and any laws passed would be overturned. Hell even Obama's pro-business health insurance scam is threatened with rejection by the Court and (even this weak and compromised scam) health-care is much more popular in the US than granting business "human rights" but look at which carries the day.



[QUOTE](d) People the general population choose! Its like if 10% of the population are black but only 5% of MPs are. You can say it’s not a microcosm of wider society but if people chose to vote for them, how is it not democratic? How is it not democratic is the working class chose to vote for elites?Because these choices are not made in a vacuum. This is most obvious in the US system where it much more transparently takes both millions of dollars and backing from one of two pro-business pro-imperialist parties to have a chance at winning a prominent seat.

But going beyond this specific example, because many of the reforms practices of parliamentary systems (like public funding of candidates, limited campaign periods, multiple parties) would actually be big improvements in the US, the question of hegemony again comes into play.

If people are convinced there is little alternative to the current organization of things (i.e. in most non-revolutionary periods) then they will try and find the best solution within the rules set up by that game. So they might be drawn to social-democracy as a "realistic" way to deal with some of the harsher elements of class struggle; they might seek individual solutions and turn towards ideas of reducing taxes or whatnot; they might also think that since they don't want things to get worse that politicians who blame scapegoats, immigrants, foreign threats, will help at least keep things from getting worse.

Revolutions are historically frequent but less-so in the lifetimes of most people. On top of this the rulers of this system and all the people who rely on the system are constantly arguing in panglossian fashion that this is the "most natural" "best" or "only" possible world. So most people try to go along to get along except in short historical bursts of revolutionary change. Even in the French Revolution, what was their first goal? They wanted to keep the King and just have more popular say in the government! That was the radical position and in a few years that was the position of the reactionaries!

So arguing that revolution is not possible on the basis that most people aren't currently revolutionaries is a strange argument. On top of that, the fact that there have been mass revolutionary movements and even parties at various points in various places, erodes the claim that current support for mainstream parties shows some kind of inherent support for the system.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

You mean like when Engels said:

do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariatClearly this is not some post-USSR "revision" of Marxist ideas - the "revision" was the autocratic rule of the "socialism in one country" USSR model IMO. Marx and Engels saw the socialist struggle as the continuation of the battle for democracy and the only way to overcome some of the contradictions in (capitalist) society that prevented the democratic movements from advancing further.

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

About democracy, Slavoj Zizek wrote:

“We can well imagine a democratic procedure maintaining the same gap on account of the irreducible moment of contingency in every electoral result: far from being a limitation, the fact that elections do not pretend to select the most qualified person is what protects them from the totalitarian temptation (which is why, as was already clear to the Ancient Greeks, choosing rulers by lot is the most democratic form of selection). That is to say, as Lefort has again demonstrated, the achievement of democracy is to turn what for traditional authoritarian power is the moment of greatest crisis—the moment of transition from one master to another, the panic-inducing instant at which “the throne is empty”—into the very source of its strength: democratic elections thus represent the passage through that zero-point at which the complex network of social links is dissolved into a purely quantitative multiplicity of individuals whose votes are mechanically counted. The moment of terror, of the dissolution of all hierarchical links, is thereby re-enacted and transformed into the foundation of a new and stable political order.”


http://www.guernicamag.com/features/zizek_5_1_11/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guernica%2Fcontent+%28Guernic a+%2F+Content%29 (http://www.guernicamag.com/features/zizek_5_1_11/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guernica%2Fcontent+%28Guernic a+%2F+Content%29)

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yeah it sucks when the frankfurt school gets in the way of my third-worldism.

You still exist?

[danyboy27]

Closing this thread is needed.
discuss.

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

Democracy is a form of terror and with it comes dictatorship.

[RGacky3]

Democracy is a form of terror and with it comes dictatorship.

Back that up.

[the zizekian]

Back that up.

My posts are backed by my previous ones (see #132).

[RGacky3]

you mean out of context zizek quotes???? No ... Back it up.

[danyboy27]

Dictating a “no” is saying “yes” to dictatorship.

The OP is a troll/cop, i dont think i need further explanation about my answer to his main question.

[the zizekian]

The OP is a troll/cop, i dont think i need further explanation about my answer to his main question.

Weak dictators see trolls everywhere.

[The Machine]

You still exist?

fwm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H0fy73jQaI)

lololol if you hate the west what are you doing on a computer on a leftist website talking about marx, isnt there some village somewhere with peasants for you to trick into shooting at the army you vanguard of the "peoples" revolution you

[the zizekian]

you mean out of context zizek quotes???? No ... Back it up.

You prove my point (with your dictatorship)!

[RGacky3]

ok ... your not making any sense.

[the zizekian]

ok ... your not making any sense.

Dictatorship is even more needed then!

[RGacky3]

all right buddy.

[the zizekian]

all right buddy.

See!?

[Franz Fanonipants]

fwm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H0fy73jQaI)

lololol if you hate the west what are you doing on a computer on a leftist website talking about marx, isnt there some village somewhere with peasants for you to trick into shooting at the army you vanguard of the "peoples" revolution you

its like all the stupidest shit from leftcommunism in one post

anyways when i say the west i mean the non-soviet world in a particular historical context (the post-war period when the frankfurt school was active)

you fucking dummy

[Franz Fanonipants]

You prove my point (with your dictatorship)!

i want to have children with you

[the zizekian]

i want to have children with you

Fathers to their children are like dictators, the kind of dictator we all need.

[Rafiq]

Fathers to their children are like dictators, the kind of dictator we all need.



What a grossly absurd interperitation of Zizek.

[the zizekian]

What a grossly absurd interperitation of Zizek.

The Name-of-the-Father (French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) Nom du père) is a concept that Jacques Lacan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan) developed from his seminar The Psychoses (1955–1956) to cover the role of the father in the Symbolic Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Symbolic). Lacan plays with the similar sound of le nom du père (the name of the father), le non du père (the no of the father), and les non-dupes errent (the non-dupes err) to, in the former case, emphasize the legislative and prohibitive function of the father and, in the latter case, emphasize that "those who do not let themselves be caught in the symbolic deception/fiction and continue to believe their eyes are the ones who err most."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_the_Father

[seventeethdecember2016]

LOL! I can see why he is restricted.

I myself could go for a Benevolent Dictatorship, but too often we see Malevolence associated with it.

The term Autocracy has been flown around quite often, but I don't see how it is possible. I fully believe that all Dictatorships are Oligarchical.

[the zizekian]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

First, a dictatorship is absolutely needed to decide about what can be a quorum.

[Rafiq]

First, a dictatorship is absolutely needed to decide about what can be a quorum.



This is the tenth time you've responded to the same post.

[the zizekian]

This is the tenth time you've responded to the same post.

I always stay on the topic.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Let's stop sugarcoating things. Marx clearly said 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, but Marxists today say that his language must be understood in the proper context, and so on.

Truth is, Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - one helps the other. Capitalists, with their money and resources, can easily succeed in a democratic system; communists are outmatched and even their participation would be a question mark. No wonder capitalists favor democracy.

Juan Perón.

/thread.

Post 69!

[the zizekian]

Juan Perón.

/thread.

Post 69!

?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

?

Perónist Argentina was a capitalist dictatorship. Despite the rhetoric and propaganda, democracy and capitalism are not inherently connected or (arguably) connected at all.

[the zizekian]

Perónist Argentina was a capitalist dictatorship. Despite the rhetoric and propaganda, democracy and capitalism are not inherently connected or (arguably) connected at all.

Yes but a dictatoship is needed for this very reason.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes but a dictatoship is needed for this very reason.

To put it simply, no, what's the point of trading masters?

[the zizekian]

To put it simply, no, what's the point of trading masters?

To trade one has to steal first.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Can we just ban Elysian for being the troll he is?

[the zizekian]

Can we just ban Elysian for being the troll he is?

Weak dictators see trolls everywhere.

[#FF0000]

Weak dictators see trolls everywhere.

nah actually elysian is a legit troll but please do keep rollin out this tired line over and over again!

[the zizekian]

nah actually elysian is a legit troll but please do keep rollin out this tired line over and over again!

sarcasm carcass

[Klaatu]

Capitalism is not a democracy. This is because

(A) A few billionaires choosing our political candidates and presenting these hand-picked clowns for the masses to vote upon, is not democracy.

(B) A capitalist company in and of itself is not a democracy; it is a functional dictatorship. Thus it is not surprising that "A" is the embedded political system in America.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Capitalism is not a democracy. This is because

(A) A few billionaires choosing our political candidates and presenting these hand-picked clowns for the masses to vote upon, is not democracy.

(B) A capitalist company in and of itself is not a democracy; it is a functional dictatorship. Thus it is not surprising that "A" is the embedded political system in America.
I agree complete. Apparently some idiots believe that, by getting a single vote every few years, they live in a Democracy. I laugh at these clowns.

[the zizekian]

I think that only a dictatorship can crush another dictatorship.

[Ele'ill]

I think that only a dictatorship can crush another dictatorship.

I've wondered twice now if you're a bot

[Ele'ill]

Ok since I just went back three pages and there's no serious discussion anywhere I'm closing this thread.


THREAD CLOSED