Dictators = Tyrants and Bad for the people, right?

[R_P_A_S]

Ever since I could remember I always heard either by my family, friends, news, school and books that Dictators are bad. they are tyrants who oppress their people or others. They set the rules and laws and set them selves and their regime above the law. People like Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro and Stalin etc. anyways that's what I've learn.

In my recent readings and research on communism either on my own or from stuff you kind people post, Im learning what Communism really is and what is about. To be honest I had a terrible Image of it. But why does a Dictator have to be attach to it? That's the only part I don't like and whenever you look up Communism some of those Dictators are attached to the definition.

I personaly don't like the idea of some ruler making him self bigger than life setting ridicolous laws and opressing the people and our neighboring countries.

So is a dictator part of communism? If not. Why does it always seem to be the case?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:36 PM
In my recent readings and research on communism either on my own or from stuff you kind people post, Im learning what Communism really is and what is about. To be honest I had a terrible Image of it. But why does a Dictator have to be attach to it? That's the only part I don't like and whenever you look up Communism some of those Dictators are attached to the definition.
You're obviously not learning enough.


I personaly don't like the idea of some ruler making him self bigger than life setting ridicolous laws and opressing the people and our neighboring countries.

Neither do people here


So is a dictator part of communism?

Communism is an economic system in which means of production are commonly owned, and therefore, one in which there are no classes.

So dictators simply do not exist


If not. Why does it always seem to be the case?

"Communism" has never existed with few exceptions which are not any of those 20th century "socialist experiments" which happened in underdeveloped countries.

[YSR]

It doesn't.

The "dictator" image comes from two things. The first is that capitalists and national leaders of capitalist countries, in cahoots with media and religious figures have ALWAYS portrayed any communist in this light. They do this (I think) out of fear of losing their positions after a revolution.

The other is that, to be honest, Marxism-Leninism has failed. (I'm sure Leninists will appear here shortly to explain it in another way, RPAS, but this is what I believe). The concept of the "vanguard party" as Lenin and his idealogical followers have created it to be, soon becomes nothing more than an excuse for dictatorship. With that in mind, I believe the "dictator" image is one of the past and one we must move beyond.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2006, 12:40 AM

You're obviously not learning enough.




yeah. well im not saying i've learn it all. Im still learning. so give me a break

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 15 2006, 12:41 AM
It doesn't.

The "dictator" image comes from two things. The first is that capitalists and national leaders of capitalist countries, in cahoots with media and religious figures have ALWAYS portrayed any communist in this light. They do this (I think) out of fear of losing their positions after a revolution.

The other is that, to be honest, Marxism-Leninism has failed. (I'm sure Leninists will appear here shortly to explain it in another way, RPAS, but this is what I believe). The concept of the "vanguard party" as Lenin and his idealogical followers have created it to be, soon becomes nothing more than an excuse for dictatorship. With that in mind, I believe the "dictator" image is one of the past and one we must move beyond.
So there has never been a communist country with a dictator ever? in the history of man kind? all this things I've heard about..

Cuba
USSR
CHina

that they are or were communist rule by a dictator. that was false and misinterpreted by the media or what?

[LoneRed]

firstly that first replier was being a jackass, so you can settle down Infilitrado


secondly, The reason why these dictators are associated with communism is because the western world is by its position a polar opposite of communism and does all it can to discredit it. It will and has used by them to paint those societies as "communist" because frankly the people will believe them. "Communist" parties took power in these societies and people attribute the title to what communism is. Communism is more than a title, the western world will use the name of the parties to tell people thats what communism was, instead of looking at their actions.

[YSR]

LoneRed has it.

Check out what "communism" itself is, a classless stateless society, and you'll see that all three of your examples were quite the opposite. Therefore, they can't fairly be called a communist society.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+May 15 2006, 12:54 AM--> (R_P_A_S @ May 15 2006, 12:54 AM)
Young Stupid [email protected] 15 2006, 12:41 AM
It doesn't.

The "dictator" image comes from two things. The first is that capitalists and national leaders of capitalist countries, in cahoots with media and religious figures have ALWAYS portrayed any communist in this light. They do this (I think) out of fear of losing their positions after a revolution.

The other is that, to be honest, Marxism-Leninism has failed. (I'm sure Leninists will appear here shortly to explain it in another way, RPAS, but this is what I believe). The concept of the "vanguard party" as Lenin and his idealogical followers have created it to be, soon becomes nothing more than an excuse for dictatorship. With that in mind, I believe the "dictator" image is one of the past and one we must move beyond.
So there has never been a communist country with a dictator ever? in the history of man kind? all this things I've heard about..

Cuba
USSR
CHina

that they are or were communist rule by a dictator. that was false and misinterpreted by the media or what? [/b]
USSR and China arent/werent communist, not by a longshot.

Cuba is a tiny bit closer..as in closer to socialism (but still far from it), not communism, because it isnt that oppressive. I dont know how exactly its is over there cuz i've never been there.

Communism is ultra-democratic, anti-hierarchic etc. nuff said ;)

anyone who tells you any different is either ignorant or lying.

[Erythromycin-diazepam]

Not all bad, in lenins view communism has to have a dictator.
People like saddam give dictators a bad name.

[Lord Testicles]

So let me get this right Erythromycin-diazepam, you are or arnt for dictators?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Erythromycin-[email protected] 17 2006, 02:37 AM
Not all bad, in lenins view communism has to have a dictator.
People like saddam give dictators a bad name.
Wow. Just when I thought this forum couldn't fall lower...

[Enragé]

if you could read dutch you'd see it fall far lower

an ultra-stalinist propagating a transitional period between the revolution and socialism :blink: in which the party would assume a dictatorship

i mean whats next?
the transitional period between the revolution and the transitional period? :blink:

[Erythromycin-diazepam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:44 AM
So let me get this right Erythromycin-diazepam, you are or arnt for dictators?
I'm new to leftism, i'm not too sure.

[bezdomni]

Not all bad, in lenins view communism has to have a dictator.
People like saddam give dictators a bad name.

You've very obviously never read a word that Lenin wrote. Lenin was against the bureaucratization of the Soviet Government and tried to fight against it as much as possible. Some moron Stalinists will bring up a bunch of crap saying that Stalin = Lenin, but the truth is that Stalin was a traitor to the Soviet Union and Leninism as a concept.

If you think that Lenin advocates dictatorships (other than the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the definition of socialism) then I have four words for you:

Read State and Revolution!

That said, Saddam doesn't give dictators a bad name...because dictators are ALWAYS bad.

[Wiesty]

Alot of people have debates like this, because in communism there are no classes, and thus a dictatoriship cannot exist. But under leninist views, the dictatorship of the proletarians is what needs to happen, and Lenins views being the basis of the Bolshevik revolution, which introduced communism as a power, gave the idea to the world, that communism must be a dictatorship. Not to mention stalin, mao, castro. It has kind of followed a pattern, but not a correct one.

[Erythromycin-diazepam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:09 AM

Not all bad, in lenins view communism has to have a dictator.
People like saddam give dictators a bad name.

You've very obviously never read a word that Lenin wrote. Lenin was against the bureaucratization of the Soviet Government and tried to fight against it as much as possible. Some moron Stalinists will bring up a bunch of crap saying that Stalin = Lenin, but the truth is that Stalin was a traitor to the Soviet Union and Leninism as a concept.

If you think that Lenin advocates dictatorships (other than the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the definition of socialism) then I have four words for you:

Read State and Revolution!

That said, Saddam doesn't give dictators a bad name...because dictators are ALWAYS bad.
Read what my good buddy wiesty said, thats what he said to me awhile back.

[Wiesty]

In a Communist society, a dictator should be just a guy to carry out the plans, while the proletarians make the decisions, rules, laws, etc. etc. etc.

[bezdomni]

Are you sure you've read Lenin...or even knew what he was talking about?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the rule of a totalitarian body over the masses...it is the rule of the proletariat class over society while the final aspects of capitalism and reaction are being stamped out. The dictatorship of the proletariat needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen (stole it from Trotsky), and there would be no "one guy" carrying out the orders; the people should and would carry out their wills by themselves.

In a communist society, there wouldn't exactly be a "proletariat" class; since there would be no other class to differentiate and therefore define what "proletariat" is. Nobody is alienated from their production, all people under communism own the means of production...so, really; all people under communism are the bourgeoisie (if anything).

Lenin simply adjusted Marx's ideas for the age of imperialism...some of his worse ideas were developed in the historical context of Russia (What is to be Done comes to mind), but his more brillant works are defiinitive of the "Leninist paradigm" (such as State & Revolution).

[Wiesty]

Yes, there cant be a proletariat, or anyother class for that matter, but this is what lenin believed.

[bezdomni]

What is what Lenin believed? :blink: