Socialism

[ComradeJunichi]

Socialism...dictator of the proletariat. So that means proletariat the whole group rules...Or like in Cuba, Fidel Castro? Ah, I'm losing it! Hehe, someone teach me...

[Xvall]

The proletariot rule..

[Nateddi]

dictatorship of the proletariat

there is never a phrase called "dictator of the proletariat" whatever you read you read incorrectly.

[Revolution Hero]

Dictatorship of the proletariat, means governing the state by the working class in the union with peasants. It comes after the socialist revolution and changes the system of government which existed before by breaking the past governmental machine and creating a new one, which has to function according to the socialist principles.
The working class together with peasants oppress the bourgeois class during the first years of a new state existence.

(Edited by Revolution Hero at 6:32 pm on July 30, 2002)

[MJM]

the dictatorship of the proleteriat is the alternative of what we have now.
Psuedo democracy or - the dictatorship of the bourgeoise.

(Edited by MJM at 10:54 pm on July 30, 2002)

[El Che]

Dictatorship of the proleteriat--- The idea that one social class, the proleteriat, assumes,through its self enpowered representatives (the vanguard, Lenin...), the reigns of power, uncondictionaly and often violently, in order to achive a classless society.

Idea, that is in my opinion, fundamentaly contrary to everything Socialists stand for. Contrary to Democracy, contrary to human rights, contrary to intelligent reasoning, etc etc etc. To this day all that these self-enpowered-absolutist-social reformers have been able to achive is freedomless fascist society and of course....... personal power, paid for with the blood of dissent.

[Nateddi]

El Che, your post is nothing but half-truths and outright lies. Have you ever even read lenin? Where are you finding this information that you are spewing out?

[El Che]

Nateddi, before we go any further, if you say I`m lying I`d appreciate it if you would take the time to explain, rather to demonstrate where I "lied".

Secondly, I dont have to explain my self to you, nor to tell you what I have or have not read, hence I will not. If you have a problem with something I said then make a coherent argument instead of an unsubstanciated acusation/insult.

Finaly, something to keep in mind for further replies is that half of my first post in this thread reflects a personal opinion. I`ll be happy to discuss it with you at lenth but I trust you understand the subtile different between what is my opinion and what I consider to be commonly accepted facts.

(Edited by El Che at 10:42 pm on July 30, 2002)

[ComradeJunichi]

Okay, I'm really sorry if I'm bothering or annoying you guys with so many questions...but I want to get this fact straight.
DictatorSHIP of the Proletariat. What I don't get is that...okay, its not one person it will be the whole social class of the proletariats ruling? Or like a democracy type thing? I'm getting more confused by the second.

[Nateddi]

its proletarian democracy

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Nateddi on 11:53 pm on July 30, 2002
its proletarian democracy+

democracy? the key word in there is "dictatorship," which is generally the opposite of democracy.

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but I see the dic. of the pro. as a person or an oligarchy who runs the country in the name of the people.

[Conghaileach]

You're thinking of dictatorship over the proletariat.

[ComradeJunichi]

AHHH I'm getting even more confused.


So it's not one person from the proletariats that is representing them.
It's not a dictatorship.

Wait does the vanguard have to do with any of it? Would it be like a part of the proletariats?
Sorry if I'm taking way to long to understand. I just want to get it straight.

[Nateddi]

>>democracy? the key word in there is "dictatorship," which is generally the opposite of democracy.
Correct me if i'm wrong here, but I see the dic. of the pro. as a person or an oligarchy who runs the country in the name of the people.


we've discussed this a while back, you still with the same blatantly false as well as stubborn views. therefore i shall ask you to do a couple of things.

quote out of any marx or lenin work (or any work by any communist thinker) the phrase "dictator of the proletariat".

secondly, after you fail to do that because there is no such thing, define the terms "democracy", "dictatorship", and the idom "of the"

than i suggest you read some marx or lenin and learn what it is without making completely false assumptions.


>>AHHH I'm getting even more confused.

i suggest you don't listen to anyone's personal assumtions on this board. to prevent double standards, including my posts as well. read for yourself to find the truth.

(Edited by Nateddi at 4:19 am on July 31, 2002)

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Nateddi on 4:13 am on July 31, 2002
>>democracy? the key word in there is "dictatorship," which is generally the opposite of democracy.
Correct me if i'm wrong here, but I see the dic. of the pro. as a person or an oligarchy who runs the country in the name of the people.


we've discussed this a while back, you still with the same blatantly false as well as stubborn views. therefore i shall ask you to do a couple of things.

quote out of any marx or lenin work (or any work by any communist thinker) the phrase "dictator of the proletariat".

secondly, after you fail to do that because there is no such thing, define the terms "democracy", "dictatorship", and the idom "of the"

than i suggest you read some marx or lenin and learn what it is without making completely false assumptions.

(Edited by Nateddi at 4:15 am on July 31, 2002)


cool down now. My "assumptions" may be "blatantly false" but I am not stubborn. I was asking you what your interpretation of it was. I did what you said and came to no conclusions other than what I had before. if this makes me stubborn, then I must be stubborn. I just don't find your info helpful. a democracy is where people vote. A dictatorship is where one man has complete control. Where along the line have I made an error if any. A dictatorship of the proletariot does not involve democracy, if I see it correctly. Since I am blatantly stupid, perhaps you might be so kind as to give me some more info or suggestions for me to follow. I'm trying to be as open as I can and not to be an "embarassment to the left" I have not only read your posts but even followed your suggestions. They didn't do squat for me. Do you have any othe suggestions or shall I continue to be "stubborn?"

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Nateddi on 4:13 am on July 31, 2002
>>democracy? the key word in there is "dictatorship," which is generally the opposite of democracy.
Correct me if i'm wrong here, but I see the dic. of the pro. as a person or an oligarchy who runs the country in the name of the people.


we've discussed this a while back, you still with the same blatantly false as well as stubborn views. therefore i shall ask you to do a couple of things.

quote out of any marx or lenin work (or any work by any communist thinker) the phrase "dictator of the proletariat".

secondly, after you fail to do that because there is no such thing, define the terms "democracy", "dictatorship", and the idom "of the"

than i suggest you read some marx or lenin and learn what it is without making completely false assumptions.

(Edited by Nateddi at 4:15 am on July 31, 2002)


cool down now. My "assumptions" may be "blatantly false" but I am not stubborn. I was asking you what your interpretation of it was. I did what you said and came to no conclusions other than what I had before. if this makes me stubborn, then I must be stubborn. I just don't find your info helpful. a democracy is where people vote. A dictatorship is where one man has complete control. Where along the line have I made an error if any. A dictatorship of the proletariot does not involve democracy, if I see it correctly. Since I am blatantly stupid, perhaps you might be so kind as to give me some more info or suggestions for me to follow. I'm trying to be as open as I can and not to be an "embarassment to the left" I have not only read your posts but even followed your suggestions. They didn't do squat for me. Do you have any other suggestions or shall I continue to be "stubborn?"

[Nateddi]

>>cool down now. My "assumptions" may be "blatantly false" but I am not stubborn.
my appologies, mitrs. at the moment i was (and still am to an extent) rather pissed. not at you though, another situation.

>> I was asking you what your interpretation of it was. I did what you said and came to no conclusions other than what I had before. if this makes me stubborn, then I must be stubborn. I just don't find your info helpful.
read some previous comments in this thread, for example Revo Hero. I found you stubborn because we discussed this, and you are still posting the same thing about oligarchies, etc (this is a matter of fact not my opinion.)

>> a democracy is where people vote. A dictatorship is where one man has complete control. Where along the line have I made an error if any.
a democracy is a system in which the government is represented by and works in the interest of; the majority of the people. voting is not necesserily democracy because those who have the wealth influence elections by contributions. voting may also be rigged. voting is a game of class struggle with the bourgeoisie as the referee. this refers to capitalist / bourgeois democracy.

a dictatorship is a form of government in which the government operates in the interest of a particular class of people, with repression on other class[es].


>>A dictatorship of the proletariot does not involve democracy, if I see it correctly. Since I am blatantly stupid, perhaps you might be so kind as to give me some more info or suggestions for me to follow.

I didn't call you stupid. I never resort to abstract personal insults. I suggest you read The State and Revolution by Lenin. I suggest you go to marxists.org and search for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

This all seems too simple of good vs bad. Just like simple mindeness of nazis that all niggers are savages, and simple mindedness of the zionists that palestinians aren't intelligent enough to settle thign without violence (no personal insults intended), and simple mindeness of the flag-waving ignorant nationalist chauvists that america has nothing to hide and is always representing good against evil. Just like how people think marx was just ignorant with no knowledge of human nature.

If you take these claims often made by people, and examine them closely, you would know just how absurd they are. I suppose lenin was simply an opportunist, or perhaps ignorant in thinkign that a governent with full power will somehow release it. (for information, this isn't what he thought. lenin wasn't dumb nor an opportunist).


>> I'm trying to be as open as I can and not to be an "embarassment to the left" I have not only read your posts but even followed your suggestions.

my apologies once again. don't bring up old shit please ;).

[oki]

nateddi,what's the name of the thread where all this was discussed?I'd like to read it.you're the first communist I ever hear say that the dict.o.t.prol.does not exist.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Nateddi on 5:42 am on July 31, 2002
[i]>> a democracy is where people vote. A dictatorship is where one man has complete control. Where along the line have I made an error if any.
a democracy is a system in which the government is represented by and works in the interest of; the majority of the people. voting is not necesserily democracy because those who have the wealth influence elections by contributions. voting may also be rigged. voting is a game of class struggle with the bourgeoisie as the referee. this refers to capitalist / bourgeois democracy.

a dictatorship is a form of government in which the government operates in the interest of a particular class of people, with repression on other class[es].







hey, there you go, that's all I needed to hear. you cleared everything up for me right there.

and I will no longer bring up old shit from now on, you have my word. :

[Nateddi]

>>I'd like to read it.you're the first communist I ever hear say that the dict.o.t.prol.does not exist.

those who have said so, are all mistaken. I follow the theory of marx and lenin, if you want to prove me wrong, quote "dictator of the proletariat" out of any of their works.

[oki]

you people on this board are quite defencive,aren't ya?
I don't doubt your words,in fact I've allways found the whole concept rediculous.so I'm with you on this one.but still,several times it's been said here that it's no use discussing it again.because it was done before ,but I wasn't here then I guess.so,do you remember what the name was of the post where this was discussed?as I said I'd like to read it.

[oki]

aas I said I'd lik to read it................................................ .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .........................

[Lardlad95]

People here Usualy don't talk about what one individual wants to here unless they start a thread.

[oki]

I noticed.but the funny thing is,that this thread is about that subject and people are refusing period to talk about it because it has been taled about before.all i need is....well whatever I give up.

[Comrade Revolution]

Communists of Che-Lives.Com Community, give OKI the answer. Being communist, is to help others, i think, and you should answer something, what he wants, or at least tell him, you don't remember where is that..

sorry for something.. you all.

Communists greetings for you comrades!

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Nateddi on 11:53 pm on July 30, 2002
its proletarian democracy


Oh I see, its proletarian democracy... my mistake...

Now, if you ask me though, either you have democracy for all or you have no democracy at all. If by "proletarian democracy" you mean a democracy awarded only to one social group, then I reafirm that the above position is contrary to Socialist thinking, more then contrary, it is the exact oposite of the humanist, libertarian, "leftist" tradiction in which modern Socialism is inserted. Even if this period of partial democracy, or rather & more correctly, this fake, non-existent, tautological "democracy" (that has never existed in practice, as far as I know) is considered a "transition phase" to a classless society it is non the less wrong for a Socialist prespective. And that is a huge fucking if. For several reasons, the first being that the ends don`t justify the means; secondly its wrong in and of its self to deprive even a part of civil society, even for as short a period as you like, of their democratic rights; thirdly the possibility these means have to achive their objectified end is dubious and unproven at best, but then again that is redundant if you take into acount, as I do, the first too reasons.

But, not even the above has existed, not even that! Instead, what has existed as self proclaimed "dictatorship of the proletariat", is a dictatorship in the name of the proletariat, I dont really think I need to make much of a comment on this "type" of "dic. of the prol." in this day and age. I`m unsure as to which of the two mutilations of Socialism you subscribe too, but I give you the benifit of the doubt.

[Comrade Revolution]

I saw somethings talking about the «Dictatorship of the Proletariat », in some works of Lenine i think, but we can see that on the internet: http://www.marx.org/glossary/frame.htm , and we can seach for D.P. and we will find somethings quoted from Marx and Lenine, if it's wrong, it's not my fault.. but i'll try to find more about it..