One-party state - why is it preferable to a multi-party stat

[commie kg]

I was just thinking about the Marxist one-party state theory, and wanted some explainations.

The only good thing I can see is that it keeps the workers the boss of themselves.

any input on the one-party state?

[Pete]

A successful one party state would have a few 'checks' persae in place.

First, this point is modeled off of Cuba, the party would not be allowed to run candidates for elections. They would all have to be citizen nominations (and not self nominations) from various non-political groups (for example unions and student organizations). This would insure, although one common ideology is present, my second point works as well.

The second point is that there must be intraparty debate present. Sort of like the New Democratic Party where there is the main caucus and then the socialist caucus ect. The party is constantly at debate with itself, so it is always evolving. The thing about this is that counter-revolutionaries are not allowed to work politically in the state (which is why the party is the only party). To re-stabalize and advance the revolution to its next stage capitalists must be destroyed (not necassarily physical).

I would support a one party communist system, of course for any government to exist it must have atleast teh neutrality of the citizentry, and a communist one is no different. (Basically if you are actively hated you cannot rule.)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from commie kg on 11:47 pm on June 10, 2003
I was just thinking about the Marxist one-party state theory, and wanted some explainations.

The only good thing I can see is that it keeps the workers the boss of themselves.

any input on the one-party state?



The single most rediculous idea any marxist has developed

if you want a society the really exemplifies the equality that socialism should then a one party state is absurd

We must allow other's their opinion and respectfully disagree.


Marxist leaders are always so paranoid they eliminate all opposition when infact they create more fear of them.

Instead build up your party through the people's support weakening the other party.


THere is no need for a two party dictatorship like in AMerica

[187]

"The thing about this is that counter-revolutionaries are not allowed to work politically in the state (which is why the party is the only party). To re-stabalize and advance the revolution to its next stage capitalists must be destroyed (not necassarily physical)."

In other words, no dissidence allowed in your ideal socialist state? That does I guess give the illusion that everything is running smoothly.

How can you (a current dissident) possibly support a system that bans it?

I hope I'm misinterpreting you somehow, if I am I'm sorry....

(Edited by 187 at 12:52 am on June 11, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

The problem with a one party state is obvious, if that party stops following the straight and narrow laid down by Marx then the people are in no position to stop them with out another revolution.

[Pete]

187, I think you may have slightly misunderstood it.

After a revolution would you want capitalists, facists, ect running around working against what you had just established? Or would you want to implement the socialist program in order to create a classless society? I say no we should not let this brand of dissent to exist because it would jepordize the future of the society, and allow a counter revolution to occur.

On the other hand revolutions are usually fought by a coallition of ideologies with a common background (anarchists, communists, socialists, leninists, ect ect). These groups would all be under the umbrella of the coaltion, and it would become the one party.

Since the party is divided there would be debate between the various 'sects' (for lack of a better word) would keep the party from being stagnated in a single ideology. But since they all fought for the revolution and bleed for it, none of these groups would want to turn against what they helped build, and a healthy system would be created inside the party.

[redstar2000]

I was just thinking about the Marxist one-party state theory, and wanted some explainations.

Actually it's not a "Marxist" theory, it is a Leninist theory.

There is a rather cryptic phrase in one of Marx's writings that mentions "men of a certain forcefulness" (if I remember the quote correctly) that could be construed to mean a dictatorial leadership. But that is all there is. In the case of the Paris Commune, the one proletarian revolution that Marx actually lived to see and comment on, he had the opportunity, had he wished, to criticize the complete absence of a "vanguard party" and he did not do so.

The Leninist theory of a "one-party-state" is based on the proposition that only a party that "represents" the interests of the "entire" working class can "successfully" manage the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism.

The hidden assumption is that multiple parties, representing different sections of the working class, would fall to squabbling amongst themselves, making counter-revolution "inevitable".

Under the Leninist model, of course, the squabbles still take place...only they are folded tightly within the single party and kept from public view altogether. (This was a Stalinist innovation dating from 1930 or thereabouts.) Under Mao, there was some debate in the public media...but you practically had to be a Confucian scholar to follow it, as it was based on subtle references to ancient Chinese history...the masses were left out, as usual.

The Trotskyist variant of Leninism permits, at least in a formal sense, a good deal more discussion within the "single party"...nevertheless, it is supposed to be within the party; the heathen outsiders are not permitted to observe, much less take part.

If all of this sounds like a load of crap to you, that's because it is. There is no principled reason from a Marxist view that would prohibit multiple political parties after the revolution...as long as they were communist parties.

And hiding disagreements among communists from the working class is so stupid that it practically drools. Who is better qualified to resolve those disagreements than the working class itself?

Chalk off the "one-party-state" to the primitive Leninist variant of proto-communism characteristic of the 20th century. It will certainly be very different in the future.

We still have a long way to go to get it right.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:50 pm on June 10, 2003)

[Pete]

Just for clarification after reading Red Star's point, I would see no reason why these intraparty debates could not be public, and my basic assumption is that they would be public. To use a contemporary (albeit rightwing) analogy it would be like the various factions inside the Democratic or Republican parties in America, or how it looks now these two parties being teh factions of a joint single party...

[commie kg]

Thanks guys, I was under the impression that the one-party state was an important part of Marxist theory, I know now that I was wrong.

I do support a multi-party state, I was just confused at why a system based on democracy would advocate a single-party dictatorship.

Thanks for the help, I was a bit worried that by referring to myself as a "Marxist" I was unknowingly supporing one-party rule.

[Iepilei]

I support the concept of multiple parties, but I like the idea of single party factionism. one party, with varying intrests in certain locales.

like this board. we're all here because we're all leftist. a solid backed leftist party, but we have our differences to certain aspects. authoritarian party and a libertarian party. however nothing too far astray as that breaks development.

[Pete]

like this board. we're all here because we're all leftist. a solid backed leftist party, but we have our differences to certain aspects. authoritarian party and a libertarian party. however nothing too far astray as that breaks development.

Exactly. If it came to revolution people of our various stripes would probaly fight together, and be encompassed in some kind of unity. With factions inside of the Untied Leftist Party or something like that. One party, many ideas.

[peaccenicked]

I doubt Lenin intended the one party State
although the CIA seem to know{that is if Leonard Shapiro (http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?_SCHAPIRO_LEONARD_BERTRAM) is a CIA agent which I believe Philip Agee (http://www.connix.com/~harry/agee.htm) suggested}. better than Trotsky
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/7287

(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:16 pm on June 11, 2003)

[ComradeJunichi]

I support a one party state. The masses should be unified, not divided. There is no need for haggling between the same socialists, obviously, bourgeois or capitalist parties would not be allowed. A one party state and democratic centralism would be catalysts of a nation.

Ofcourse, there are problems and difficulties that will be faced but the best way to go is a one party state.

[187]

I really feel that if political party bans are instated(in any system) the result could be more detrimental than having the parties exist. Once people feel that their freedoms are being encroached on they have tendency to lash out. It's likley that the parties that would dissent to the communist status quo wouldn't be that strong anyway(otherwise we've done something extremely wrong) so what do we have to fear?

[peaccenicked]

The multiparty state was the classical socialist vision.
The one party state is a an abherration caused largely by isolation from the rest of the world.
The one party state has to be left behind as an ugly nightmare.
It forced cohesion which basically forces corrupt elements into the group supported by the majority.
This back fires horribly on revolutions. We must learn.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 2:11 pm on June 11, 2003
I support a one party state. The masses should be unified, not divided. There is no need for haggling between the same socialists, obviously, bourgeois or capitalist parties would not be allowed. A one party state and democratic centralism would be catalysts of a nation.

Ofcourse, there are problems and difficulties that will be faced but the best way to go is a one party state.



iF someone represents a different point on the political spectrum then why shouldn't they be able to represent themselves?

I don't see why everyone is so damn terrified of different parties?


Obviusly if the Socialsit society is Authoritarian socialist and I'ma democratic socialist I'm not going to agree with them

And i want me and people with my views voice to be heard


Also With the support of the majority a capitalist party wouldn't even be a threat

rule through approval and trust not through fear

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 5:58 pm on June 11, 2003

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 2:11 pm on June 11, 2003
I support a one party state. The masses should be unified, not divided. There is no need for haggling between the same socialists, obviously, bourgeois or capitalist parties would not be allowed. A one party state and democratic centralism would be catalysts of a nation.

Ofcourse, there are problems and difficulties that will be faced but the best way to go is a one party state.



iF someone represents a different point on the political spectrum then why shouldn't they be able to represent themselves?

I don't see why everyone is so damn terrified of different parties?


Obviusly if the Socialsit society is Authoritarian socialist and I'ma democratic socialist I'm not going to agree with them

And i want me and people with my views voice to be heard


Also With the support of the majority a capitalist party wouldn't even be a threat

rule through approval and trust not through fear

iF someone represents a different point on the political spectrum then why shouldn't they be able to represent themselves?

How many times have socialist nations been wiped out or destroyed by counter revolution because of sympathy for the bourgeois?

A socialist country is a socialist country, we work to build socialism.

I don't see why everyone is so damn terrified of different parties?

Not terrified, but it's just a step back.

Obviusly if the Socialsit society is Authoritarian socialist and I'ma democratic socialist I'm not going to agree with them

Authoritarian doesn't mean anti-democracy. One-party states are just as democratic, if not more for socialism.

Also With the support of the majority a capitalist party wouldn't even be a threat
rule through approval and trust not through fear

Try implementing a multi-party system in Cuba, tell me how that will work out. Even with the support of the majority, socialism will not always be successful. Foreign forces will pressure the new-born socialist nation, which is one example of what may happen.

[redstar2000]

I support a one party state. The masses should be unified, not divided. There is no need for haggling between the same socialists...

The masses perhaps "should" be "unified" but they usually aren't and a "unity" imposed from above does not improve matters. Political disagreements driven "underground" do not disappear...in fact, they grow greater.

That's acceptable where pro-capitalist sentiments are concerned...the differences are already irreconcilable. But communists and socialists and anarchists will have legitimate disagreements that can only be resolved through the active participation of the working class.

Imposing unity from above, whether you call it "democratic centralism" or just plain ordinary despotism, gives the "appearance" of a forward-marching "army".

What actually happens is that the strains and pressures of such a procedure increase until the system spontaneously explodes into chaos and counter-revolution.

And, by the way, there is nothing "holy" about "unity" in the abstract. One must always ask: unity for what purpose? unity around what idea? unity with whom, exactly?

When Marx and Engeles called upon the workers of the world to "unite", it was not for the purpose of naming a "great leader" or electing bourgeois politicians to "reform" capitalism.

They had a different idea.

:cool:

[El Che]

I agree with those comrades that have put forth the idea of the multi-party Socialist state. Its refreshing and its exactly what we need. The Democratic content of the idea is not only desirable, in principal, but indispensable. Issues of principal aside, I aslo believe its more effective both in achiving Socialism and in guarding against preversions of the "revolution". Let us be rational men, let us not trust "the party". The "party" is made of men and in some degree we must guard our selves against all men. We must have an open society based on unimpeded public strutiny and sovereign public will, for that is only defense.

"The prisoners of partial power find in the shadow of freedom their only appeal against tyrany" -Raoul Vaneigem

[Iepilei]

I agree that one party shouldn't be the 'end all be all', but there should be some common unity amongst the major. I wouldn't imagine it any other way, following a popular revolution, but still. A nation with strong dual-party polarity won't accomplish much.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 8:21 pm on June 11, 2003

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 5:58 pm on June 11, 2003

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 2:11 pm on June 11, 2003
I support a one party state. The masses should be unified, not divided. There is no need for haggling between the same socialists, obviously, bourgeois or capitalist parties would not be allowed. A one party state and democratic centralism would be catalysts of a nation.

Ofcourse, there are problems and difficulties that will be faced but the best way to go is a one party state.



iF someone represents a different point on the political spectrum then why shouldn't they be able to represent themselves?

I don't see why everyone is so damn terrified of different parties?


Obviusly if the Socialsit society is Authoritarian socialist and I'ma democratic socialist I'm not going to agree with them

And i want me and people with my views voice to be heard


Also With the support of the majority a capitalist party wouldn't even be a threat

rule through approval and trust not through fear

iF someone represents a different point on the political spectrum then why shouldn't they be able to represent themselves?

How many times have socialist nations been wiped out or destroyed by counter revolution because of sympathy for the bourgeois?

A socialist country is a socialist country, we work to build socialism.

I don't see why everyone is so damn terrified of different parties?

Not terrified, but it's just a step back.

Obviusly if the Socialsit society is Authoritarian socialist and I'ma democratic socialist I'm not going to agree with them

Authoritarian doesn't mean anti-democracy. One-party states are just as democratic, if not more for socialism.

Also With the support of the majority a capitalist party wouldn't even be a threat
rule through approval and trust not through fear

Try implementing a multi-party system in Cuba, tell me how that will work out. Even with the support of the majority, socialism will not always be successful. Foreign forces will pressure the new-born socialist nation, which is one example of what may happen.


Yes you work to build socialism, you don't however supress peoples natural rights.

If the govt. doesn't protect those rights you have the right to over throw it.

People should be able to express their views.

There are however ways to counter act these antisocialist groups. As long as they can't over throw the govt. There is no essential problem.

I'm not saying that I want capitlaist parties, however in a true socialist society this wont be a problem.

IF there is a party that is more lenient on private ownership, but is still for basically in favor of the current govt. I see no reason not to let them, try.

As long as these parties aren't out to change teh basic structure of the nation. So what if they are lenient on something and could be counted as a capitalist, if they aren't undermining anything big then who cares whether or not they try.Especially if it's a democratic republic, socialist state that is a democratic republic it is doubtful they will undermine the entire system.

One party states aren't just as democratic.

If the country is socialist in nature, what is the problem with a communist party, a democratic socialist party, a workers party?

Not every party has to be divided on capitalist socialist line.

If there are several leftist aprties no problem arises

Cuba isn't exactley my ideal place to try and implement this. Especially since it isn't run how I believe a socialist nation should be run, granted some good things go on but it's too far down the line to be run the correct way.

Also as long as the country is generally unified and has the ability to defend it's self against other nations it is fine whether or not the perople disagree within their country.


Lets say Che-Lives is a nation. There are a great deal of communists here, I am not a communist.

However if the Phora declared war on Che-Lives, you better believe I'll unite with the communists to fight off the Phora.


A nation is usually unified when there is no real unrest and will stay unified despite it's political diversity

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 1:12 am on June 12, 2003

Yes you work to build socialism, you don't however supress peoples natural rights.

If the govt. doesn't protect those rights you have the right to over throw it.

People should be able to express their views.

There are however ways to counter act these antisocialist groups. As long as they can't over throw the govt. There is no essential problem.

I'm not saying that I want capitlaist parties, however in a true socialist society this wont be a problem.

IF there is a party that is more lenient on private ownership, but is still for basically in favor of the current govt. I see no reason not to let them, try.

As long as these parties aren't out to change teh basic structure of the nation. So what if they are lenient on something and could be counted as a capitalist, if they aren't undermining anything big then who cares whether or not they try.Especially if it's a democratic republic, socialist state that is a democratic republic it is doubtful they will undermine the entire system.

One party states aren't just as democratic.

If the country is socialist in nature, what is the problem with a communist party, a democratic socialist party, a workers party?

Not every party has to be divided on capitalist socialist line.

If there are several leftist aprties no problem arises

Cuba isn't exactley my ideal place to try and implement this. Especially since it isn't run how I believe a socialist nation should be run, granted some good things go on but it's too far down the line to be run the correct way.

Also as long as the country is generally unified and has the ability to defend it's self against other nations it is fine whether or not the perople disagree within their country.


Lets say Che-Lives is a nation. There are a great deal of communists here, I am not a communist.

However if the Phora declared war on Che-Lives, you better believe I'll unite with the communists to fight off the Phora.


A nation is usually unified when there is no real unrest and will stay unified despite it's political diversity


Yes you work to build socialism, you don't however supress peoples natural rights.

If the govt. doesn't protect those rights you have the right to over throw it.

If the government does not supply the food necessary to all citizens, they have the right to overthrow it - which is the reason we are at socialism, are we not?

People should be able to express their views.

Socialism is the transition stage to communism, we must wipe out bourgeois thought. Now why would anyone give free speech to the bourgeois, when we're trying to destroy bourgeois thought.

I still believe in public debates and that the opinions of the working class be heardm for the reason the socialist state is in place is for the workers.

There are however ways to counter act these antisocialist groups. As long as they can't over throw the govt. There is no essential problem.

There will be attempts for a counter revolution, obviously, or atleast reform. Parties are created to take action, not to sit around and chat. There is a problem in that certain things in the government are slowed down, and there is more conflict and friction slowing down ... e.g. decision making.

If the country is socialist in nature, what is the problem with a communist party, a democratic socialist party, a workers party?

Different branches under the socialist party wasn't what I was referring to.

Cuba isn't exactley my ideal place to try and implement this. Especially since it isn't run how I believe a socialist nation should be run, granted some good things go on but it's too far down the line to be run the correct way.

What's wrong with Cuba?


I didn't finish, and near the end I got busy. I'm talking to my lady, so...I'll have to get back to you.


(Edited by ComradeJunichi at 2:13 am on June 12, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I am not very set in my ways on thsi particular subject, but I have been having some thoughts on it.

The goal is to give power to the working class by suppressing the bourgeoisie. Now, the only people who would fight for 'capitalistic' measures, or capitalistic legislators would be those who belong to the capitalist class and are going to benefit from the decline of the socialism which we fought for. No members of the working class would form or join a party counterring the communist party. And keep in mind, even after the revolution, the bourgeoisie, even though small and seemingly powerless, may have much influence over the struggling proletariat. So...what i'm getting at is that when suppressing the bourgeoisie we cannot give power to those who give in to capitalism or work against the emancipation of the worker.

[CopperGoat]

If a successful workers' revolution does occur in a country. And everyone has seen how bad it was during capitalism and how much better it's getting, they aren't going to vote for the capitalist parties. So multi party countries aren't bad after a successful revolution because everyone will know that who was wrong and who was left(get it? haha!).

Anyways, after the revolution the workers' will start to benefit and they will realize that yes this was the way and that socialism is the truth, then they won't give a shit to the capitalists and will tell them to go to hell. And if foreign countries try to put propaganda and shit, it will just make it worse because they know that they put propaganda before.

Learning from the past is an important skill that many people should have.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from CopperGoat on 8:11 pm on June 11, 2003
If a successful workers' revolution does occur in a country. And everyone has seen how bad it was during capitalism and how much better it's getting, they aren't going to vote for the capitalist parties. So multi party countries aren't bad after a successful revolution because everyone will know that who was wrong and who was left(get it? haha!).

Anyways, after the revolution the workers' will start to benefit and they will realize that yes this was the way and that socialism is the truth, then they won't give a shit to the capitalists and will tell them to go to hell. And if foreign countries try to put propaganda and shit, it will just make it worse because they know that they put propaganda before.

Learning from the past is an important skill that many people should have.


Why would we want to give the capitalists a chance to regain power? During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat will have complete power, but the bourgeoisie will still exist. In order to suppress this class of capitalists we cannot give power to anyone who who appeases to the bourgeoisie, like middle-class Americans, they would do anything for the bourgeoisie. If they have democratic power, we are lost. We should give no power to anyone who will appease to capitalism.

(Edited by Victorcommie at 1:09 am on June 12, 2003)

[commie kg]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 10:16 pm on June 11, 2003

Quote: from CopperGoat on 8:11 pm on June 11, 2003
If a successful workers' revolution does occur in a country. And everyone has seen how bad it was during capitalism and how much better it's getting, they aren't going to vote for the capitalist parties. So multi party countries aren't bad after a successful revolution because everyone will know that who was wrong and who was left(get it? haha!).

Anyways, after the revolution the workers' will start to benefit and they will realize that yes this was the way and that socialism is the truth, then they won't give a shit to the capitalists and will tell them to go to hell. And if foreign countries try to put propaganda and shit, it will just make it worse because they know that they put propaganda before.

Learning from the past is an important skill that many people should have.


Why would we want to give the capitalists a chance to regain power? During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat will have complete power, but the bourgeoisie will still exist. In order to suppress this class capitalists we cannot give power to anyone who who appeases to the bourgeoisie, like middle-class Americans who woudl do anything for the bourgeoisie. If they have democratic power, we are lost. We should give no power to anyone who will appease to capitalism.

Not true.

If a successful revolution was carried out, it would have to have massive popular support. The bourgeoisie would be a miniscule minority compared to the masses of workers, and what power do they weild in a democracy? None.

Multi-party state, all the way.

[kylie]

The bourgeoisie would be a miniscule minority compared to the masses of workers, and what power do they weild in a democracy? None.
They would be very powerful, and dangerous, as it would be possible for them to fool the working class, who would at this early stage still not fully know and udnerstand the plans of those in power. If there is a popular uprising, its likely that it wont be a popular uprising in support of socialism, but just against the current state of things. So there will still be a lot of people who will have kept their old ideas of what communism is about, from the media.
An example of this is how today there is a significant proportion of the venezuelan working class who dont support Chavez, but see him as the lesser evil.

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from commie kg on 6:44 am on June 12, 2003

Not true.

If a successful revolution was carried out, it would have to have massive popular support. The bourgeoisie would be a miniscule minority compared to the masses of workers, and what power do they weild in a democracy? None.

Multi-party state, all the way.


If a successful revolution was carried out, it would have to have massive popular support.

It is...? I suppose you're saying the revolution would have massive support and I agree. Ofcourse, a successful revolution would have the majority support. Which is the definition of democracy, is it not? So why go out of the way and create 'opposing parties', which will not have support anyway? These are only obstacles that the socialist state will have to face and risk, which is a waste of time. Also, these counter-parties may be supported by foreign forces and terrorist organizations - see the countless examples of this by the US.

The bourgeoisie would be a miniscule minority compared to the masses of workers, and what power do they weild in a democracy? None.

True; it would be the small portion of the population, the bourgeois, that opposed the socialist state.

Multi-party state, all the way.

What?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 1:48 am on June 12, 2003

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 1:12 am on June 12, 2003

Yes you work to build socialism, you don't however supress peoples natural rights.

If the govt. doesn't protect those rights you have the right to over throw it.

People should be able to express their views.

There are however ways to counter act these antisocialist groups. As long as they can't over throw the govt. There is no essential problem.

I'm not saying that I want capitlaist parties, however in a true socialist society this wont be a problem.

IF there is a party that is more lenient on private ownership, but is still for basically in favor of the current govt. I see no reason not to let them, try.

As long as these parties aren't out to change teh basic structure of the nation. So what if they are lenient on something and could be counted as a capitalist, if they aren't undermining anything big then who cares whether or not they try.Especially if it's a democratic republic, socialist state that is a democratic republic it is doubtful they will undermine the entire system.

One party states aren't just as democratic.

If the country is socialist in nature, what is the problem with a communist party, a democratic socialist party, a workers party?

Not every party has to be divided on capitalist socialist line.

If there are several leftist aprties no problem arises

Cuba isn't exactley my ideal place to try and implement this. Especially since it isn't run how I believe a socialist nation should be run, granted some good things go on but it's too far down the line to be run the correct way.

Also as long as the country is generally unified and has the ability to defend it's self against other nations it is fine whether or not the perople disagree within their country.


Lets say Che-Lives is a nation. There are a great deal of communists here, I am not a communist.

However if the Phora declared war on Che-Lives, you better believe I'll unite with the communists to fight off the Phora.


A nation is usually unified when there is no real unrest and will stay unified despite it's political diversity


Yes you work to build socialism, you don't however supress peoples natural rights.

If the govt. doesn't protect those rights you have the right to over throw it.

If the government does not supply the food necessary to all citizens, they have the right to overthrow it - which is the reason we are at socialism, are we not?

People should be able to express their views.

Socialism is the transition stage to communism, we must wipe out bourgeois thought. Now why would anyone give free speech to the bourgeois, when we're trying to destroy bourgeois thought.

I still believe in public debates and that the opinions of the working class be heardm for the reason the socialist state is in place is for the workers.

There are however ways to counter act these antisocialist groups. As long as they can't over throw the govt. There is no essential problem.

There will be attempts for a counter revolution, obviously, or atleast reform. Parties are created to take action, not to sit around and chat. There is a problem in that certain things in the government are slowed down, and there is more conflict and friction slowing down ... e.g. decision making.

If the country is socialist in nature, what is the problem with a communist party, a democratic socialist party, a workers party?

Different branches under the socialist party wasn't what I was referring to.

Cuba isn't exactley my ideal place to try and implement this. Especially since it isn't run how I believe a socialist nation should be run, granted some good things go on but it's too far down the line to be run the correct way.

What's wrong with Cuba?


I didn't finish, and near the end I got busy. I'm talking to my lady, so...I'll have to get back to you.


(Edited by ComradeJunichi at 2:13 am on June 12, 2003)



First of all distribution of food isn't something I see as necassary. Redistrubution of wealth so people can buy food of course, but redistribution of food would only hurt the economy.

Especially if the govt. took control of consumer products. Regulate it perhapes, but food is to far out of govt. juridiction.


Now I see we are working towards different goals. My goal was never to achieve communism, mostly because I don't find a total classes society possible. I want to eliminate class differences but I don't getting everything totally on level is possible.

So as far as the bourgeoise having a voice under a socialist society I don't see them as a threat. Granted alot of their power will be taken away, but as long as they refrain from trying a total outsing of the social structure I don't see them as a threat.



As far as the govt. being slowed down, the structure of the soviet union ( a one party state) was atrocious. The system was to slow, tehy had no idea how to set up there systems. So I think a multiparty state would be more efficient.

Those groups I mentioned aren't different branches in teh same party.

Go to the US's communist party, their beliefs are definitely outlined and conflicting with that of the US's democratic socialist party.

The similarities aren't enough to make them branches of the same party. THey run things differently.

I have no problem with different socialist parties taking power for a few years before reelections.



My man problem with Cuba is that it isn't run how I would do it. Thats also why I dislike America, China, etc.

Cuba is higher up on my list than other countries because it is run in a manner which isn't all that bad, but since it isn't how I would do it I can't say that it is my ideal paradise

there education and health care are good, but it's a one party state and I can't agree with that. It's also authoritarian.


A good society, but it isn't my utopia

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

you have to understand that the bourgeoisie is a class of opportunitic capitalists. They will want to empower themselves by any means necessary. Democracy will not stop them, does it stop them in the U$, for example? no

[Yars]

I'd have to say a multi-party state would be inevitable...granted views may be similar, people will still for the most part take some to the absolute extreme, thus creating another problem. A single party, working in the interests of the people sounds fantastic, but I feel such a party realistically cannot exist without any major problems, perhaps even spur it's share of counter-revolutionaries.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Any party in power would create for itself a class above all others, so it would have to eventualy be brought down to yield for a communist system. But how? i ask. And who in power would step down like that?

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 1:12 am on June 12, 2003

First of all distribution of food isn't something I see as necassary. Redistrubution of wealth so people can buy food of course, but redistribution of food would only hurt the economy.

Especially if the govt. took control of consumer products. Regulate it perhapes, but food is to far out of govt. juridiction.


Now I see we are working towards different goals. My goal was never to achieve communism, mostly because I don't find a total classes society possible. I want to eliminate class differences but I don't getting everything totally on level is possible.

So as far as the bourgeoise having a voice under a socialist society I don't see them as a threat. Granted alot of their power will be taken away, but as long as they refrain from trying a total outsing of the social structure I don't see them as a threat.



As far as the govt. being slowed down, the structure of the soviet union ( a one party state) was atrocious. The system was to slow, tehy had no idea how to set up there systems. So I think a multiparty state would be more efficient.

Those groups I mentioned aren't different branches in teh same party.

Go to the US's communist party, their beliefs are definitely outlined and conflicting with that of the US's democratic socialist party.

The similarities aren't enough to make them branches of the same party. THey run things differently.

I have no problem with different socialist parties taking power for a few years before reelections.



My man problem with Cuba is that it isn't run how I would do it. Thats also why I dislike America, China, etc.

Cuba is higher up on my list than other countries because it is run in a manner which isn't all that bad, but since it isn't how I would do it I can't say that it is my ideal paradise

there education and health care are good, but it's a one party state and I can't agree with that. It's also authoritarian.


A good society, but it isn't my utopia

First of all distribution of food isn't something I see as necassary. Redistrubution of wealth so people can buy food of course, but redistribution of food would only hurt the economy.

We were talking about the "natural rights", or "freedom of speech". What I meant was food on the table comes before political freedoms for the opposition.

Now I see we are working towards different goals. My goal was never to achieve communism, mostly because I don't find a total classes society possible. I want to eliminate class differences but I don't getting everything totally on level is possible.

My utopia is communism, I don't believe it'll be possible soon. It's just something that hovers my thoughts.

You want to get rid of class differences, but not get everyone on the same level. Alright.

So as far as the bourgeoise having a voice under a socialist society I don't see them as a threat. Granted alot of their power will be taken away, but as long as they refrain from trying a total outsing of the social structure I don't see them as a threat.

Alright, setting aside the possibility of terrorism or ousting the government. The revolution was so we could take the bourgeois out of power and I don't see the point of giving them political freedoms. These bourgeois parties ofcourse will be funded by foreign countries, like the USA. And propaganda will flood the streets. Biased news reporters, like the ones in Venezuela, will pop up all over the place.

As far as the govt. being slowed down, the structure of the soviet union ( a one party state) was atrocious. The system was to slow, tehy had no idea how to set up there systems. So I think a multiparty state would be more efficient.

I don't understand what your saying here. The system was slow? What does that mean? Is that why the Soviet Union became a world power in 30 years? By the way, this was due to one-party efficiency.

Those groups I mentioned aren't different branches in teh same party.

They are all socialists, they're not bourgeois ideologies.

Go to the US's communist party, their beliefs are definitely outlined and conflicting with that of the US's democratic socialist party.

I didn't know you were referring to specific parties. However, economically they are similar. And I support open debates among the socialist system.

I have no problem with different socialist parties taking power for a few years before reelections.

Slowing the process down even more.

My man problem with Cuba is that it isn't run how I would do it. Thats also why I dislike America, China, etc.

Cuba is higher up on my list than other countries because it is run in a manner which isn't all that bad, but since it isn't how I would do it I can't say that it is my ideal paradise


You must have problems with every country in the world, because no country is your ideal paradise.

there education and health care are good, but it's a one party state and I can't agree with that. It's also authoritarian.

So whether or not the people are satisfied doesn't matter, just the political system. The one problem because of it's one-party state and 'authoritarianism'. Now where did this great healthcare and education come from?

A good society, but it isn't my utopia

Nothing is, and nothing will be, your utopia.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why do we need parties at all? Parties are political organization developed by capitalists, in the interest of capitalism. I see no reason why a Socialist or Communist state would need to retain the same political model that was used in capitalism.

Who can possibly know the interests of the proletariat better than the proletarians themselves? I say give all power to the people, literraly! Institute direct democracy, with only a few specialized government departments to take the decisions that require an expert eye.

Whether we have one or more parties, the result is the same: a corrupt elite of politicians is formed, that eventually forgets about the needs of the people altogether and focuses only on preserving its status and power.
By their very nature, all parties end up being counter-revolutionary.

[redstar2000]

Whether we have one or more parties, the result is the same: a corrupt elite of politicians is formed, that eventually forgets about the needs of the people altogether and focuses only on preserving its status and power. By their very nature, all parties end up being counter-revolutionary.

This could possibly be true.

But it's difficult to see how the gathering of people with similar views on the precise way that post-capitalist society should be structured and operated could be prevented. Once formed, such groups would seek a "mandate" for their proposals and, should they find themselves in a position to do so, will seek to implement their proposals (rather than have their opponents pretend to "implement" them).

Of course, the more "direct democracy" there is (and there should be as much as possible), the more that "parties" will simply be advocacy groups without enough power in their own hands to "impose" their views.

But it's difficult to imagine that they won't try.

:cool:

[El Che]

One-party is an oxymoron. Its a euphemism that objectively refers to bureaucratic tyranny. Don`t compare, or try to assert equivalence between, "one-party" entities and parties operating within a Democratic framework, subordinated to public vote, dependant on delegation of power.

Direct Democracy does not lack legitimacy, if you consider that the same derives from the people, but it lacks functionality, pragmatism; the ability to deal with large, complex societies. There are many shades of grey though and I am for as much Democracy as possible but overall I think Representative Democracy is the best compromise.

[Pete]

Representative democracy lends its self to ruling elites, and this is why it always falls short.

If the entire people are encompassed in a factioned party then the representavtive system could be partially bypassed, and intraparty debate could push society forward, especially one with ahighly politically mobilized population like after a revolution.

Remember in the words of C.H. Macpherson: "There is nothing necassarily democratic about the representive party system."

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 9:02 pm on June 12, 2003

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 1:12 am on June 12, 2003

First of all distribution of food isn't something I see as necassary. Redistrubution of wealth so people can buy food of course, but redistribution of food would only hurt the economy.

Especially if the govt. took control of consumer products. Regulate it perhapes, but food is to far out of govt. juridiction.


Now I see we are working towards different goals. My goal was never to achieve communism, mostly because I don't find a total classes society possible. I want to eliminate class differences but I don't getting everything totally on level is possible.

So as far as the bourgeoise having a voice under a socialist society I don't see them as a threat. Granted alot of their power will be taken away, but as long as they refrain from trying a total outsing of the social structure I don't see them as a threat.



As far as the govt. being slowed down, the structure of the soviet union ( a one party state) was atrocious. The system was to slow, tehy had no idea how to set up there systems. So I think a multiparty state would be more efficient.

Those groups I mentioned aren't different branches in teh same party.

Go to the US's communist party, their beliefs are definitely outlined and conflicting with that of the US's democratic socialist party.

The similarities aren't enough to make them branches of the same party. THey run things differently.

I have no problem with different socialist parties taking power for a few years before reelections.



My man problem with Cuba is that it isn't run how I would do it. Thats also why I dislike America, China, etc.

Cuba is higher up on my list than other countries because it is run in a manner which isn't all that bad, but since it isn't how I would do it I can't say that it is my ideal paradise

there education and health care are good, but it's a one party state and I can't agree with that. It's also authoritarian.


A good society, but it isn't my utopia

First of all distribution of food isn't something I see as necassary. Redistrubution of wealth so people can buy food of course, but redistribution of food would only hurt the economy.

We were talking about the "natural rights", or "freedom of speech". What I meant was food on the table comes before political freedoms for the opposition.

Now I see we are working towards different goals. My goal was never to achieve communism, mostly because I don't find a total classes society possible. I want to eliminate class differences but I don't getting everything totally on level is possible.

My utopia is communism, I don't believe it'll be possible soon. It's just something that hovers my thoughts.

You want to get rid of class differences, but not get everyone on the same level. Alright.

So as far as the bourgeoise having a voice under a socialist society I don't see them as a threat. Granted alot of their power will be taken away, but as long as they refrain from trying a total outsing of the social structure I don't see them as a threat.

Alright, setting aside the possibility of terrorism or ousting the government. The revolution was so we could take the bourgeois out of power and I don't see the point of giving them political freedoms. These bourgeois parties ofcourse will be funded by foreign countries, like the USA. And propaganda will flood the streets. Biased news reporters, like the ones in Venezuela, will pop up all over the place.

As far as the govt. being slowed down, the structure of the soviet union ( a one party state) was atrocious. The system was to slow, tehy had no idea how to set up there systems. So I think a multiparty state would be more efficient.

I don't understand what your saying here. The system was slow? What does that mean? Is that why the Soviet Union became a world power in 30 years? By the way, this was due to one-party efficiency.

Those groups I mentioned aren't different branches in teh same party.

They are all socialists, they're not bourgeois ideologies.

Go to the US's communist party, their beliefs are definitely outlined and conflicting with that of the US's democratic socialist party.

I didn't know you were referring to specific parties. However, economically they are similar. And I support open debates among the socialist system.

I have no problem with different socialist parties taking power for a few years before reelections.

Slowing the process down even more.

My man problem with Cuba is that it isn't run how I would do it. Thats also why I dislike America, China, etc.

Cuba is higher up on my list than other countries because it is run in a manner which isn't all that bad, but since it isn't how I would do it I can't say that it is my ideal paradise


You must have problems with every country in the world, because no country is your ideal paradise.

there education and health care are good, but it's a one party state and I can't agree with that. It's also authoritarian.

So whether or not the people are satisfied doesn't matter, just the political system. The one problem because of it's one-party state and 'authoritarianism'. Now where did this great healthcare and education come from?

A good society, but it isn't my utopia

Nothing is, and nothing will be, your utopia.



Well since food is basically gaurenteed provided I don't follow the soviet course of action I think I have time to worry about political freedoms



What I meant about class difference, was I don't want a CEo to make 400 times what the average worker makes like they do currently. People wont be paid equally but the differences wont be so drastic to create class extremes.


The reason the left isn't as powerful as it could be is because we aren't innovative. MArx said we need to knock the bourgeiose from power.....well how bout we put a twist on that by bringing the common man's power up to that level so that political pull is equal. Until eventually these class power struggles are eradicated. Foriegn powers can't have significant pull then.

Did you see the problems arising within the USSR towards the end? Breadlines aren't something I see as a sign of sucess.

Also as far as being a superpower, Russia had the necassary natural resources and labor force, it had nothing to do with the type of party system they had.


As far as the socialist groups, I'm aware that they aren't bourgeosie. I was speaking on multiple parties.

Idealy capitalist leaning parties wouldn't exist, I would preffer a multiple party society with various socialist groups.

But if say a green party arose(which is a capitalist party) i wouldn't be opposed

Communisma nd dem. socialism are "similar" in the fact that govt. controls aspects but there are major economic differences.



Comunism state control of all buisness.

Dem. socialism state control of natural resources, health care, education, tansportation.

Buisness isn't controled, only regulated by law, buisness is allowed by individuals granted they follow govt. standards.

a communist party being elected, followed by a socialist party followed by a workers party wont slow down the system. Especially since they will work within the govt. structure.

Since it wont be a coup de tat when a new party comes to power only elections it wont be a problem.

Not to mention in the legislative branch there will be reps from many different parties


Yes I do have problems with every nation, because no nation is perfect.

I am a big supporter of President Lula of Brazil, and his administration that doesn't mean that I think Brazil is the greatest nation on earth.

Just because I have problems with them doesn't mean I hate the nation.

Also how come if I dislike one aspect of CUba I"m not allowed to like another?

I dislike America's foriegn policy that doesn't mean I can't love it's diversity


>>>>Nothing is, and nothing will be, your utopia<<<<


That sounds like a challenge to me

[Pete]

I don't think Utopia's can exist. They are perfect, but you always must question the ruling body. If there is nothing to question then you must ask 'what am I not being told.' And that is question, which means you are questioning the Utopia making it not a Utopia any more, since a Utopia is perfect beyond question.


I would like to hear replies to my version of the one party state s'il vous plas.

"What the hell am I doing here, I don't belong here."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Redstar, there is no reason to stop people with similar views from gathering together. But there is a difference between groups of like-minded people and political parties.

There will always be advocacy groups, trying to persuade people to vote X option on Y issue. But the point is to build a system where these groups have no political power, and persuading people to vote their way is the only thing they can do.

Politicians will no longer exist. The people will no longer elect someone else to think for them. Instead, they will think for themselves.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:53 am on June 13, 2003
I don't think Utopia's can exist. They are perfect, but you always must question the ruling body. If there is nothing to question then you must ask 'what am I not being told.' And that is question, which means you are questioning the Utopia making it not a Utopia any more, since a Utopia is perfect beyond question.


I would like to hear replies to my version of the one party state s'il vous plas.

"What the hell am I doing here, I don't belong here."


When i said Utopia I wasn't speaking literally. I was using it figuratively.

Utopia being ideally how I think society should run

I realize that perfection is impossible through human effort

[Pete]

I know that it is always used figuratively. It is like most metaphors, away of explaining something that is not concrete.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 7:30 pm on June 13, 2003
I know that it is always used figuratively. It is like most metaphors, away of explaining something that is not concrete.

Still building a Utopia is a challenge I'm willing to accept

[abstractmentality]

i am a staunch opponent of a one party state.

the main idea i see written about here to support the idea of a one party state is that of smashing bourgeois thought after a revolution by not allowing capitalist supporters into politics. however, if their was a mass revolution, as it should be, then, wouldnt the masses not want capitalist politics in their government? i mean, they, the majority, just overthrew capitalism. they are not going to vote in new capitalist to oppress them again. feoric writes that the capitalist "would be very powerful, and dangerous" because they could "fool the working class" back into capitalism. i read that as the working class is too stupid to recognize their oppressors, and will vote them back into power. i think the people that just lead their own revolution would be able to recognize their oppressors and the people who want to give them a better life.

also, it seems as though many people here want to force socialism onto people. for example, feoric says that although a revolution may happen, the people may not want socialism, but merely want to change the "current state of things". well, is socialism, and eventual communism, going to be successful in a society that did not want it to begin with? this is an attempt to force people into the beginning stages of socialism, and will only lead to an ephemeral state of socialism. this idea of forcing socialism on the people is, in my eyes, an opportunistic thought: "force it upon them when they are in disarray" says the party leader. if the people dont want it, and are forced to live in it, the state will not last. the proletariat, as a class have to want it, not any minority vanguard that forces it upon the people by not allowing them to choose what they want.

the people should be able to choose from whoever they want to help with governance after a revolution. if they want to dismantle the old system of capitalism and replace it with a different capitalism, then that is what they should do. if they want to replace it with socialism, then they should do it. why are so many people not giving the people a chance to choose for themselves? are we so vanguard that we know better then those stupid workers and should decide their life for them? they decide their own path, not any party.

[redstar2000]

"Freedom" for "pro-capitalist politicians and politics" is, in my view, a very bad idea.

Why? Because they are the class enemy. If they get back into power, they will imprison and/or kill us.

Of course, we are not "gods"...if the same mass uprising that overthrew capitalism returns again to re-establish capitalism, we can't stop that from happening.

But I do not see that we are under any obligation to "play fair" with those who have never played fair with us...or to show them any "mercy" at all, any more than they have ever showed any "mercy" to the working class.

What if "some" workers were pro-capitalist? They'd be very unhappy. Too bad. Their only option would be to vote for the "least radical" of the communist candidates for office. Tough!

The change from one social order to another--revolution--is not "a dinner party", as Mao famously quipped. It is a war between contending classes that lasts for decades at least. The recently-overthrown ruling class will begin scheming at once to return to power; why should we do anything to help them do that?

This is not a matter of Leninist vanguardism; I do not propose that a communist elite decide upon and impose repressive measures against capitalist ideology on its own initiative.

But we can certainly stand up in the public assemblies of the working class and advocate repressive measures against capitalist ideology. If those assemblies agree with such proposals, then where is the harm...except to the ideas of the old ruling class?

The phrase "workers' democracy" has two words in it and both are equally important. We do not "owe" the old ruling class and their supporters any democratic rights at all. They are not "honorable opponents" who "deserve our respect"--they are (or were and hope to be again) murderous blood-sucking vampires who have fully earned our relentless hatred.

The consequences of half-hearted measures can be seen in the aftermath of the American bourgeois revolution of 1860-65; the former slaves suffered and continue to suffer to this day many forms of oppression and exploitation that originated in the days of slavery. Had the new bourgeois regime in Washington relentlessly persecuted every manifestation of the old order in the South following Lee's surrender, things would have been much different. As it was, a kind of de facto slavery continued to exist in the South for another century.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to put up with that crap.

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:55 pm on June 17, 2003
"Freedom" for "pro-capitalist politicians and politics" is, in my view, a very bad idea.

Why? Because they are the class enemy. If they get back into power, they will imprison and/or kill us.

Of course, we are not "gods"...if the same mass uprising that overthrew capitalism returns again to re-establish capitalism, we can't stop that from happening.

But I do not see that we are under any obligation to "play fair" with those who have never played fair with us...or to show them any "mercy" at all, any more than they have ever showed any "mercy" to the working class.

What if "some" workers were pro-capitalist? They'd be very unhappy. Too bad. Their only option would be to vote for the "least radical" of the communist candidates for office. Tough!

The change from one social order to another--revolution--is not "a dinner party", as Mao famously quipped. It is a war between contending classes that lasts for decades at least. The recently-overthrown ruling class will begin scheming at once to return to power; why should we do anything to help them do that?

This is not a matter of Leninist vanguardism; I do not propose that a communist elite decide upon and impose repressive measures against capitalist ideology on its own initiative.

But we can certainly stand up in the public assemblies of the working class and advocate repressive measures against capitalist ideology. If those assemblies agree with such proposals, then where is the harm...except to the ideas of the old ruling class?

The phrase "workers' democracy" has two words in it and both are equally important. We do not "owe" the old ruling class and their supporters any democratic rights at all. They are not "honorable opponents" who "deserve our respect"--they are (or were and hope to be again) murderous blood-sucking vampires who have fully earned our relentless hatred.

The consequences of half-hearted measures can be seen in the aftermath of the American bourgeois revolution of 1860-65; the former slaves suffered and continue to suffer to this day many forms of oppression and exploitation that originated in the days of slavery. Had the new bourgeois regime in Washington relentlessly persecuted every manifestation of the old order in the South following Lee's surrender, things would have been much different. As it was, a kind of de facto slavery continued to exist in the South for another century.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to put up with that crap.

:cool:





That is why you make a legislature.


While I'm not a big fan of American politics, the "founding fathers" hit the nail on the head with checks and balances.



Three seperate bodies so one doesn't hold all the power.


If a socialist nation has that type of govt. Then no party can ever really rule

[abstractmentality]

"This is not a matter of Leninist vanguardism; I do not propose that a communist elite decide upon and impose repressive measures against capitalist ideology on its own initiative.

But we can certainly stand up in the public assemblies of the working class and advocate repressive measures against capitalist ideology." - Redstarr2000

i think we have a slight misunderstanding here, and i blame myself for not being completely clear in my original post. if the revolution were tomorrow, believe me, i would be in the workplace advocating that we replace capitalism with socialism. i would be there advocating that socialism be put into place. i would be there.

however, using your analogy of the US civil war, would it have been ok for the slaves to then rise to power, stand over their former oppressors and oppress them just as badly as they were oppressed before? however justified it seems, i still dont think that it is right. what would that have created? it would have created an oppressed minority that would be willing to do anything to get back into power. they are now at a dissadvantage of power. i propose that we make them equals, not a new oppressed and oppressor. that way their numerical minority will have only the power of its numbers, and not of economic power.

yes, workers democracy does have two words to the phrase. but when a worker is not yet ready to put socialism in place, do they cease to be a worker? no, they are still a machinist, or a mechanic, etc. they are still workers. as you say: "if the same mass uprising that overthrew capitalism returns again to re-establish capitalism, we can't stop that from happening." that is essentially what i was trying to get across. we cannot force this thought upon people, we can advocate it, teach it, agitate it, etc., but we have to let them chose for themselves. it is my belief that if we do force this thought upon people, and force them into socialism that things may work for a brief period of time, but i dont want a brief socialist state, i want the beginning of the international socialist revolution.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 9:26 am on June 17, 2003)

[redstar2000]

...however, using your analogy of the US civil war, would it have been ok for the slaves to then rise to power, stand over their former oppressors and oppress them just as badly as they were oppressed before? however justified it seems, i still dont think that it is right.

I suppose the answer would depend on what your phrase "oppress them just as badly" actually means.

Do you mean that all the slave-owners would be made into slaves themselves? Or simply driven out of the South altogether? Or executed for treason?

The first option was unavailable, due to the public propaganda concerning the cause of the war. The second and/or the third options could have been implemented...and perhaps should have been implemented.

I actually had less ruthless proposals in mind: 1. The break-up of all properties held by slave-owners and redistribution of the land to the former slaves; 2. The denial of the franchise and the right to hold public office or public employment of any kind to a former slave-owner; 3. The abolition of all laws that denied full public equality to the former slaves.

Things like that...intended to keep the former slave-owners and their supporters out of power forever.

what would that have created? it would have created an oppressed minority that would be willing to do anything to get back into power.

Well, they already were that, at least in their own eyes. And by 1876, they did get back into power in the South and did constitute a major reactionary force in American politics up through the 1960s.

In fact, the christian-fundamentalist supporters of George W. Bush are the distant political descendents of the old slave-owning class...some of them (perhaps many of them) still believe in the "divine origins" of "racial superiority".

Would it be "right" for us to take a stern and even ruthless approach to our defeated class enemy?

I very much think it would be. Why? Imagine the magnitude of human suffering if those bastards somehow got back into power...and imagine how we would feel if it happened through our own sloppiness and carelessness, or our own "ethical qualms" about what needed to be done.

To employ a different analogy, revolution is not a sporting event, a game that ends with a final score, and everyone can shake hands afterwards. The "game" lasts for generations and proclaiming "final victory" is an act of incomparable foolishness.

Yes, there will be a "point of no return" that, when passed, will make the restoration of capitalism literally inconceivable. But we have no idea at this point when that will be.

Why take unnecessary chances?

That is why you make a legislature. While I'm not a big fan of American politics, the "founding fathers" hit the nail on the head with checks and balances. Three seperate bodies so one doesn't hold all the power. If a socialist nation has that type of govt. Then no party can ever really rule.

I'm not sure I understand this, but I do understand the "checks and balances theory". It was devised by the merchants, big landowners, and slaveowners in Philadelphia to make sure that popular sovereignity could be effectively frustrated if it ever "got out of hand" and threatened the real interests of the "propertied classes".

Marxists hold the opposite view; that such political institutions as may be established must be designed in such a way that it is impossible to frustrate the will of the working class.

:cool:

[abstractmentality]

I actually had less ruthless proposals in mind: 1. The break-up of all properties held by slave-owners and redistribution of the land to the former slaves; 2. The denial of the franchise and the right to hold public office or public employment of any kind to a former slave-owner; 3. The abolition of all laws that denied full public equality to the former slaves.

Options one and three are things i would do for sure, no doubt. however, as since, if i remember correctly, the vast majority of people in the south were not slave owners. therefore, they would not be able to win any public office. the reason they were able to do that in the south was because of anti-black voter laws. if those were not in place, how many ex-slaves would have voted for their former master? not many. what would have been the chance of a former slave owner to come to power? i would say none. given the full redistribution of land, and full political equality, the power of each person would have been equal, thus putting the power in the numerical majority: not the ex-slave owners.

I very much think it would be. Why? Imagine the magnitude of human suffering if those bastards somehow got back into power...and imagine how we would feel if it happened through our own sloppiness and carelessness, or our own "ethical qualms" about what needed to be done.

To employ a different analogy, revolution is not a sporting event, a game that ends with a final score, and everyone can shake hands afterwards. The "game" lasts for generations and proclaiming "final victory" is an act of incomparable foolishness.

great point. i guess my major fear in this tactic is that a numerical minority of supporters of socialism will force the majority of people to succumb to socialist thought. in my eyes, that is an unacceptable idea. on the other hand, if the vast majority of people are for socialism, then why not allow these ex-capitalist to try to get elected, it will keep them busy so that they arent doing other mischievous things. besides, if a vast majority are in favor of socialism, the ex-oppressors will have no chance at winning, just like the ex-slave holders.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 10:38 am on June 18, 2003)

[187]

"They are not "honorable opponents" who "deserve our respect"--they are (or were and hope to be again) murderous blood-sucking vampires who have fully earned our relentless hatred."

It shouldn't be up to the ruling majority to decide who is an "honorable opponent." Everyone should have equal opportunity to voice their opinions(fairly), and they shouldn't be suppressed or repressed in anyway no matter how disagreeable you find their views to be. If the socialist/communist system is the true system for the people, then it should have no problem beating out the flawed ideas and ideals of dissenting parties in fair debate(with facts and reasoning).

All you're doing is giving the dissidents more "proof of injustice" when you suppress them.

Why give them the chance you may ask? To prove them wrong time and time again.

(Edited by 187 at 6:13 am on June 29, 2003)