Your ideal form of government ?

**Liche** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:04 pm

Like how it is in Stanlinism and Lenininsm. (like what uncle TomTom wants).

**Tyrlop** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:56 pm

CoolKidX wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

i obviously chose dictatorship of the proletariat

Can you might tell me more about this, dictatorship of the proletariat?

the mayority got the power, the minority has not say, if that is what i think it is. not sure.

**Liche** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:20 pm

Tyrlop wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

i obviously chose dictatorship of the proletariat

Can you might tell me more about this, dictatorship of the proletariat?

the mayority got the power, the minority has not say, if that is what i think it is. not sure.

LOL

sure, thats what the term "dictatorship" means.

**Lernt denken!** · Pioneer Posts: 41 Join date: 2009-01-19 Location: Germany

in Stalinism, the bourocracy has got the power. no dictatorship of the proletariat at all. unfortunately. Sad

but that anarchist guy is right, proletarian dictatorship is just a transition.
heading for communist absolute democracy is a long way Sad

**Tyrlop** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:04 pm

Lernt denken! wrote:

in Stalinism, the bourocracy has got the power. no dictatorship of the proletariat at all. unfortunately. Sad

but that anarchist guy is right, proletarian dictatorship is just a transition.
heading for communist absolute democracy is a long way Sad

once the mighty london came an irish man one day... cheers

we will be dead soon so no worry.

**Stos** · New Party Member Posts: 545 Join date: 2008-09-14

Black_Cross wrote:

Two people chose proletarian dictatorship?... That's not the ideal, that's just the transition -- for marxists, that is.

And you too. You guys just never call it that. Razz

Anyways, there's no government like no government.

Quote:

Can you might tell me more about this, dictatorship of the proletariat?

I would do this, but I have to sleep now. I shall get back to you on that.

Guest

as stos said, no government like no government

dictatorship of the proletariat and invisible dictatorship are the same thing bc, as im sure you know

**Hutin** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:52 am

I choose you, liberal despotism !

_________________
Communism cannot be fully understood by someone who has no love for someone else.

**Black_Cross** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:06 pm

beatnikzach wrote:

as stos said, no government like no government

dictatorship of the proletariat and invisible dictatorship are the same thing bc, as im sure you know

But why use that term? First, didn't Marx use that to refer to the industrial working classmen (because they're refined enough to lead the revolution or what-not)? If so, that's not communism. And besides, just because the working class (I'll assume the whole, not just the proletariat) is in control of the means to subsistence doesn't mean communism is established. I just don't consider a system of rationing to be a gift economy.

And fuck invisible dictatorship; sorry Bakunin, but he fucked that one up, in my opinion. To me it sounds like "vanguardism is fine as long as no one sees it". And if you don't think that's what he meant, that's fine, but he didn't have to waste his time writing rhetoric about it at all since it would be inherent in any revolution (that is, that the professional revolutionaries would try to educate those around them)

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--

**comrade110397** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:58 pm

Fascist Democracy is the best oxymoron ive heard so far...

_________________
PROLETERIANS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

I ARE EMPEROR OF CATKIND

Kenzu, this post ISNT spam.

**Hutin** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Democratic fascism is possible, with some concessions. Have you ever heard of National Communism?

_________________
Communism cannot be fully understood by someone who has no love for someone else.

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:17 am

Hutin_Khan wrote:

Democratic fascism is possible, with some concessions. Have you ever heard of National Communism?

Fascism can be democratically stablished yet it wouldn't be dmeocratic. A nd odds are it would just count as democratically elected for one generation.

National Communism? To be honest that is not senseless at all.

_________________

Guest

Black_Cross wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

as stos said, no government like no government

dictatorship of the proletariat and invisible dictatorship are the same thing bc, as im sure you know

But why use that term? First, didn't Marx use that to refer to the industrial working classmen (because they're refined enough to lead the revolution or what-not)? If so, that's not communism. And besides, just because the working class (I'll assume the whole, not just the proletariat) is in control of the means to subsistence doesn't mean communism is established. I just don't consider a system of rationing to be a gift economy.

And fuck invisible dictatorship; sorry Bakunin, but he fucked that one up, in my opinion. To me it sounds like "vanguardism is fine as long as no one sees it". And if you don't think that's what he meant, that's fine, but he didn't have to waste his time writing rhetoric about it at all since it would be inherent in any revolution (that is, that the professional revolutionaries would try to educate those around them)

ya he did use it to refer to the working class as a whole, in the means of class as a whole, dictating and in control of the means of production etc..
now exactly my point

Quote:

just because the working class (I'll assume the whole, not just the proletariat) is in control of the means to subsistence doesn't mean communism is established. I just don't consider a system of rationing to be a gift economy

a system of self management does not mean communism is established, but it makes it much easier to achieve in the long run
the goal of workers' self management is a system based on mutual trade on a voluntary basis :]

Quote:

And fuck invisible dictatorship; sorry Bakunin, but he fucked that one up, in my opinion. To me it sounds like "vanguardism is fine as long as no one sees it". And if you don't think that's what he meant, that's fine, but he didn't have to waste his time writing rhetoric about it at all since it would be inherent in any revolution (that is, that the professional revolutionaries would try to educate those around them)

that is true that invisible dictatorship sounds almost to familiar, almost to the point where he applied shit written by adam smith and put it in a form of a government that "doesnt exisit".

**Black_Cross** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:52 pm

beatnikzach wrote:

ya he did use it to refer to the working class as a whole, in the means of class as a whole, dictating and in control of the means of production etc..
now exactly my point

If that's so, i have no problem, but i coulda swore he ranted about the proletariat (industrial workers) leading the revolution. Unfortunately, i didn't read much Marx beyond Capital 1 and 2 (and the manifesto, if you can even count that), so i'm not in a position to say.

Quote:

a system of self management does not mean communism is established, but it makes it much easier to achieve in the long run
the goal of workers' self management is a system based on mutual trade on a voluntary basis :]

Fair enough.

Quote:

that is true that invisible dictatorship sounds almost to familiar, almost to the point where he applied shit written by adam smith and put it in a form of a government that "doesnt exisit".

I didn't know that. At least he chose the most bearable of the capitalists, haha (he is the most bearable, but the sarcasm is still there).

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--

Guest

Black_Cross wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

ya he did use it to refer to the working class as a whole, in the means of class as a whole, dictating and in control of the means of production etc..
now exactly my point

If that's so, i have no problem, but i coulda swore he ranted about the proletariat (industrial workers) leading the revolution. Unfortunately, i didn't read much Marx beyond Capital 1 and 2 (and the manifesto, if you can even count that), so i'm not in a position to say.

he talked about class consciousness leading to revolution, but also stressed the roll of the individual, ie self management on a very minut scale >.<

Quote:

I didn't know that. At least he chose the most bearable of the capitalists, haha (he is the most bearable, but the sarcasm is still there).

hahah well i dont know if its for sure, but that is my interpretation at least!

hahah of course bc the sarcasm is palpable

**Wakizashi** · Experienced Pioneer Posts: 51 Join date: 2009-02-20

Communist Democracy (= Communism) is the eventual goal.
But we can only reach that via Proletarian Dictatorship.

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:29 pm

Wakizashi wrote:

Communist Democracy (= Communism) is the eventual goal.
But we can only reach that via Proletarian Dictatorship.

Do you mean the "Dictatorship of the proletariat"? How can that exist when the sole loss of power by the bourgeoisie over the proletariat implies the anihilation of the condition of bourgeoisie as bourgeoisie and of proletariat as proletariat?

Over whom will the emancipated proletariat excert domination?

_________________

**Wakizashi** · Experienced Pioneer Posts: 51 Join date: 2009-02-20

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

Communist Democracy (= Communism) is the eventual goal.
But we can only reach that via Proletarian Dictatorship.

Do you mean the "Dictatorship of the proletariat"? How can that exist when the sole loss of power by the bourgeoisie over the proletariat implies the anihilation of the condition of bourgeoisie as bourgeoisie and of proletariat as proletariat?

Over whom will the emancipated proletariat excert domination?

The Proletariat must excert domination over certain bourgeois elements that survive the Revolution and crush counterrevolutionary activities.

It is utopian to believe you can found a Communist Utopia rght after the Revolution.

**Black_Cross** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:39 pm

Wakizashi wrote:

The Proletariat must excert domination over certain bourgeois elements that survive the Revolution and crush counterrevolutionary activities.

It is utopian to believe you can found a Communist Utopia rght after the Revolution.

I guess the point kinda went over your head. What ZK was trying to point out is that if expropriation is completed, the bourgeoisie no longer exists as it did, they're merely resentful, unemployed workers (of course they're welcome to their share of well being, but i'm just assuming they'd throw a bitch fit for a while).

And while it absolutely won't be 'utopian', it would surely be communism "right after the revolution", since the end of the revolution means A) private property has been expropriated or B) we failed. So if we were successful in making the means of production a communally owned property, then we have established a communist society. I mean, technically it may not be a "gift economy" since production may still be in a stage of rationing, which i'd call collectivism, but that's all semantics. The fact though, remains that there would be no bourgeoisie (Maybe some really, really loyal soldiers to fend off, but there's no need to call this self-defense a "dictatorship". That's a tad misleading)

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Your ideal form of government ? Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:39 pm

Wakizashi wrote:

The Proletariat must excert domination over certain bourgeois elements that survive the Revolution and crush counterrevolutionary activities.

Which bourgeoise elements? How can they exist when the means of production have been seized by the workers?

Ah you mean in a condition in which a bunch of guys have lead workers like sheep into creating a "workers' state" conveniently lead by that vanguard. In that case capitalism hasn't been overthrown and the "workers' state" is merely acting as a competitor to the bourgeoise ruling class which could only be ruling if it still had control of the means of production at least in part something that would require a coercive force, that is, some sort of army or a "bourgeoise state".

By definition the workers wouldn't be controlling the means of production neither in their, supopsedly own state, nor in general and therefore socialism hasn't been stablished and the "revolution" has merely become a trouple of leaders coordinating a protion of the working class trying to switch the ruling class from bourgeoisie to a bureaucratic social state.

Now lets make the supposition that there is a genounely socialistic faction of the working class coontrolling a portion of the means of production in a socialist fashion: within such faction there's socialism and they're struggling both to survive and spread revolution to the sectors of society where means of production are still not under workers' control. That would be part of the revolution.

I'd argue then, that socialism becomes sucessful after the workers have achieved control of enough means of production and territory to stablish an autarchic socialist community. But socialism itself would have been already stablished even amidst the revolution.

Wakizashi wrote:

It is utopian to believe you can found a Communist Utopia rght after the Revolution.

Sushi is sushi and utopia is utopic, that's as certain as certainty itself.

_________________