Your ideal form of government ?

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.
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.

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

I choose you, liberal despotism !

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)

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

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

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.

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".

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).

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

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

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?

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.

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)

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.

Even if the bourgeoisie loses all its power, it will still try to regain it.

We must always remain vigilant for a return of capitalism, and fight against it.
That's where Gorbachev failed, which caused the fall of the USSR.

Wakizashi wrote:

Even if the bourgeoisie loses all its power, it will still try to regain it.

You didn't answer my questions and virtually dodged my entire post.

Bourgeoise stop existing, they can't regain power because capitalism stops existing. As simple as that they don't have any tools whatsoever to gain power again because what brought that power down is the workers' understanding of capitalist economics and their conviction in socialism.

Please read my post prior to replying to it.

Wakizashi wrote:

We must always remain vigilant for a return of capitalism, and fight against it.

Capitalism can't return once socialism is stablished unless everyone suffers from mass amnesia and they get no way to regain the knowledge they had gained on economics.

Wakizashi wrote:

That's where Gorbachev failed, which caused the fall of the USSR.

USSR failed because it was built wrongly since its very foundations. Gorbachyov just like the whole Soviet apparatus, was product of that misconceived state capitalist system.

I ave devoted entire previous posts to explain this so I ask you to read them.

You still got to answer several questions and adress several points you haven't.

As an Italian I can assure you that "fascist democracy" is an oxymoron.

Jouten Shin wrote:

As an Italian I can assure you that "fascist democracy" is an oxymoron.

so is italian-democracy

Tyrlop wrote:

Jouten Shin wrote:

As an Italian I can assure you that "fascist democracy" is an oxymoron.

so is italian-democracy

lol? lol this banana!

There is nothing funny. Now Italy is under the fascist regime with the mafia in the government. Italy is not a democratic country since 2005, but lost its free information much earlier.

Jouten Shin wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

Jouten Shin wrote:

As an Italian I can assure you that "fascist democracy" is an oxymoron.

so is italian-democracy

lol? lol this banana!

There is nothing funny. Now Italy is under the fascist regime with the mafia in the government. Italy is not a democratic country since 2005, but lost its free information much earlier.

There is mafia in the gov.?

yes, in the parliament.

CoolKidX wrote:

Jouten Shin wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

Jouten Shin wrote:

As an Italian I can assure you that "fascist democracy" is an oxymoron.

so is italian-democracy

lol? lol this banana!

There is nothing funny. Now Italy is under the fascist regime with the mafia in the government. Italy is not a democratic country since 2005, but lost its free information much earlier.

There is mafia in the gov.?

lol coolkidx...... holland is owned by druglords, with italian friends.

can i choose facsit dicatorship, but in reality its more like an ion fisted green dictaotship.
yeah

Tyrlop wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

Jouten Shin wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

Jouten Shin wrote:

As an Italian I can assure you that "fascist democracy" is an oxymoron.

so is italian-democracy

lol? lol this banana!

There is nothing funny. Now Italy is under the fascist regime with the mafia in the government. Italy is not a democratic country since 2005, but lost its free information much earlier.

There is mafia in the gov.?

lol coolkidx...... holland is owned by druglords, with italian friends.

lol tyrlop........ not really but nice one though.