What is your political ideology? (test included!)

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

tarheel91 said:

Kasz216 said:

tarheel91 said:

Kasz216 said:

tarheel91 said:
Err, do you guys know what the proletariat is?  It's the working class.  Revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat equates to mob rule (of the working class), not a dictatorship led by one person. 

The dicatorship of the proletariat was infact a military super authoritaran dicatorship.  Not mob rule.  It's clearly spelled out in Marx works.  Only later people have tried to classify it as anything else to make it fit within modern times.

They tried to tie it to the Paris Commune... which was a direct democracy.  Which would be the exact opposite of a dictatorship.  Something Marx was wel aware of.

He knew direct democracies couldn't work on a larger level... and that the communes couldn't be sustained beyond very small and weak levels.

I dunno, I read a good portion of the Communist Manifesto and saw nothing saying the dictatorship of the proletariat did not mean a dictatorship of the proletariat and instead meant dictatorship of a single person.  Wikipedia agrees with me calling it a "revolutionary government with majority (proletarian) support which wields absolute power to replace the incumbent capitalist economic system and its socio-political supports, i.e. the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'."    Doesn't say anything about a single dictator, but does say something about a government with majority backing (a government backed by the masses?  sounds like mob rule to me).  By your logic, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie would be a single dictator ruling over the bourgeoisie.  That makes no sense, as the types of government that communism is supposed to replace are numerous.  Dictatorship of the proletariat vs. dictatorship of the bourgeoisie simply refers to who dominates society.

Wikipedia would be one of those modern sources.  If you reread the communist manifesto... or maybe it was one of his letters... you'll see he says you have to put the people where they are best suited... regardless of their wishes.

A "dicatorship" like your talking about would NEVER work on the world level.  Which is the level it NEEDED to work.  Hence why they called for either simaltanious or successive communist revolutions.  It all needed to happen at once under 1 large communist dictatorship.

How is that possible... under direct democracy?   It's not possible now... let alone then.   Direct recall of world governments?  Heck you couldn't get direct recall in a government the size of france.

1) Unless I'm remembering wrong the dictatorship of the proletariat is an intermediate step between other forms of government and Communism.  It's not permanent.

2) How is mob rule equatable to democracy?  You have someone backed by the people shouting "Let's go do shit!" and peopled roaring in agreement.  That's not exactly democracy, and Communism itself certainly isn't.  Democracy /= everyone is equal under the law.

3) I'm not responsible for finding evidence to back up your claims.  That's your responsibility.  Find me a source where he talks about the need for a single dictator and I'll believe you.

1) It's not permanent but it needs to last for a LONG time.
2) The "mob rule" everyone equates it to is the French Commune. Which wasn't mob rule.  It was a direct democracy.
3) I'll pass.  I don't care enough about proving it to you to pour through the entirity of his works again.

Just in case this gets responded to:  please, I think we can do without SOME of the nested quotes.