By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
tarheel91 on 23 April 2010
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
 

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.

1) Again, I've never heard of this concept of a very long lasting single authoritarian dictator despite having read 85% of the Communist Manifesto.  Prove it to me or shut up.  I've supplied sources for everything I've pointed out.  You've yet to provide sources for anything.

2) Again, who's everyone?  Last time I checked the French Commune wasn't mob rule, it was a representative democracy.  It was not a direct democracy, as every single French citizen was not able to participate.  Regardless, it was a type of democracy, NOT the kind of revolutionary mob rule that the Communist Manifesto predicts as a necessary intermediate step.  I'd equate the dictatorship of the proletariat more to the things that followed the establishment of the Communes (i.e. Storming of the Bastille and Womens' March on Versailles) than any other part of the French Revolution.  Thus, it comes as no surprise that Marx criticized the French Commune, because he saw what came after it rather than the Commune itself as necessary.  It fit the model, but it featured unnecessary parts.

3) If you don't care enough to prove your points, you shouldn't be starting an argument (with rastari) in the first place.

 

Edit: What?  Your side is arguing that Marx criticized the French Commune but acknowledge a quote by him that treats it as a model transition from one form of government to communism?  What the hell am I supposed to be countering?  Point 2 looks unnecessary now.