tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
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.
|
1) Read 100% of it then.
2) Everyone is... everyone who thinks what you think. Read the Wikipedia link you suplied.
3) You haven't cared enough to prove your points outside of a basic looking at wikipedia... and are claiming what they said doesn't fit your arguement. I've provided actual quotes from the work... you want even more quotes... without refuting the original. Hell, you haven't cared enough to even read the entirity of what you are argueing about. If there is anyone not fufilling their obligation of the arguement, it's you.
Afterall you are asking me to dig through dozens of letters and pamphlets... and you haven't even read one work to compeltion.
|
I'm quoting the fucking Communist Manifesto. I'm using your quote you intially introduced to thre thread. It calls it a dictatorship of the proletariat, not a dictatorship of a single person. You have yet to provide a single quote that mentions Marx thinking there will be a single authoritarian dictator that will oppress everyone into accepting Communism. If it's in the Communist Manifesto, it should be pretty easy to find a quote.
With that quote itself, and a superbly referenced Wikipedia page (check out the references at the bottom, it's full of primary sources), what else do I need to prove my point? We have seen no quote or source in this thread supporting your idea of a single authoritarian dictator. We have seen the Communist manifesto point to a dictatorship of the proletariat (and when paired with the use of the term "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" it is clear that it is refering to the entire class, because it's not only dictatorships that he's predicting will be transformed into communism) as a class. We have seen Wikipedia point to it refering to the entire class. We have seen the Encyclopedia Britannica referring to the entire class.
|
Stalin's dictatorship was not a dictatorship of one person. It was a dictatorship of the proletariat. AKA the workers party.
Now who's argueing strawman points? Either way, i've already refuted all that... as Wikipedia and Britania show... that was the work of people like Luxemburg, who weren't even remotely real Marxists. Do you think Marx would of rejected a violent uprising of the proletariat? In fact... wasn't that exactly what he called for?
Either way, if you wish to continue this discussion. I suggest PMing me as this is getting far off topic. I will point out two of the reasons marx cites for Paris failure is democracy, and the failure of having a strong leader... like Blanq who was a prisoner which they tried to negotiate for. They refused however so the commune executed the hostages.
Marx very much points to having a strong leader, leading a workers party revplution. Leninism really was just marxism in it's original form... slightly tweaked for Russia.
Luxemburg and other marxists were "Left wing" communists that were much more moderate with regards to what Marx had in mind.
