By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - What is your political ideology? (test included!)

 

What is your political ideology? (test included!)

Socially Left, Financiall... 35 29.41%
 
Socially Right, Financial... 19 15.97%
 
Socially Left, Financially Left (Liberal) 38 31.93%
 
Socially Right, Financially Left (Communist) 10 8.40%
 
Socially Moderate, Financ... 8 6.72%
 
Socially Moderate, Financ... 9 7.56%
 
Total:119
MARCUSDJACKSON on 22 April 2010

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72

some questions i realy had no opinion on or where hard to pick

liberal left.

 



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

Around the Network
MARCUSDJACKSON on 22 April 2010

how do you get the graph here.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

Signalstar on 22 April 2010



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

ArkZero on 22 April 2010

Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26



tarheel91 on 22 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
rastari said:
There haven't been any communist leaders, There's no such thing as a communist leader. In a communist society everyone is equal and therefore no particular person leads.

That's not true... re-read your Marx and Engles.
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
The "everyone is equal" part doesn't come until generations under a brutal authortiarian dictatorship.  This is because.... according to them... it wouldn't work.  People aren't built for communism due to society.  They need to be broken down and changed until human culture itself is very different.

Which can't happen unless the world is under a brutal communist dictatorship.  Since otherwise, all the talented people will flee for communism.

It's all in the communist manifesto.  Stalin very much IS a communist leader.  He's the kind of communist leader "true" communism can't exist without... the "lower" level communist leader.

Wow. 

I knew most of that, but I didn't know about the part where they knew full well people would try to flee communist nations en masse. 

No wonder the USSR was so hot to get more revolutions going.  Their ideology REQUIRES world domination. 

Marx was a very smart man.  He knew it was more then just the bourgeoisie that was the problem, but society itself. 

Of course... one wonders if he would still feel the same way today.  It's a common sociological essay question... because Marx could of never forseen things such as unions, universal healthcare and various welfare systems being not only legal but widely accepted by the government.

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. 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 22 April 2010
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
rastari said:
There haven't been any communist leaders, There's no such thing as a communist leader. In a communist society everyone is equal and therefore no particular person leads.

That's not true... re-read your Marx and Engles.
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
The "everyone is equal" part doesn't come until generations under a brutal authortiarian dictatorship.  This is because.... according to them... it wouldn't work.  People aren't built for communism due to society.  They need to be broken down and changed until human culture itself is very different.

Which can't happen unless the world is under a brutal communist dictatorship.  Since otherwise, all the talented people will flee for communism.

It's all in the communist manifesto.  Stalin very much IS a communist leader.  He's the kind of communist leader "true" communism can't exist without... the "lower" level communist leader.

Wow. 

I knew most of that, but I didn't know about the part where they knew full well people would try to flee communist nations en masse. 

No wonder the USSR was so hot to get more revolutions going.  Their ideology REQUIRES world domination. 

Marx was a very smart man.  He knew it was more then just the bourgeoisie that was the problem, but society itself. 

Of course... one wonders if he would still feel the same way today.  It's a common sociological essay question... because Marx could of never forseen things such as unions, universal healthcare and various welfare systems being not only legal but widely accepted by the government.

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.



jonop on 22 April 2010



tarheel91 on 22 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
rastari said:
There haven't been any communist leaders, There's no such thing as a communist leader. In a communist society everyone is equal and therefore no particular person leads.

That's not true... re-read your Marx and Engles.
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
The "everyone is equal" part doesn't come until generations under a brutal authortiarian dictatorship.  This is because.... according to them... it wouldn't work.  People aren't built for communism due to society.  They need to be broken down and changed until human culture itself is very different.

Which can't happen unless the world is under a brutal communist dictatorship.  Since otherwise, all the talented people will flee for communism.

It's all in the communist manifesto.  Stalin very much IS a communist leader.  He's the kind of communist leader "true" communism can't exist without... the "lower" level communist leader.

Wow. 

I knew most of that, but I didn't know about the part where they knew full well people would try to flee communist nations en masse. 

No wonder the USSR was so hot to get more revolutions going.  Their ideology REQUIRES world domination. 

Marx was a very smart man.  He knew it was more then just the bourgeoisie that was the problem, but society itself. 

Of course... one wonders if he would still feel the same way today.  It's a common sociological essay question... because Marx could of never forseen things such as unions, universal healthcare and various welfare systems being not only legal but widely accepted by the government.

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.



Kasz216 on 23 April 2010
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
rastari said:
There haven't been any communist leaders, There's no such thing as a communist leader. In a communist society everyone is equal and therefore no particular person leads.

That's not true... re-read your Marx and Engles.
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
The "everyone is equal" part doesn't come until generations under a brutal authortiarian dictatorship.  This is because.... according to them... it wouldn't work.  People aren't built for communism due to society.  They need to be broken down and changed until human culture itself is very different.

Which can't happen unless the world is under a brutal communist dictatorship.  Since otherwise, all the talented people will flee for communism.

It's all in the communist manifesto.  Stalin very much IS a communist leader.  He's the kind of communist leader "true" communism can't exist without... the "lower" level communist leader.

Wow. 

I knew most of that, but I didn't know about the part where they knew full well people would try to flee communist nations en masse. 

No wonder the USSR was so hot to get more revolutions going.  Their ideology REQUIRES world domination. 

Marx was a very smart man.  He knew it was more then just the bourgeoisie that was the problem, but society itself. 

Of course... one wonders if he would still feel the same way today.  It's a common sociological essay question... because Marx could of never forseen things such as unions, universal healthcare and various welfare systems being not only legal but widely accepted by the government.

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.



tarheel91 on 23 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
rastari said:
There haven't been any communist leaders, There's no such thing as a communist leader. In a communist society everyone is equal and therefore no particular person leads.

That's not true... re-read your Marx and Engles.
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
The "everyone is equal" part doesn't come until generations under a brutal authortiarian dictatorship.  This is because.... according to them... it wouldn't work.  People aren't built for communism due to society.  They need to be broken down and changed until human culture itself is very different.

Which can't happen unless the world is under a brutal communist dictatorship.  Since otherwise, all the talented people will flee for communism.

It's all in the communist manifesto.  Stalin very much IS a communist leader.  He's the kind of communist leader "true" communism can't exist without... the "lower" level communist leader.

Wow. 

I knew most of that, but I didn't know about the part where they knew full well people would try to flee communist nations en masse. 

No wonder the USSR was so hot to get more revolutions going.  Their ideology REQUIRES world domination. 

Marx was a very smart man.  He knew it was more then just the bourgeoisie that was the problem, but society itself. 

Of course... one wonders if he would still feel the same way today.  It's a common sociological essay question... because Marx could of never forseen things such as unions, universal healthcare and various welfare systems being not only legal but widely accepted by the government.

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.