Marx also acknowledged it as a model... but one that was needlessly burdened by democracy, and needed a leader.

Which was Blanq on who they tried to trade the Archbishop of France for.

Marx basically saw the workers revolution as a promising start with a lot of mistakes.

For what it's worth Lenin, Stalin and Mao also acknowledge the French Commune in the same way.  According to each of them... their governments were exenstions of the Paris Commune.

It was more the revolution they were applauding and aknowledging... not the way it was carried out.

Engles differed from the rest in that he saw it as the correct model. 

Encyclopedia Brittanica:

in Marxism, rule by the proletariat—the economic and social class consisting of industrial workers who derive income solely from their labour—during the transitional phase between the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of communism. During this transition, the proletariat is to suppress resistance to the socialist revolution by the bourgeoisie, destroy the social relations of production underlying the class system, and create a new, classless society.



Rosa Luxemburg:

This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.



Marx/Engels:

Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".

Between capitalist and communist society there 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.







There you go, now you actually have things to base your arguments around.

I actually quoted that Marx/Engels statement before.  As for Rosa Luxemburg... she was a moderate.  Of course she frames it that way... she did things Marx would of revolted at.  She worked within the system rather then having a general uprising.  She was a part of the SPD... and wanted to reform the government with the SPD.  

While Marx was supportive of these groups, he saw them as weak, compromising and unable to accomplish their goals because they were working under the capitalist system and not working to take out class sociology.

This was largely proven true when the SPD actually turned their back on her...

she further didn't learn her lesson when she wanted to take part in the Weimer government.  She was outvoted however.

When the communists tried to take control... she rejected a violent means of taking over!  She was largely agaisnt violence period.

It's pretty clear she was interpreting marxism to fit her own beliefs... and not taking it at face value.

Not that I have anything against Rosa Luxemburg. She was brave, smart and had some good ideas. She was just a poor marxist and in reality would of served both herself and marxism better if she would of took her ideas as what they really were... a new philosophy.  She would be a very interesting force in politcs today and it's sad that she was forced to tie herself to men that didn't hold her same beliefs and often ended up having her agendas highjacked.  It's very much a shame how she died, even though she rejected the revolution.  A crime really.

Anyone who thinks that Marx and Engels rejected violence as a means to attain the communist world clearly wasn't being intellectually honest.

She wanted a communist party to win, take over and use the system to replace the cast system.  Unlike pretty much every other marxist who wanted to just outright uproot the political system.  Modern Marxists have followed her path... but modern marxists aren't anymore believers in Marx philosphy then Modern Republicans are of Lincolns.

You can find me next to dalai lama on the chart :P

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.

Stalin was a one man dictatorship.  Stalin killed tens of thousands of Communists he saw as threatening, both friends and enemies (including many of top military officers) and had all of the Soviet Union fearful to speak out against him.  Even once big political time players, like Leon Trotsky, were forced out of Russia and later killed because he disagreed with Stalin. So calling Stalin Russia anything but a totalitarian, one-man dictatorship is inaccurate.

During the Russian Revolution up until Stalin, and afterwards from Krushchev to Gorbechov, Russia was a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or more accurately the ten percent of the population that were Communist Party members who participated in the political process.  An example of this more open political system being Kruschev, who rose to power but was later forced out when the Communist Party viewed him as too liberal.  No one would even think about forcing Stalin out of power.

Conservative like a champ. I exited the page though so I can't post my results.

Stalin ruled through brutal fear and his own paranoia. He was a one man dictatorship more than almost any other I can think of. He subjugated the entire political system.