Chavez Says He May Seek 'Indefinite' Re-election - Page 13

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-02-06, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

Surely they are polar opossites given the fact Marx advocated the workers takeing control of the means of production and power and Hitler belived everthing should be controled by an all-powerful leader.

Marx made only a single allusion to the eventual disintegration of the state in the entire Communist manifesto and not once has there been a communist nation not led by an all-powerful leader.

Quote:

It is not possible to argue that each individual should sacrifice for the whole of society, and yet expect each individual to know what "society's good" consists of, without having a dictator to tell them.

http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

Volker · 08-04-06, 08:14 AM

Funny enough TOT cites an confused American liberal trying to prove his point.

This footnote is from a sentence, where he calls Sweden and England socialist countries. I'm not quite sure, what dictators did socialist Sweden have

Red_Dave · 08-04-06, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Marx made only a single allusion to the eventual disintegration of the state in the entire Communist manifesto and not once has there been a communist nation not led by an all-powerful leader.

Marx called for a dictatorship of the proletariat not a dictatorship of one person . Although many so-called marxist leaders may have claimed a transitory dictatorship was needed this wasnt what marx called for.

Marxs concept of a transitory state was a Participatory democracy
something along the lines of the paris commune. Hitler called for the establishment of a fuhrerprincip in which the fuhrer would run the country single handedly. Marx called for rule by the many. Hitler called for rule by the few I.E regardless of what Hitler may have thought [ and what he thought doesnt have much concequence given the fact he was a lunatic] Marx and Hitler where polar oppossites.

As regards your qoute society can decide whats needed for societys good via the ballot box. Dictators shouldnt come into it.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-04-06, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

Marx called for a dictatorship of the proletariat not a dictatorship of one person . Although many so-called marxist leaders may have claimed a transitory dictatorship was needed this wasnt what marx called for.

He made one reference to it in one essay and never even set out a guideline of how it would function or be implemented not to mention the fact that it was not among the 10 planks of what would make a Communist state.

Quote:

Marxs concept of a transitory state was a Participatory democracy
something along the lines of the paris commune.

More like a tyranny of the masses and in this dictatorship of the proletariat just who exactly were they going to rule?

Quote:

Hitler called for the establishment of a fuhrerprincip in which the fuhrer would run the country single handedly. Marx called for rule by the many.

Who are they going to rule and who exactly is it that is going to rule .... every proletariat?

Quote:

Hitler called for rule by the few I.E regardless of what Hitler may have thought [ and what he thought doesnt have much concequence given the fact he was a lunatic] Marx and Hitler where polar oppossites.

Oh really?

Quote:

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry". -- Karl Marx

Quote:

As regards your qoute society can decide whats needed for societys good via the ballot box. Dictators shouldnt come into it.

so they vote on the distribution of goods and social services? Ya that'll maybe work if they have a population of 15 people.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-04-06, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

Funny enough TOT cites an confused American liberal trying to prove his point.

This footnote is from a sentence, where he calls Sweden and England socialist countries. I'm not quite sure, what dictators did socialist Sweden have

Ya and your point?

Quote:

Socialist states have included the USSR (1), Communist China, socialist Sweden, socialist England, Cuba, North Korea, and a handful of lesser regimes in Eastern Europe, East Africa, and Southeast Asia. Once again, there is a prima facie difficulty in determining what factor these various states held in common. After all, some socialist regimes (like Sweden's and England's) were elected democratically. Others, like the USSR's and the PRC's, were the result of popular violent revolutions. Still others were the product of either military coup (Cuba, Ethiopia, Vietnam) or foreign invasion (the Eastern Bloc). The trait common to all of these is provided, once again by the definition of socialism: "a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (American College Dictionary).

Red_Dave · 08-04-06, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Ya and your point?

England isnt a state. Thats very ignorant for a dictionary

Volker · 08-07-06, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Ya and your point?

This author of this essay names some countries (at least he tries to within the limitations of his geographical knowledge

, which he considers socialist. Then he says, socialist countries need a dictator. Did I get it right so far?

Sweden has been far away from a dictatorship althrough the years and the same applies to modern UK. If these are exceptions, than it's not mentioned in the essay. There is no logic in this prediction and the author reveals it himself by examples. However, you still try to use it for your argumentation.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-07-06, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

This author of this essay names some countries (at least he tries to within the limitations of his geographical knowledge

, which he considers socialist. Then he says, socialist countries need a dictator. Did I get it right so far?

Sweden has been far away from a dictatorship althrough the years and the same applies to modern UK. If these are exceptions, than it's not mentioned in the essay. There is no logic in this prediction and the author reveals it himself by examples. However, you still try to use it for your argumentation.

No you didn't get it right at all he made no mention of dictatorship being a prerequisite for every socialist state rather that the stalinist soviet union was indeed a very pure form of socialism contrary to others opinions and in fact to quote the author it was "the living embodiment of socialism" as compared to less pure forms found in sweden and Britian which still had some aspects of capitalism.

Volker · 08-07-06, 03:34 AM

Yes, I got this part, this is the reason for this footnote. However, in this footnote he made this assertion, which you used as an argument. If it was to describe Soviet Union in the thirties to fifties, you did not mention it, rather you placed it in a general context. The author of this essay did the same, except the reader is expected to take the formal placement in a footnote as a logical placement, too.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-07-06, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

Yes, I got this part, this is the reason for this footnote. However, in this footnote he made this assertion, which you used as an argument. If it was to describe Soviet Union in the thirties to fifties, you did not mention it, rather you placed it in a general context. The author of this essay did the same, except the reader is expected to take the formal placement in a footnote as a logical placement, too.

No it's actually to describe a pure socialist state as concieved by Marx as I was talking about, because Red Dave said that Fascism and socialism were opposites because fascist states have an all powerful dictator when in actuality so to do pure socialist states.