• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dictatorship of the proletariat vs. dictatorship of the bankers

Which is more preferable to you?

  • Dictatorship of the proletariat

    Votes: 13 61.9%

  • Dictatorship of the bankers

    Votes: 8 38.1%
  • Total voters
    21
We can all readily see the results of dictatorship by the banks....Im going with dictatorship by the REAL AMERICANS aka proletariat
 
Neither, of course.
Or, which is the lessor of the two evils (dictatorship) the banker or the working man !!
Man should not have to live as he did two millenia ago, or even two centuries ago.
 
cpwill said:
ah. whereas communist regimes were well known for taking care of their populace?
Click to expand...
Truth be known, The Russian communists DID take better care of their people (the masses), but, at a price.
 
earthworm said:
Neither, of course.
Or, which is the lessor of the two evils (dictatorship) the banker or the working man !!
Man should not have to live as he did two millenia ago, or even two centuries ago.
Click to expand...

Some things never change. Love for example. ;)
 
earthworm said:
Truth be known, The Russian communists DID take better care of their people (the masses), but, at a price.
Click to expand...

millions starved to death, millions purged, and millions more in prison camps?

yeah :roll: they had it much better than modern Americans.
 
Neither. I'm much more a proponent of a Dictatorship of the Moral than one of the common man or the businessman. Neither of those groups have the ability nor the desire to rule from the point of view of Right and Wrong. The common man rules from the viewpoint of what is best for him and his friends. The businessman rules from the viewpoint of what is best for his business. Only a Dictatorship of the Moral can overcome such mistakes.
 
Bankers. They know where their bread is buttered, whereas the proletariat is more likely to cause more harm than good. Once the proles get a taste of blood, they won't stop. If I, or a member of my family were to openly disagree or protest these insurgents, there's no guarantee they wouldn't put us up against the wall and shoot us until the magazines were empty. The bankers goal would be simple: Establish a system of rule and ethics, and generate profit. Bottom line: I'd rather be ruled by plutocrats than gangsters with machine guns.
 
Lokiate said:
I'd rather be ruled by plutocrats than gangsters with machine guns.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't buy this "proletariat=gangsters" idea. Are you saying the cashiers in Wal-Mart are gangsters? Or the assembly workers at GM? Or you neighbour the painter?
 
Canell said:
Sorry, I don't buy this "proletariat=gangsters" idea. Are you saying the cashiers in Wal-Mart are gangsters? Or the assembly workers at GM? Or you neighbour the painter?
Click to expand...

No I think he means the "dictatorship of the proletariat" will be like every other one that existed, not all workers united together but a few toughs who take controll and run things themselves, to the detriment of everyone else.
 
Canell said:
Sorry, I don't buy this "proletariat=gangsters" idea. Are you saying the cashiers in Wal-Mart are gangsters? Or the assembly workers at GM? Or you neighbour the painter?
Click to expand...

My neighbor is addicted to methamphetamine, and I suspect he beats his wife. We don't live in a world of super fun sunshine extreme happiness time. People get shot, stabbed, robbed, beaten, dismembered, and in some cases eaten every day.

You give a regular jack off a gun and tell him he has authority without teaching him how to use it, that authority will be abused. Corrupt, and abusive police are a perfect example of this, multiplied by psychological issues caused by armed insurrection. On top of that, we have our actual gangs, our crips, our bloods, our MS-13's. The worst of the worst being the Asian gangs. Even more, we have our separatists, extremist groups, and so called militias fueled with extremist ideology, religion, and racism. Give these people free reign, and it's bad news for everyone.
 
Canell said:
Sorry, I don't buy this "proletariat=gangsters" idea. Are you saying the cashiers in Wal-Mart are gangsters? Or the assembly workers at GM? Or you neighbour the painter?
Click to expand...

He was talking in generalities between the two choices...he wasnt being snide to the working class....

In a way hes right the proletariat would have more of a mob mentality...where hes wrong is the bankers would rob us blind and then take all our money and put it in offshore accts and live like kings and queens will they laugh and say we need more proletariat tax money to pay off the debt you lowlifes created...:)
 
lpast said:
He was talking in generalities between the two choices...he wasnt being snide to the working class....

In a way hes right the proletariat would have more of a mob mentality...where hes wrong is the bankers would rob us blind and then take all our money and put it in offshore accts and live like kings and queens will they laugh and say we need more proletariat tax money to pay off the debt you lowlifes created...:)
Click to expand...

Nah, I said they would establish a system of rule and ethics, and generate profit.I didn't say to whose benefit. It would obviously be rules of self interest, but at the same time, I think if the capability of violence of the proletariat is made strikingly clear, both sides would be forced to come to an agreement. It's the basis of social contract theory. The ruler must be of some benefit to the people, or the people will get pissed off, and uproot them by any means deemed necessary by the people. Historically, it ends very badly for the uprooted dictatorship, and the bankers would know this.
 
Canell said:
So, which one would you prefer? ;)
Click to expand...

I would consistently choose the proletariat, but there are real world conditions where I would favor the bankers.

In the real world the group I side against is the one which most threatens the balance of socio-economic-cultural forces civilization depends on in order to prosper. They are the guilty ones. Historically speaking, usually it is wealthy people who become Babel builders in this way. The proletariat rarely even takes notice of how society is developing unless their rulers are causing them to suffer.
 
Last edited:
Wow. We just completed our 2nd short sale purchase of a home. In both cases the lenders, banks, ended up with less money than they lent. Both homes are now worth about 10% more that we paid for them and the available homes in their neighborhoods is way down. The Bankers sure proved themselves to be stupid.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Wow. We just completed our 2nd short sale purchase of a home. In both cases the lenders, banks, ended up with less money than they lent. Both homes are now worth about 10% more that we paid for them and the available homes in their neighborhoods is way down. The Bankers sure proved themselves to be stupid.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they're looking at the big picture, over a couple transactions.
 
DaveFagan said:
We have a dictatorship by the bankers now. Ergo, why would we have bailed out the "Banksters?" If there had been a vote on this issue, it would not have happened. Our politicians are obviously "bought and sold" and just as obviously the bankers must be doing the buying and selling. Central Banks are the World's worst nightmare and they are running most of the World. They are running the world into the ground. Where's a good guillotine when you need one?
Click to expand...
We should re-name America "Bankenstein."
 
Lokiate said:
Or maybe they're looking at the big picture, over a couple transactions.
Click to expand...
We are not the only ones that were doing this. There were 13 offers on the 2nd short sale, most by investors. Many people are doing what we did. The banks loaned money they shouldn't have.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Wow. We just completed our 2nd short sale purchase of a home. In both cases the lenders, banks, ended up with less money than they lent. Both homes are now worth about 10% more that we paid for them and the available homes in their neighborhoods is way down. The Bankers sure proved themselves to be stupid.
Click to expand...

Wait, let me get that straight: you bought a house that now costs about 10% more than you paid for it?
 
Bankers. Sorry.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The bankers tend to be more educated.
I'll side with them, in this false dilemma.
Click to expand...

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'd rather have someone rule me, that's more cunning, than someone who is prone to radical emotional decision making.
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
Bingo. Given their track records, give me the bankers. Bankers occasionally screw up and make bad bets, but when the proletariat screw up, millions of people starve to death.
Click to expand...

For all these reasons, bankers please.
 
Matt Foley said:
No it's not. All Democracies/Republics have ended up being a dictatorship, then followed by a Monarchy.
Click to expand...

Maybe on mars.
The usual trend is the other way around
 
Yes because since the dawn of time all govts were democracies and now we only have dictatorships and monarchies.
Perhaps that is history on Mars, but not here on Earth.
 
ridiculous notion...but seeing as how the 'proletariat' have consistently proven themselves incapable of managing themselves, forget about others, then the answer is obvious. You would support the class that you LOVE to whine, bitch and cry about yet know they can provide opportunity and resources that sustain you daily. One group understands economies and the requirements for growth, while the other understands quite well how to act like pathetic little ****s that demand people take care of them. One you can count on to create a growth environment, even if it is based nothing more than on the desire to accumulate wealth, while the other you can count on to spend most of their lives on the couch in moms basement.

The worlds has LOTS of examples of communities living down to their lowest common denominator. Those people tend to live in squalor and are easily manipulated by people that assure them that nothing is their fault and how life is unfair because others are successful and they must therefore have accumulated their wealth by 'stealing' from them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom