• 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

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So, which one would you prefer? ;)
 
What is this a Rassmussion Poll? The questions are in the catigory of "Do you still beat your wife?".
Why not who should rule, 1% or 99%? :confused: :peace


So, which one would you prefer? ;)
 
What is this a Rassmussion Poll? The questions are in the catigory of "Do you still beat your wife?".
Why not who should rule, 1% or 99%? :confused: :peace

I think the Banksters represent about .01% not 1%. They are the de facto face of the leaders of the New World Order. I'd rather be ruled by a bunch of morons than a group that is willing to sacrifice the planet for Ronnie Reagan's mantra, "Greed is good." The Corporatocracy/Plutocracy rules and the true morons don't know that. You wonder if it is depletion of gray matter or genetics.
 
well we have had actual dictatorships of the "proletariat" though in reality they are just dictatorships. I haven't yet seen a dictatorship by the bankers so I'll go with the devil I don't know.
 
false dichotomy.
 
Yeah, all right, but if you have to choose between those two evils, which is the lesser one? :)

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?
 
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?

I disagree we do not have any form of dictatorship at all. Only people who disagree with the current system and want a completly new one (usually it does end up being a dictatorship) claim we are living in a dictatorship. In a democracy there will always be decisions made that you disagree with. In fact in any form of govt you will find that (unless of course you happen to be the dictator) Same is true for corruption/fraud etc. it happens in EVERY single type of govt system you can possibly think of. Democracy has proven to be the least oppresive of any form of govt devised to date.
As to dictatorship of the proletariat we have had soo soo many. None of them have been anything more than a mere dictatorship ALL have been very very bad!
Soviet Union
Communist China
North Korea
Cuba
etc...
 
I'd rather have someone rule me, that's more cunning, than someone who is prone to radical emotional decision making.

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.
 
I think the Banksters represent about .01% not 1%. They are the de facto face of the leaders of the New World Order. I'd rather be ruled by a bunch of morons than a group that is willing to sacrifice the planet for Ronnie Reagan's mantra, "Greed is good." The Corporatocracy/Plutocracy rules and the true morons don't know that. You wonder if it is depletion of gray matter or genetics.


Gordon Gekko said greed is good, not Ronald Reagan.

 
Yeah, all right, but if you have to choose between those two evils, which is the lesser one? :)

if forced to put absolute power in the hands of one entity or another, i would choose the entity with the most hands in order to dilute it as much as possible. given this, i'd pick the proletariat.

either choice would result in the failure of the theoretical state, however.
 
If I can't have "Dictatorship of the Goshin" then I don't want dictatorship at all.




Also, you forgot to add the option "Rootebega" to your poll. :mrgreen:
 
The bankers, the rich are proven dishonest and unworthy of any oxygen just like the teaparty
 
Stupid question, but given those choices, I choose the bankers. They tend to be more intelligent and make more rational decisions. That's the same reason why, as someone brought up earlier, I'd rather have a dictatorship of the 1%. At least they were smart enough to get to the 1%. The 99% tend to be idiots.
 
Stupid question, but given those choices, I choose the bankers. They tend to be more intelligent and make more rational decisions. That's the same reason why, as someone brought up earlier, I'd rather have a dictatorship of the 1%. At least they were smart enough to get to the 1%. The 99% tend to be idiots.



Hmm.. I have to admit you have a point there, with one little caveat: There's no guarantee the banksters or 1%ers will make decisions that benefit the majority of us, rather than decisions that benefit them, perhaps at our expense.
 
Hmm.. I have to admit you have a point there, with one little caveat: There's no guarantee the banksters or 1%ers will make decisions that benefit the majority of us, rather than decisions that benefit them, perhaps at our expense.

Which is exactly what the 99%ers would do. Big deal, I still prefer those who have earned it over those who just want to be handed it.
 
Hmm.. I have to admit you have a point there, with one little caveat: There's no guarantee the banksters or 1%ers will make decisions that benefit the majority of us, rather than decisions that benefit them, perhaps at our expense.

ah. whereas communist regimes were well known for taking care of their populace?
 
Which is exactly what the 99%ers would do. Big deal, I still prefer those who have earned it over those who just want to be handed it.

bingo. If American foreign policy has to be directed by people who specialize in brutally seeking advantage for their own team by putting counterparties in no-win situations.... :shrug: :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom