• 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 said:
Wait, let me get that straight: you bought a house that now costs about 10% more than you paid for it?
Click to expand...
Yes. There are others in the same neighborhood that are the same model; so we have several to compare to. We get sales prices from the county assessor, and estimates from Zillo and Trulia. We also look at many homes offered for sale etc. Yes, it went up about 10% from the time we made our offer and closed. It's 7 years old and has been vacant a lot of those years. An estimater that you can run online for new construction at specific qualities in its neighborhood comes in over at 200k. We paid 92,111. The seller (owner) had two homes, his old one and the one we bought. He was given a mortgage then a second and the banks shouldn't have; so they ended up with less money than they loaned.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
ah. whereas communist regimes were well known for taking care of their populace?
Click to expand...

That's the rub though. For the most part there haven't been "dictatorships of the proletariot"..

Just proletariots under dictatorships.

I don't know that any of the "boogieman" communist states ever intended to implement a "workers paradise".

Looks to me more like scams of the power hungry to get themselves in power then top down rule from then on.
 
Lokiate said:
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.
Click to expand...

You think plutocrats have no use for machine guns?

I imagine if you objected to the divvy up the plutocrats hand down they'd break out the machine guns too.
 
One should bear in mind that dictatorship of the bankers would basically be feudalism.
 
Tigger said:
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.
Click to expand...
We had the Moral take over a division of a large corporation. I was discreetly offered membership in the Moral if I would attend their weekend meetings. I didn't. When a RIF came non members of the Moral were chosen. One non-moral member was our highest ranking technologist, our only chief scientist. I was also chosen, I had more patents (one just awarded) than any other technologist in our division. When I found the RIF was coming I went to volunteer but found that I was already on the list.
 
What if...? said:
That's the rub though. For the most part there haven't been "dictatorships of the proletariot"..

Just proletariots under dictatorships.

I don't know that any of the "boogieman" communist states ever intended to implement a "workers paradise".

Looks to me more like scams of the power hungry to get themselves in power then top down rule from then on.
Click to expand...
Those pseudo-revolutions were led by the impatient children of the ruling classes, who feel that they are born to rule. Besides being worthless without their Daddy's money, these heirheads are brought up in sheltered ignorance, so they are easily fooled and displaced by opportunists from the lower classes.
 
The tumor of concentrated wealth eats away at the rest of us. Soon there will be nothing left of our economy but skin and skeleton.
 
Canell said:
Yeah, all right, but if you have to choose between those two evils, which is the lesser one? :)
Click to expand...

This would depend on whether the man is a banker or a member of the masses...
But, here in America, we still have a huge middle class, and, IMO, neither the liberals nor the conservatives represent them well.
No vote from me of course..
There must be something better than the lessor of the two evils.
 
Quag said:
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...
Click to expand...

We have, at best, a semi-democracy...40% of the people vote...and how many do this with good judgement ?
The problem is NOT communist governments, but repressive ones, and there have been many ...nazi Germany for one.
I'd like to know why we cannot compromise , why we cannot have balance..
 
earthworm said:
....
I'd like to know why we cannot compromise , why we cannot have balance..
Click to expand...
What we have found, and this is especially prevalent in the Midwest, is that the rules have to be followed. When rules are followed then doing all the work that compromise requires doesn't have to be done.
 
earthworm said:
We have, at best, a semi-democracy...40% of the people vote...and how many do this with good judgement ?
The problem is NOT communist governments, but repressive ones, and there have been many ...nazi Germany for one.
I'd like to know why we cannot compromise , why we cannot have balance..
Click to expand...

40% participation does not equal semi-democracy, it just means 60% don't care. Not the same thing.
yes, Nazi-Germany was an evil dictatorship, but the choice was between dictatorship of the bankers, a situation that has never existed, but seems close to an aristocracy or dictatorship of the proletariat, which has been tried over and over again to the extreme detriment of the proletariat.
I guess my point was dictatorships are bad period. If I have to choose I'll choose the one that has not been tried and proven to be terrible, if only on the faint faint hope it wont be quite as bad as the other one.

As to compromise/balance of course that would be better. The Op only gave a choice between 2 dicatorships, there is no reason to expect a dictatorship to compromise.
 
What if...? said:
You think plutocrats have no use for machine guns?

I imagine if you objected to the divvy up the plutocrats hand down they'd break out the machine guns too.
Click to expand...

"peoples revolutions" have a long history of massive failure, and consist of some of the worst of human rights violations.
 
Lokiate said:
"peoples revolutions" have a long history of massive failure, and consist of some of the worst of human rights violations.
Click to expand...

Of course.

Still, I will choose the option that DOESNT concentrate power over the one that does.
 
What if...? said:
Of course.

Still, I will choose the option that DOESNT concentrate power over the one that does.
Click to expand...

So you choose the dictatorship of the bankers then?
They both concentrate the power but despite it's name the dictatorship of the proletariat does concentrate the power in the hands of a few (or in pretty much every case the 1) where as the bankers I am assuming would be some sort of aristocracy, Ie spread out over more than 1 person.
 
:2wave:
France, the U.S.of A. ring any bells? :peace
Lokiate said:
"peoples revolutions" have a long history of massive failure, and consist of some of the worst of human rights violations.
Click to expand...
 
jpevans said:
:2wave:
France, the U.S.of A. ring any bells? :peace
Click to expand...

USA yes. The French revolution ended up with a dictatorship under Napoleaon after a period that was called the "terror" a particularily bad experience for the French.
 
jpevans said:
:2wave:
France, the U.S.of A. ring any bells? :peace
Click to expand...

You should read up on history. The Founding Fathers were intellectual men of wealth. The Constitutional government of France, a true peoples revolt, was a complete failure which was overthrown by Napoleon.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
So you choose the dictatorship of the bankers then?
They both concentrate the power but despite it's name the dictatorship of the proletariat does concentrate the power in the hands of a few (or in pretty much every case the 1) where as the bankers I am assuming would be some sort of aristocracy, Ie spread out over more than 1 person.
Click to expand...

The traditional model for most of history is 1-2% of the population controlling the masses with the assistance of 15-2
%.

There never has been a dictatorship of the proletariat, but banks in Europe ran **** for years by the simple expedient of threatening to loan your enemies money.
 
What if...? said:
The traditional model for most of history is 1-2% of the population controlling the masses with the assistance of 15-2
%.

There never has been a dictatorship of the proletariat, but banks in Europe ran **** for years by the simple expedient of threatening to loan your enemies money.
Click to expand...

Soviet Union
Communist China
North Korea
Cuba

+ Many more have all claimed to be dictatorships of the proletariat. They have all proven themselves to be nothing more than dicatatorships. If you think there is even a small % chance any new dictatorship of the proletariat would be anything better than these regimes you are living in dreamland.
Dictatorship of tha banks, caimed by some about certain democracies but never actually claimed by any nation to be such. Thus I say I have never seen such a system.
If this thread had an option for democracy I would choose it. It doesnt it gives a choice between 2 dictatorships 1 proven tobe completely horrible to the vast majority of peopel living under it the other not actually seen to hav eever existed. Only a fool would choose that which has proven to be among the worst system to have ever existed over the unknown.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
The seller (owner) had two homes, his old one and the one we bought. He was given a mortgage then a second and the banks shouldn't have; so they ended up with less money than they loaned.
Click to expand...

Wait, I don't understand. Was this a foreclosed house?
Or may be that dude just sold it to you under priced?
 
Quag said:
Soviet Union
Communist China
North Korea
Cuba

+ Many more have all claimed to be dictatorships of the proletariat. They have all proven themselves to be nothing more than dicatatorships. If you think there is even a small % chance any new dictatorship of the proletariat would be anything better than these regimes you are living in dreamland.
Dictatorship of tha banks, caimed by some about certain democracies but never actually claimed by any nation to be such. Thus I say I have never seen such a system.
If this thread had an option for democracy I would choose it. It doesnt it gives a choice between 2 dictatorships 1 proven tobe completely horrible to the vast majority of peopel living under it the other not actually seen to hav eever existed. Only a fool would choose that which has proven to be among the worst system to have ever existed over the unknown.
Click to expand...

pretty sure "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a tem of disparagement used by those opposed to communism in any form.

i dont think any communists ever self identified as such.

Further, pure democracy is considere a form of dictatorship of the proletariat.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom