Nazismophobia, fascismophobia, communismophobia

Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
#71
and why could that not be achieved by democratic means,
While bloody wars was fought for democracy but the equality before the law is something that creates a society where the different segments of the society can exists, like the working class and the capitalist can co exists. Such as the believers and non believers are allowed to thrive. Marx wanted a society that is uniform and ruled by a working class and not by the rule of law, and he also wanted to impose a world without any religion. Humans are not ants or computer chips where their brains should be programmed to act on the basis of dictatorship, and the authoritarianism of communism, nazims and facism is prejudicial per se which always seek for violence and deprivation of the exercise of rights, and that in itself is unethical.
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
#72
I don't know if you're being serious here. Proletarian Revolution simply wasn't possible without violent uprising of the masses because of the ruthless control the bourgeoisie had over the industry and other means of production. The endless misery, drudgery, inequality and other evils of capitalism and private property are certainly far more reprehensible than any temporary suffering that could be caused by an armed uprising of the working people.
Right, the proletariat were the victims who turned to be tyrants. You don't find that in democracy with independent judiciary.
 
Jan 2017
1,269
Durham
#73
No vision, ideology, ideal, or religion should be enforced on people, not even democracy.
Not even democracy?

Now that is a very good point.

My opinion is that democracy is the best we've been able to come up with, but it remains no more than an idea with strengths and weaknesses, more strengths than other ideas; but, no more than an idea all the same.

Good point, and I couldn't agree more.
 
Jan 2016
1,637
India
#74
Right, the proletariat were the victims who turned to be tyrants. You don't find that in democracy with independent judiciary.
Marxism isn't about perpetual Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It is meant to be a transitory phase with the ultimate aim of communalisation of all property and wealth.
 
Aug 2010
16,202
Welsh Marches
#75
'Meant to be' is the operative word; what you actually get is a tyranny based on an illusory dream about some future paradise. Pie in the sky, in other words.
 
Jan 2016
1,637
India
#76
'Meant to be' is the operative word; what you actually get is a tyranny based on an illusory dream about some future paradise. Pie in the sky, in other words.
The question was about what Marx theorised and said. The poster I quoted claimed that the actions of authoritarian rulers like Stalin are a direct result of Marx's philosophy which is utterly false. In any case, such arguments as the one you have raised here are very hackneyed at this point and have been addressed already in the thread. The only variety of Marxism that happened to gain prominence worldwide was Stalinism which aims at having a centralised and authoritarian single-party rule in the first place. To say that just because USSR and it's followers became tyrannies Marxism as a political thought itself is bound to always produce tyrannies is ridiculous to say the least.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,226
#77
While bloody wars was fought for democracy but the equality before the law is something that creates a society where the different segments of the society can exists, like the working class and the capitalist can co exists. Such as the believers and non believers are allowed to thrive. Marx wanted a society that is uniform and ruled by a working class and not by the rule of law, and he also wanted to impose a world without any religion. Humans are not ants or computer chips where their brains should be programmed to act on the basis of dictatorship, and the authoritarianism of communism, nazims and facism is prejudicial per se which always seek for violence and deprivation of the exercise of rights, and that in itself is unethical.
There can be no equality before the law were great economic difference exists.

Are you saying that billion dollar corporations and poor people with no cash reserves enjoy any sort of equality before the law?
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,068
Lisbon, Portugal
#78
There can be no equality before the law were great economic difference exists.

Are you saying that billion dollar corporations and poor people with no cash reserves enjoy any sort of equality before the law?
Theoretically they enjoy equality before the law.
Two centuries ago equality before the law didn't even exist in theory...so that's quite an improvement if you look it in the context of the entire history of human civilization.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,226
#79
Theoretically they enjoy equality before the law.
Two centuries ago equality before the law didn't even exist in theory...so that's quite an improvement if you look it in the context of the entire history of human civilization.
but in practical terms no. it's a meaningless fiction. how exactly does this fiction help in any way?

feudal privledge , capitalist privilege, whats the difference?
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,068
Lisbon, Portugal
#80
but in practical terms no. it's a meaningless fiction. how exactly does this fiction help in any way?

feudal privledge , capitalist privilege, whats the difference?
There's quantitatively more social mobility, general well-being and political stability in an industrialized capitalist society than an agrarian feudal one. Even Marx would agree with that.