Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Dictator Obama
Thread: Dictator Obama This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT»
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 10, 2013 06:33 PM

he may have thought he was

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
War-overlord
War-overlord


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
posted January 10, 2013 06:46 PM

Quote:
Leninism was a bit different. Leninism is a warped Marxism/dictatorship hybrid. Stalinism is a warped leninism that goes straight into the dictatorship category.

Going into technicallities here. Yes you are right, Stalinism is a twisted Leninism. However that warping isn't as great is Leninism is of Communism. And then Communsism is just as much a twisting of Marxism as Socialism is.
Basically Stalinism is Hyper-Leninism. Which is the rule of Stalin is typified as Leninism-Stalinism. Leninism on the other hand is so decidedly different from Communism that it get's its own term.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted January 10, 2013 07:14 PM

@ Waroverlord


____________
Era II mods and utilities

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted January 10, 2013 07:38 PM

You guys really messed up the terms. Marxism is, shortly put, an interpretation of Marx's socio-economical system and philosophy and as such there isn't really one type of Marxism. If one wants to get an understanding of what Marx thought, he should read his books (as well as Engels', they agree about almost everything), not the books of his followers. He's universally recognized as one of the greatest economists and philosophers even by his opponents and there's a reason for that. Unfortunately he was also somewhat intellectually dishonest as his own system - which is scientific through and through - proves that the communism can't be built in such a straight-forward manner as he and Engels planned.

Second - the original thoughts of Marx are more or less strictly related to the society of XIX and the early XX century - since then many things have changed and due to that a large part of the original system is outdated (and Marx would have been the first to recognize that if he was alive). That doesn't mean that its core holds no value.

Next - Leninism and Stalinism are nothing more than "local Marxisms", pretty twisted and so on but still some forms of Marxism. The communism was never supposed to be built in a backwater, semi-feudal state as the Russian Empire so Lenin had to do much adaptation (how successful he was is another matter). Stalin took this to the extreme and essentially became a Tsar with more power than all rulers before him which has nothing to do with the ideas of Marxism but is just a... real life consequence of their implementation in the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak.

Next x2 - Marx was most certainly a communist but he frowned upon the utopian communism of some of his predecessors. What he designed is sort of a "scientific communism" (but ultimately a flawed one, as mentioned above) and always claimed that there is other way to realize the communist ideal but to follow a strictly scientific approach - something which none of his followers understood completely or cared about.

Finally - dictatorship is part of the original concept of Marx and Engels for the future society. This part is very clearly defined though - the dictatorship is executed by the majority, i.e. the working class, during the transit period between the capitalist society and the socialism (which is not yet communism) and its only aim is to gradually turn the private property into public. After this is accomplished, the society should become purely democratic with no ruling and ruled classes. That was the plan anyway.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
War-overlord
War-overlord


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
posted January 10, 2013 07:57 PM
Edited by War-overlord at 19:57, 10 Jan 2013.

None of that realy contradicts anything I've said.(except for a few typos perhap) With one exception. Communism is indeed an interpretation of Marxism. But Marx was certainly not a communist. In the years of the First International, Marx extensively clashed with the communists (and socialists) in regards to the revolution. Communists wanted to bring about the revolution, I.E. actively strive for it to happen. On the other hand Marx and other Purists of Marxism debated that one had to wait and let the situation progress untill it would end itself in Revolution. Which is where Communism clashes with Marxism and cannot be equated. And which I why I debated that it be best not to start equating such terms.

Also, I highly doubt George Bush could understand most of this.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted January 10, 2013 08:02 PM

I guess you won't understand where your mistakes are unless you actually read some of Marx' and Engels' works. They are both communists and they both acknowledge themselves as such. The nuance is that they consider themselves non-utopian communists unlike the many others of their contemporaries.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
War-overlord
War-overlord


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
posted January 10, 2013 08:06 PM

I've read plenty scholarship on them and their texts to know I'm not talking out of my arse.
The point here, as said earlier, that they themselves proclaiming something does not make them. What they understand as communism isn't what academics now understand as communism. Which is why they should not be classified as such.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted January 10, 2013 08:15 PM

What academics? And since when the current definition of some academics (point them please) nullifies the definition of the people who actually contributed the most to the determination of the term? Maybe you haven't read carefully enough.

By the way if you refer to Elodin-style usage of communism (and Marxism and so on), this of course has nothing to do with its actual meaning, let alone ideas. But ignorantia non est argumentum and of course such forms of usage should be paid zero attention.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted January 10, 2013 08:40 PM

I actually read Marx' texts. Stalin was not a Marxist. period.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
War-overlord
War-overlord


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
posted January 10, 2013 09:47 PM

Quote:
What academics?

Andrew Heywood, George Holland Sabine & Thomas L. Thorson, Perry Anderson, Remieg Aerts and Wim van Meurs.
The first three are big names in the field of political theory, politcal philosophy and political history, who are experst in their field and who wrote academic standard works. The latter two are my own professors and accomplished academic researchers and teachers in their own way.

Quote:
By the way if you refer to Elodin-style usage of communism (and Marxism and so on), this of course has nothing to do with its actual meaning, let alone ideas. But ignorantia non est argumentum and of course such forms of usage should be paid zero attention.

Which was my original point, until the thread more or less took a different direction.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blizzardboy
blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
posted January 10, 2013 11:16 PM

Make a provocative, hysterical original post, get provocative, hysterical answers.

This thread is deliberate jailbait.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted January 11, 2013 12:29 AM

Quote:
You guys really messed up the terms. Marxism is, shortly put, an interpretation of Marx's socio-economical system and philosophy and as such there isn't really one type of Marxism. If one wants to get an understanding of what Marx thought, he should read his books (as well as Engels', they agree about almost everything), not the books of his followers. He's universally recognized as one of the greatest economists and philosophers even by his opponents and there's a reason for that. Unfortunately he was also somewhat intellectually dishonest as his own system - which is scientific through and through - proves that the communism can't be built in such a straight-forward manner as he and Engels planned.

Second - the original thoughts of Marx are more or less strictly related to the society of XIX and the early XX century - since then many things have changed and due to that a large part of the original system is outdated (and Marx would have been the first to recognize that if he was alive). That doesn't mean that its core holds no value.

Next - Leninism and Stalinism are nothing more than "local Marxisms", pretty twisted and so on but still some forms of Marxism. The communism was never supposed to be built in a backwater, semi-feudal state as the Russian Empire so Lenin had to do much adaptation (how successful he was is another matter). Stalin took this to the extreme and essentially became a Tsar with more power than all rulers before him which has nothing to do with the ideas of Marxism but is just a... real life consequence of their implementation in the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak.

Next x2 - Marx was most certainly a communist but he frowned upon the utopian communism of some of his predecessors. What he designed is sort of a "scientific communism" (but ultimately a flawed one, as mentioned above) and always claimed that there is other way to realize the communist ideal but to follow a strictly scientific approach - something which none of his followers understood completely or cared about.

Finally - dictatorship is part of the original concept of Marx and Engels for the future society. This part is very clearly defined though - the dictatorship is executed by the majority, i.e. the working class, during the transit period between the capitalist society and the socialism (which is not yet communism) and its only aim is to gradually turn the private property into public. After this is accomplished, the society should become purely democratic with no ruling and ruled classes. That was the plan anyway.



This is almost exactly my angle on this matter too. The point is dictatorship and Marxism do not categorically exclude each other. Through the perspective of his century, Marx (and Engels) has foreseen that working class would replace bourgeois  just like the bourgeois replaced the aristocrats. They thought this was inevitable due to the deterministic laws of history. Yes, communism was meant for a society with an industrial working and middle-class already developed, not a place were mujiks  were the rural work force like Russia. And no, Marx was wrong on that one, because the middle class, unlike aristocracy, was flexible, it adapted. But the relevant part is, according to their own writings, they had foreseen a period of the process that required the regime to force itself upon the citizens until the communist state matures.So the answer to "can you be a Marxist and a dictator" is, yes you can. Maybe it wouldn't be as brutal and twisted as Stalin's regime but it would still not be called a democracy.

@blizzardboy: I don't think anybody cares or discusses about the original post anymore, the thread evolved into something else.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted January 11, 2013 01:23 AM
Edited by Doomforge at 01:26, 11 Jan 2013.

Quote:
This is almost exactly my angle on this matter too.


Quote:
So the answer to "can you be a Marxist and a dictator" is, yes you can.


Make up your mind, either you agree with this:

Quote:

Finally - dictatorship is part of the original concept of Marx and Engels for the future society. This part is very clearly defined though - the dictatorship is executed by the majority, i.e. the working class, during the transit period between the capitalist society and the socialism (which is not yet communism) and its only aim is to gradually turn the private property into public. After this is accomplished, the society should become purely democratic with no ruling and ruled classes. That was the plan anyway.


or you don't.


Dictatorship by the working majority was, exactly how Zenofex pointed it out, the idea behind the dominant form of Marxism. There was no "supreme dictator" meant to take the steering wheel. So no, yu can't be a dicatator and follow Marxism at the same time. Unless you're a collective. Which Stalin clearly was not.

Have you never seen the sketches of, say, Lenin "sweeping out" the tsars, bishops and aristocrats from the earth? The idea was to equalize the classes under the supervision of the "opressed" labor class, and not to put another tsar on the top.

However, Leninism and especially Stalinism were built exactly around the idea of putting a leader in front of it all, which twisted the ideology altogether.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted January 11, 2013 01:41 AM

Quote:
Dictatorship by the working majority was, exactly how Zenofex pointed it out, the idea behind the dominant form of Marxism. There was no "supreme dictator" meant to take the steering wheel.



I don't get you on this one? There was going to be an administrative staff with a man on top and it was going to be within his power to act on behalf of the people. Since the regime was not built on free elections open to everyone, that man was inevitably going to be a dictator. It wasn't like every decision was going to be made by the "ruling class" through a plebiscite.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted January 11, 2013 12:37 PM
Edited by Doomforge at 12:39, 11 Jan 2013.

Quote:
I don't get you on this one? There was going to be an administrative staff with a man on top and it was going to be within his power to act on behalf of the people. Since the regime was not built on free elections open to everyone, that man was inevitably going to be a dictator. It wasn't like every decision was going to be made by the "ruling class" through a plebiscite.


it's called "dictatorship of proletariat" for a reason, artu. And the reason is that the idea was to dump kings, tsars and despots in favor of the rule of proletariat. So no, in theory, you can't be a despot and a marxist at the same time.

Refer to Critique of the Gotha Program book by Marx if you wish to understand his philosophy regarding dicatorship of proletariat.



By the way, what I find funny is that Marx was openly against laziness and social state understood the way Elodin does. See this, taken from the (lazy me) wiki:

Quote:
Once enough to cover all of these things had been taken out of the "proceeds of labour", Marx believed that what was left should then be shared out amongst the workers, with each individual getting goods to the equivalent value of how much labour they had invested. In this manner, those workers who put in more labour and worked harder would get more of the proceeds of the collective labour than someone who had not worked as hard.


Whoops, Elodin. What a bummer, eh?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted January 11, 2013 12:55 PM
Edited by artu at 12:56, 11 Jan 2013.

Quote:

By the way, what I find funny is that Marx was openly against laziness and social state understood the way Elodin does.


What's funnier is his son in-law wrote "The Right to be Lazy"

Quote:
it's called "dictatorship of proletariat" for a reason, artu. And the reason is that the idea was to dump kings, tsars and despots in favor of the rule of proletariat. So no, in theory, you can't be a despot and a marxist at the same time.


And, in practice, the general secretary of the party usually turns into some  kind of Tsar. I told what I think about the ideal yet however always non-existent Marxist state earlier in the thread.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted January 11, 2013 01:10 PM

Quote:
What's funnier is his son in-law wrote "The Right to be Lazy"


Guess daddy was too busy philosophing to teach his son a few things about life

Quote:
And, in practice, the general secretary of the party usually turns into some  kind of Tsar. I told what I think about the ideal yet however always non-existent Marxist state earlier in the thread.


Thing is, if you set up for anarchy and elect a king to help you manage it, it's no longer anarchy, no matter how hard you try to name it that.

Tsars, omnipotent premiers of communist party, kings and all that stuff means it's not the way Marx envisioned, hence, it can't be called Marxism at all. Hence the terms Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and stuff.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
MeanMan
MeanMan


Adventuring Hero
posted January 11, 2013 03:24 PM
Edited by MeanMan at 15:25, 11 Jan 2013.

Just something to the original thread purpose.

Check this retard out:

Tactical Response CEO Threatens to 'Start killing People' over possible Obama Gun Measure

Link

Video

For one moment i thought this is Elodin.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted January 12, 2013 06:14 AM
Edited by Elodin at 06:19, 12 Jan 2013.

Quote:
Just something to the original thread purpose.

Check this retard out:

Tactical Response CEO Threatens to 'Start killing People' over possible Obama Gun Measure

Link

Video

For one moment i thought this is Elodin.


Well, many liberals enjoy lying about me and I get smeared in most threads eventually so no accusation would really surprise me.

I certainly don't endorse starting to kill people. However, I would say that as a government starts to approach a totalitarian government it starts taking away guns from the people. The founding fathers specifically stated that one reason for the right to bear arms was to keep the government in check. Unlike many liberal morons they knew government simply can't be trusted.

And of course key Senate dems are now urging dictator Obumuh to unilaterally raise the debt limit so they can keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. Other liberals are urging Obama to direct the Mint to produce trillion dollar coins to pay off the debt.

Obama is a Marxist
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blizzardboy
blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
posted January 12, 2013 09:00 AM
Edited by blizzardboy at 09:12, 12 Jan 2013.

Quote:

Well, many liberals enjoy lying about me and I get smeared in most threads eventually so no accusation would really surprise me.


It shouldn't, considering you incite it deliberately for your own gratification.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0832 seconds