[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Vercingetorix,)
Think about it.  These were the direct results of attempts at Communism.  It was too easily hijacked, and any attempt to prove the perfection of Communism fails because of this ease.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>To be a pedant, that proves that the implementation was flawed, not the theory; tho I'm inclined to believe the theory was flawed, too (especially in the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' part). I'd have to say that the implementation was flawed in that it called for a very heightened state of nationalism as a driving force for the 'people,' and that in doing so dissent was crushed (as it always is in the face of patriotism). Such a system lent itself to iron-fisted rulers (which both Russia and China had a very long history of before Communism came in. It might be a Russo-Chinese thing) and downplayed what I believe to be the true method of leadership in a socialist state: Democracy.

This isn't to say that Communism called for a dictator or a tyrant. It most certainly didn't. But it didn't leave a strong enough base for defending representative committees, nor electable and accountable leaders. It was to be borne from Capitalis, and Capitalism lent itself to such leadership - albeit a corrupt form of it - because it came about as competition to the throne as a more permeable class system that fostered participation. The system would have been in place and a precedent established had Russia followed that route. You cannot go from a dictatorial empire to a system that is weak in the face of dictators.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Dictatorship of the proleteriat...always a sticking point. 2 things here (i'm sure you've already heard them from me before rebel)

A dictator is someone (or a body of people in thoery) given emergency powers to look after the state during a crisis. Thats all it is.

In saying dictatorship of the proleteriat, Marx (it is claimed) was referring to a reversal, as he saw capitalism as the dictatorship of the bourgoisie. So instead of the minority in power, it would be the majority. Isn't that democratic? (unless of course your a marxist-leninist, who would argue the people don't know what they want and only the vanguard party does, so it is they who rule on behalf...)