pariah

Not really. Species procreate to pass on their own genes and dominate the gene pool, not continue the existance of the species. That's what we are programmed to do. It has NOTHING to do with "the good" of the species. This still applies to social animals.

John Hancock

Left is right and right is left.

If it is admitted that the nineteenth century has been the century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy, it does not follow that the twentieth must also be the century of Liberalism, Socialism and Democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the "Right," a Fascist century. If the nineteenth was the century of the individual it may be expected that this one may be the century of "collectivism" and therefore the century of the State.

---Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, 1932

Hence I'm left out of poll.

John Hancock
__________________
"Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini

Gurdur

Impossible to do so.
Too context-dependent. Too many unmentioned variables.

John K. Fitzpatrick

Can't vote, no dichotomy. And the 'collective' word implies too much factionalism for my liking.

roughly:
social responsibility + personal realization = the good life

- John

Ottman Out

I voted "individual," as I agree more with that statement than the other (and it's an easy choice for me), although in terms of politics, I believe in a mix of the two.

Krieger

Actually, Nightshade, there is nothing extreme about the "dictatorship of the proletariat", you just do not understand what the term means. You think that means a literal dictatorship, ran by one all-power individual. However, proletariat is a fancy word for the working class - which is 95% of capitalist society. In the "dictatorship of the proletariat" the proletariat would have all the power, and the bourgeoisie (the ruling class in capitalism) would no longer have any power. So the masses would be in power. It would be a real democracy.

In a capitalist country, such has here in the Untied States, we live under a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" where the wealthy business owning elite control all of our society (the government, our entertainment, our mass media, etc, etc).

KnightWhoSaysNi

Well, I live in Canada, and we're quite a bit ways to the left on the political spectrum compared to the USA. Nevertheless, extremely few of us "95% proletariat" approve of overthrowing the government to set up a one party communist state. Why do you think that's so?

This relates to individualist vs. collectivist values I mentioned. Most people in Canada and the US approve of individualist values, including myself. We like the idea that a person can use their entrepreneurial skills and start a small business becoming self-employed (I know a friend who did this, creating websites for businesses and NGO's from her home). You would take this right away from her which will not likely get you much support should you run for office here (nor where you are either).

Despite this "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" I am free to criticize and express dissent against corporations, big business, and governments that toe the line with them. I am free to write books or articles, get involved in demonstrations, elect or run as a Member of Parliament that opposes corporate influence, and other things. No corporate secret police or death squad was out to get Naomi Klein here when she wrote No Logo (nor were they out to get Michael Moore in the US for his works).

Methinks a "dictatorship of proletariat" will less likely return the favour to dissenting opinion and would more likely have me sent to a gulag for my "individualist tendencies."

Since you're in the US, I was just curious. What's your opinion on the Bill of Rights? (especially the 1st Amendment) Do you think the B of R is a good thing or is it a "bourgeoisie tool."

Jason

Krieger

Once again, terminology is confusing you. "Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" means that the ruling class in the capitalist system controls society (via mass media) and the government. It doesn't mean that the ruling class is going to ban people from being critical of them. That could turn out to be counterproductive anyway. But if the ruling class ever feels threatened that they might lose control of the situation, then they will use the government to crack down on dissent. It happened here in the United States, during and after WWI and after WW2 - thousands of political party leaders and activists were rounded up and sent to prison (for 8 and 10-year sentences) because they were socialists.

The best part is that the ruling class can just lie about the entire situation (like how they lied about the Iraq war - via the mass media). They try to rewrite history all the time, on the History Channel. For example, they said on one of their "documentaries" that only 400,000 Allied soldiers died in WW2, you know why? Because according to the History Channel, the Soviet Union was apparently not an ally of Great Britain and the United States during the war, lol.