Kautsky on dictatorship

Home Forums General discussion Kautsky on dictatorship

This topic contains 9 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Young Master Smeet 2 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #84986

    Young Master Smeet
    Participant
    Kautsky wrote:
    This, and this alone, is the real meaning of the ward Dictatorship: it is a form of government, not merely a state of affairs. It represents arbitrary force, which by its very nature can be put into practice by one person alone, or only by a very small circle of persons, knowing how to operate without any formal conditions, or willing to be led by one man alone. To ensure collaboration, every large circle requires definite rules, an administration, etc. – in other words, it is already bound by laws.

    This seems an adequate description of what Trump is doing at the moment, whetehr the dictatorshi is temporary is another question: let's not forget, the US constitution allows for such a force: executive, legislature and judiciary are independent, and cannot bind each other, and ultimately, the president is commander in chief of the army, and has the power of pardon: he can, in effect, give a licence to kill to anyone.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1919/terrcomm/ch04.htm

    #124566

    mcolome1
    Participant

    That is not new. It is the same historical passage with different actors. It is not the romantic notion that peoples learn in the education system detached from the class struggle and the division of classess. It is a constitution anda  nation created for the benefits of the landowners and slave masters ( The so called electoral college is a vestige of that ) where all the poor peoples, the indian, the blacks, the Asian and many others human beings were left out. It is 200 years class dictatorship. The ones who do not know the real history, and have romantic views  are surprised. Whatever has been implemented inside, has also been implemented outside, and killing is  nothing new either

    #124567

    mcolome1
    Participant

    The problem is not the horseman, the problem is the horse. They can place a Cherokee, an Apache, a Sioux on top of the horse, and he or she will do the same job like all the others, and the color of the skin will not many difference either.The ruling class of the US does not care what the workers elect, as long as that individual and his group of bandits will defend their national and international interests

    #124568

    ALB
    Participant

    I think it is wring to call Trump a dictator or imagine that he could transform himself into one. The US constitution was based on that of Britain at the time but without the hereditary element. Thus the President is an elected King but he can't do anything he wants. His "executive orders" are the equivalent of the "royal prerogative", now exercised in Britain by the government, and just restricted by the Supreme Court decision on triggering Article 50. Trump is finding that the courts in the US can also review his exercise of George III's royal prerogative. The US is not a dictatorship and Trump is not a dictator, just an arrogant jumped up businessman who has managed to get himself elected President and who will come unstuck if he carries on in the way he now is, e,g criticising federal judges.

    #124569

    mcolome1
    Participant

    It is a class dictatorship like the one that exist in any country, it is not the dictatorship of one individual, the only difference is that the same ruling class can overthrow the president by a legal decree, or they can execute him like it was done with Kennedy. Discrimination against others national and ethnical group is nothing new. Italian, Irish, Polish and German were discriminated too, and they are Europeans

    #124570

    mcolome1
    Participant

    Kautsky is talking about class dictatorship

    #124571

    mcolome1
    Participant

    Dictatorship meant government

    #124572

    mcolome1
    Participant
    ALB wrote:
    I think it is wring to call Trump a dictator or imagine that he could transform himself into one. The US constitution was based on that of Britain at the time but without the hereditary element. Thus the President is an elected King but he can't do anything he wants. His "executive orders" are the equivalent of the "royal prerogative", now exercised in Britain by the government, and just restricted by the Supreme Court decision on triggering Article 50. Trump is finding that the courts in the US can also review his exercise of George III's royal prerogative. The US is not a dictatorship and Trump is not a dictator, just an arrogant jumped up businessman who has managed to get himself elected President and who will come unstuck if he carries on in the way he now is, e,g criticising federal judges.

    Richard. Nixon was more popular than Trump and he was impeached and Clinton was close to an impeachment. Trump is the. CEO of large corportation known as the US government

    #124573

    hallblithe
    Participant

    From the Dhaka Tribune:In a series of tweets that broadened his attack on the country’s judiciary Sunday, Trump said Americans should blame US District Judge James Robart and the court system if anything happened.   In reply to the Trump’s tweet, the Socialist Party of Great Britain tweeted: “@realDonaldTrump Be honest. You don’t want to be a President. You want to be a dictator where judges, the media, FBI etc must all obey you:http://bit.ly/2kH51js

    #124574

    mcolome1
    Participant
    hallblithe wrote:
    From the Dhaka Tribune:In a series of tweets that broadened his attack on the country’s judiciary Sunday, Trump said Americans should blame US District Judge James Robart and the court system if anything happened.   In reply to the Trump’s tweet, the Socialist Party of Great Britain tweeted: “@realDonaldTrump Be honest. You don’t want to be a President. You want to be a dictator where judges, the media, FBI etc must all obey you:http://bit.ly/2kH51js

    A palace coup 

    #124575

    Dave B
    Participant

    I think we may take a too narrow, strict, long term or general perspective on the ‘capitalist class’ ruling the state etc. And popular materialism or individuals influencing historical development etc can have a place. There is a thesis that the Trump phenomena was a kind of accident. Some people say eg Michael Moore that Trump never intended to become president and he ran to raise his profile after the renewal for his TV apprentice contract was rejected because he wanted too much money.  And the Clintonesqe mainstream media establishment initially gave him a high profile for his republican nomination so that he would win that race making Hilary’s presidential victory a slam dunk. Like what could possibly go wrong with that plan!  [As is quite well known now the idea of Trump being president was first mentioned in the ‘Simpson’s’.]  It is quite possible as a pure narcissists he may wish to follow a political line at odds with the establishment and they may have problems bringing him under their control. They might have to have him assassinated or impeached. For sometime the US in international ‘politics’ has been operating a economic system based on the Mafia model of protection and whack em if anyone steps out of line. And I think that has led to the military industrial complex etc with its associated industries and profits along with the paraphernalia of the CIA and NSA which is an enormous part of the US economy. And forms what some people call the ‘deep state’ with its own interests and obvious potential influence.  Thus from Hilferding? The faithful believe only in heaven and hell as determining forces; the Marxist sectarian only in capitalism and socialism, in classes – bourgeoisie and proletariat. The Marxist sectarian cannot grasp the idea that present-day state power, having achieved independence, is unfolding its enormous strength according to its own laws, subjecting social forces and compelling them to serve its ends for a short or long period of time. Therefore neither the Russian nor the totalitarian system in general is determined by the character of the economy. On the contrary, it is the economy that is determined by the policy of the ruling power and subjected to the aims and purposes of this power. The totalitarian power lives by the economy, but not for the economy or even for the class ruling the economy – as is the case of the bourgeois state, though the latter (as any student of foreign policy can demonstrate) may occasionally pursue aims of its own. An analogy to the totalitarian state may be found in the era of the late Roman Empire, in the regime of the Praetorians and their emperors. ….for to us socialism is indissolubly linked to democracy. According to our concept, socialization of the means of production implies freeing the economy from the rule of one class and vesting it in society as a whole-a society which is democratically self-governed. We never imagined that the political form of that "managed economy" which was to replace capitalist production for a free market could he unrestricted absolutism. The correlation between the economic basis and the political structure seemed to us a very definite one: namely, that the socialist society would inaugurate the highest realization of democracy. Even those among us who believed that the strictest application of centralized power would be necessary or inevitable for the period of transition, considered this period only temporary and bound to end after the suppression of the propertied classes. Together with the disappearance of classes, class rule was also to vanish – that class rule which we considered the only possible form of political rule in general. "The state is withering away …"  But history, this "best of all Marxists," has taught us differently. It has taught us that "administering of things," despite Engels' expectations, may turn into unlimited "administering of people," and thus not only lead to the emancipation of the state from the economy but even to the subjection of the economy to the state.Once subjected to the state, the economy secures the continued existence of this form of government. The fact that such a result flows from a unique situation primarily brought about by war does not exclude a Marxist analysis, but it alters somewhat our rather simplified and schematic conception of the correlation between economy and state and between economy and politics which developed in a completely different period. The emergence of the state as an independent power greatly complicates the economic characterization of a society in which politics (i.e. the state) plays a determining and decisive role.  https://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1940/statecapitalism.htm That was in fact originally published in 1940 in the Menshevik Journal the socialist Courier – I have let them know.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.