/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

In the Roman republic, they had an executive position of dictator for emergencies, which then transitioned back into oligarchy in times of peace. The role of an absolute leader has its place, but its permanence is unnecessary, the same way it is best to leave people to rule themselves where it can be afforded.

>>2796067
> is best to leave people to rule themselves where it can be afforded
why

>>2796060
Yes you're an ultras son

>>2796070
Because it is inconsequential at worst and positively serving power at best, since if people appreciate the liberty afforded to them, you maintain legitimacy in government. The intervention of the state into people's lives is always a necessary evil, not a good in itself.

>>2796067
"people" can't rule themselves under class warfare,which is the basis of any class society

>ideology about abolishing the power of the ruling class of a few
>lets just establish a new ruling class but instead of a few its a single guy

stop trying to constantly reestablish class relations everytime you have a revolution, empower the soviets! Not the man

Communism negates bourgeois civilization with its class dictatorships of all flavors (democracy, autocracy, etc)

So no

>>2796075
>it is inconsequential at worst and positively serving power at best
but you're just replying with unfounded truism
you're ignoring any negativity that could come with self governance
>since if people appreciate the liberty afforded to them, you maintain legitimacy in government
this again isn't true, there have historically been governments maintain "legitimacy" despite lacking a democratic underpinning
>The intervention of the state into people's lives is always a necessary evil
again this is just an unfounded truism, what makes it evil beyond the fact that you personally don't lke it?

>>2796096
relation to means of production is what defines a class not the power they wield.

>>2796102
what determines power in a society?

>Is there any room in Marxism for people who don't like democracy and would prefer a strong man leader type
No, because you have a preference. Material conditions will decide if democracy is needed to decide shit or what vibes the leader should have.
>in the vain of the USSR under Stalin, the DPRK or Mao's China?
All of those were democratic tho

>>2796105
cope

You've taken the liberal strawman of Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Mao, etc. all of whom were more democratic than you give credit, and said "yeah I want that". You're not a Marxist, you're a fascist. Go find a dom on grindr, instead of looking for your submissive satisfaction in "great man" theory.

>>2796111
>memespeak
Yeah hold on lemme mark my internet sub bingo card

>>2796110
>>2796113

>All of those were democratic tho
If you read the OP it is in comparision to the modern left's view of democracy which more or less favors a more direct form of democracy then what we see in Stalin, the DPRK or Mao

>>2796070
Having one guy be in charge of figuring out what is materially necessary rather than having everyone contribute to decision making is retarded unless there's an emergency. Some labor aristocrat "strongman" doesn't know what is needed in every professional field. You need meetings and for a consensus from a diverse range of perspective from informed peoples.

>>2796117
>Having one guy be in charge
this is a strawman, having a single leader on top do not mean he is the only one working in government

>>2796060
yes, a substantial chunk of leftists are like this.
however: you will not get along well with the democratic types, because you have a fundamentally different disposition to them. politics nowadays is mostly a personality test, and "wants a strong authority figure" is broadly negatively correlated with leftism, bar the aforementioned chunk who love their stalin figures.

>>2796070
lots of people making lots of little mistakes sums to almost-nothing when they control only their own affairs or a tiny number of other people's affairs, and in general lots of people can learn from those little mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes are happy accidents that spawn something good. one man making one minor mistake can cause gigantic fuckups when he controls everyone's affairs, and one man making moderately above-average decisions might still fall behind the many-mistakes model since he'll have less happy accidents.

the best illustration of the principle is found not in the horror-stories of anticommunist screeds or what-have-you, but in the united kingdom, where local councils have basically been hollowed out and nearly all decisions of any importance are made at the center. while these decisions are not literally centralized in one person, the principle is basically the same: governance in the UK is more centralized than in any other country in europe.
an example: the local authority in leeds wishes to build a tram. the people of leeds wish to have a tram. the central authority refuses to allow the leeds authority to borrow money, to raise money by taxation, to enter into some kind of public-private partnership scheme, or otherwise have the tram built except by using central treasury money. the treasury then also refuses to give leeds the money, because it hasn't demonstrated that this project is nationally important enough for the national treasury to spend money on. so even though it's been promised for literal decades, leeds is the largest city in europe without a mass transit system of any kind.

and every moment the treasury spends frustrating the people of leeds in their long-standing aspiration for a tram (which in any ordinary country they could fund and plan entirely locally) is time they can't dedicate to other, more pressing issues!
i would gladly bet the amount of time and money spent not building a tram in leeds in case it might be a bad idea is as much as it would've cost if leeds had just been allowed to build a tram 30 years ago.

>>2796118
what role do you envision for such a leader?
(and, to a lesser extent, how do you imagine others conceive of "democracy")
i appreciate it's a big ask but: relating it back to the question of how we built a tram in leeds (in a hypothetical socialist britain) might be illustrative.

>>2796060
i love when self important retards make these approval seeking threads
>garsh gee willickers aww shucks howdy fellers uwu i'm just a wittle smol bean hyuck hyuck hyuck, got any room for a marxist who hates minorities and women and wants an aryan daddy figure whose dick he can suck?????????

stop it. get help.

>>2796113
Not OP but see point here, dictatorships are necessary for development, they give the strong foundation for the state and from then socailism can be achieved

>>2796257
you have 5 seconds to explain the difference between class dictatorship and individual dictatorship

>>2796060
read these images in order and then sit in the corner with a dunce cap on and think for a while.

>>2796060

One of the major variants of Russian Marxism is called Marxist-Leninism and in contemporary western contexts is usually ordered around 'democratic centralism' which essentially means electing a committee, who then amongst themselves elect a leader who can do what they like because they were elected.

>>2796293
that's not what demcent means. demcent means the party committing uniformly to the strategy that won, even if it was controversial and barely won.

i.e. if a party votes 49.9% to 50.1% in favor of some measure, the side that "lost" the vote still has to commit to implementing the measure. As opposed to non-demcent systems where that 49.9% will try to sabotage or delay the measure.

>>2796060
Sadly your kind seem to be a majority here at leftypol.org. Let me ask you this: How can proletarian dictatorship exist without proles having any political power?

If they are funny

>>2796308
And how is that supposed to be enforced ? They can read people's mind in demcent government ?

>>2796070
Because control of one's own destiny is a fundamental human desire. Are you an alien?

>>2796308
>if a party votes 49.9% to 50.1% in favor of some measure, the side that "lost" the vote still has to commit to implementing the measure.


Yeah that sounds ridiculous. So basically if you've got two factions running for leadership positions, the one that gets 50.01% can effectively do what they want. Such a method alienates half the organisation and makes consensus subordinate to brute force majoritarianism.

No wonder Russian Marxism is so ineffective in the west

>>2796338

even most of the Stalinist states agree with you on this, they didnt pick strong men leadership, it picked them, thats the difference.

>Is there any room in Marxism for people who don't like democracy and would prefer a strong man leader type in the vain of the USSR under Stalin, the DPRK or Mao's China?
>Even though we have successful examples of this the modern left seems obsessed with "our democracy"

You're too much of a dumbass, sorry. gtfo:
>>>/reddit.com/r/yankeesuburbanlife/
>>>/reddit.com/r/thedeprogram/