The 1 word essence of the political right?

[HoreTore]

Tiaexz, could you please point out where Marx argued in favour of "progression through democracy"?

[Beskar]

Tiaexz, could you please point out where Marx argued in favour of "progression through democracy"?

That is what is meant via "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". It means that the working class (through advantage of numbers) controls the political system. In essence, democracy.

To quote the ever reliable wikipedia:

In Marxist socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power.[1][2][3] The term, coined by Joseph Weydemeyer, was adopted by the founders of Marxism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in the 19th century. The use of the term "dictatorship" does not refer to the Classical Roman concept of the dictatura (the governance of a state by a small group with no democratic process), but instead to the Marxist concept of dictatorship (that an entire societal class holds political and economic control, within a democratic system

[HoreTore]

I think you need to read some actual Marx, at least if you want to use Marx in your arguments against Rhy...

Edit: to expand on that:

In the manifest, Marx&Engels starts by going through world history, dividing the era's into different "dictatorships of the X". When written, the current period was "the dictatorship of the burgeoise", ie. democracy(a very fitting description of the the democracy of the day). Their goal was to replace it with the dictatorship of the proletariat(through revolution of the masses).

But how exactly will this dictatorship come into being, and what will it look like? Marx doesn't say, he dies before he gets to that. That's why we commies call ourselves "Marxist-Leninists"; Marx created the goal, Lenin created the way to reach it.

Was Marx a fair and liberal-minded fellow? Definitely not. Those who opposed deserved death, whether that was anarchist traitors or whole eastern european peoples. That's a sign of totalitarianism, not democratic leanings.

[HopAlongBunny]

Hmm, I'm a little confused here.

While I understand that Marx had no qualms about revolution and violence where necessary, he was opposed to the use of terror. Where revolution was the expression of a social will, terror was the imposition of a will on society.

Totalitarianism has no qualms about terror as a method.

[HoreTore]

Hmm, I'm a little confused here.

While I understand that Marx had no qualms about revolution and violence where necessary, he was opposed to the use of terror. Where revolution was the expression of a social will, terror was the imposition of a will on society.

Totalitarianism has no qualms about terror as a method.

He opposed the terror tactics of the russian revolutionaries of the time, yes(like Bakhunin, for example). But not because it was willful killing, but because it was counterproductive. The masses needed to be rallied, then one could use violence.

Lenin was a die-hard totalitarian who had zero qualms about killing anyone and everyone who disagreed, but he too opposed the terror tactics. Stalin isn't my strongest point, but I believe he only believed in terror as a way to gain funds for the party(through postal robberies). But don't quote me on that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Without multiquoting, I'll try and address your points.

1. If you want to go by the standard and not particularly helpful authoritarian-libertarian spectrum, the moderate left is generally more authoritarian than the moderate right, while both extremes are notably authoritarian.
2. Again, regardless of the actual results of lowering tax rates, the moderate Right believe that doing so increases individual economic freedom, that is their ideal.
3. Imperialism is by no means a logical conclusion of sovereignty, nor is their a historical basis for such a claim.
4. Racism is extremely marginalised today, and while is might have some sort of influence on the far, far-right, it also has links with the left due to the left's identification with the Palestinian cause (not that anti-semetism is in any way a natural conclusion of anti-Zionism - some people are just silly - see for example George Galloway walking out of a debate upon hearing that his opponent was an Israeli - this is outright racism).
5. Your categorization of extremists eg Al-Qaeda as right wing is incorrect, since a) it is based upon your false presumption that the Right is inherently authoritarian and b) Islamism is an entirely different ideology from Western left-right issues.

And as for your 3 scales of the various types of power, they are ridiculous.

For example with the first one, you begin with three levels describing the level at which representation takes place, then suddenly jump to "unequal powersharing"?! You go from fair with the first three, to entirely unfair. It makes no sense as a progressive scale.

As for the second, apart from presuming the free market is unfair (I agree it is but you can't make such a presumption an axis for debate when only one side agrees with it) can't really set the framework for a left-right debate for obvious reasons, it is bizarre because I presumure your idea of a "fair market" is really a "biased market", and yet the free market stands between them on your scale.

And as for the third, any leftist knows that social power is merely a reflection of economic realities, hence is should note require a separate scale.

[Idaho]

The more interesting, and more voluminous of Marxist writings is about the nature of power and politics and the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The communist future stuff is overplayed.