All Hail the Democratic "Proletarian Dictatorship"!

[unmerged(134218)]

Proletarian Dictatorship
Voting Rights: None, Landed, Red, Universal Sufferage.

Banned reforms are shown in italics.

Source: http://www.paradoxian.org/vickywiki/index.php/Governments_and_How_to_Change_Them

According to VickyWiki, it is possible to have a Proletarian Dictatorship with Red Sufferage or Universal Sufferage. Since Vicky2 is going to resurrect the Proletarian Dictatorship, I have some questions for how Vicky1 handled it:

1) Is this true? Or did somebody vandalize VickyWiki?

2) What does "Red" mean?

3) Can you have a change in political parties under such a regime?

4) Is there any benieft for having a democratic Proletarian Dictatorship? Or is it just for fluff?

EDIT:
Also, the VickyWiki stated:

Monarchies, Proletarian Dictatorships and Presidential Dictatorships can become a Democracy with a Multi-Party System and Parliamentarism by having the Universal Sufferage, Free Parties and Public Meetings reforms. Freedom of the Press isn't required (and can be used to decrease the militancy of aristocrats, officers and clergy).

So, you have to ensure that you either have the right to ban parties, have the right to ban public meetings, or restrict suffrage...in order to have this democratic Proletarian Dictatorship.

 

[Orm]

Check your posting date there.

 

[unmerged(134218)]

Huh. The last major edit was in 15:54, 22 July 2006..while Ricky was released in August 2006. So, that wiki page is only for Vanilla Vicky? And in Ricky, this isn't the case? Is that what you're saying?

If that is true though, is a democratic Dictatorship only possible in Vicky? But this page states otherwise:

Presidential Dictatorship: As with Monarchies, there are two different versions of Presidential Dictatorships: those with multi-party or two-party systems and one-party systems. Presidential Dictatorships that come about through revolution or peaceful coups will generally start out as one-party systems. To become a two-party dictatorship, institute either Right to Ban or Free Parties. There is no way to become a one-party dictatorship if you are not one already, as you cannot institute None Allowed. Presidential Dictatorships can only become Democracies. To become a Democracy, institute Universal Suffrage, Public Meetings to Yes, and Free Parties. Your ruling party does not matter, just as it is with monarchy. Presidential Dictatorships cannot become Constitutional Monarchies.

Proletarian Dictatorship: Despite its name, this form of government functions exactly like a Presidential Dictatorship as far as your people are concerned. (It has a different effect on foreign relations, however.) Everything that applies to Presidential Dictatorships applies to Proletarian Dictatorships.

EDIT: Wait, you're referring to April's Fools? Uh. No. No, this edit has been on the Wiki for quite some time. The last real edit was back in Jan. 9 2009 to remove spam links.

 

[unmerged(131989)]

Uh... "Red". Supposed to be "Wealth". Amended as necessary.

I think the italics thing is supposed to mean 'this level or above'.

 

[Orm]

EDIT: Wait, you're referring to April's Fools? Uh. No. No, this edit has been on the Wiki for quite some time. The last real edit was back in Jan. 9 2009 to remove spam links.

My mistake. Didn't have time to look into it further.

 

[unmerged(134218)]

Alright, I heard from someone that it is possible to turn on voting in a Proletarian Dictatorship, however, if you have a one-party system, only that one party can be voted in.

So there is still democracy, of course. The Proletarian Dictatorship is in fact democratic. There's just one candidate to vote for, just all.

 

[Dyranum]

On a related note: Is there some easy way to get more commies in a proletarian dictatorships (so that there is no militancy increase (from con, or is it plurality too?), because of their bonus thing)

 

[gornard]

I think the only advantage to universal suffrage for a proletarian dictator ship is the prestige gain and the militancy drop.

 

[dwhawk119]

So there is a democracy, it's just a very....biased democracy. :rofl:

 

[gornard]

So there is a democracy, it's just a very....biased democracy. :rofl:

It's what is called 'democratic centralism'. You either don't vote at all and are 'democratically' represented vicariously by a government composed of your demographic or you vote for representatives locally albeit for a single party and possibly without competitors.

It's not real modern democracy, but throughout history communist states referred to themselves as democratic. What they were referring to was this kind of democracy as opposed to bourgeois democracy. Even north korea refers to itself as democratic for the same reasons (or excuses).

 

[pizza de oveja]

Dont mind that, just another casualty of liberal talk (in the anglosaxon meaning of the term).

We should get new dictionaries or something, they have corrupted the language so much that most words have lost their original meaning, and are quite bogus. But if you've read a pair of good history books about the XX Century you'll know what they mean by freedom, peace, democracy, the people...

Here in my country the leftists in the 30ies used to call Stalin the great pacifier and the soviet union the only country that had a true democracy.

Ennuf said

 

[gornard]

The word 'democracy' ment the same thing essentially whether it was in the occidental sense or the socialist sense. They were two differnt methods of achieving democracy as opposed to strictly two different interpretations of the word. The word liberal (refering to freedom and equality) also remained essentially same whether it is used in terms of classical liberalism or the more modern social liberalism. The differnce is in the associated implications, where as in the 19th century liberalism was sought by increasing political and economic rights, later on it was also associated with social equality, hence the modern inference of liberal. This is ancilliary to whether the interpretation is correct or not.

sorry for getting off topic

 

[unmerged(134218)]

So there is a democracy, it's just a very....biased democracy. :rofl:

To be fair, elections in a one-party democracy could go in one of two ways:
1) The party has selected candidates. You can choose to either Accept a candidate by voting for the candidate...or you could Reject the candidate by crossing his name out. In front of the military officers guarding the polling station.

The party's candidates win overwhelmingly.

2) The government hold competitive elections...but only people belonging to the Party can run in them. So, you could have lots of factions within the Party running against each other for public office...but since they all belong to the same Party, they all advocate exactly the same policies. So nothing changes.

Which one the Democratic "Proletarian Dictatorship" is...is left to your imagination.