Literately Marx himself called for a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Which would then somehow magically give way to a true democratic government, as if any dictator on earth had ever just resigned out of their own accord.
If you are familiar with the Paris Commune of 1871, you’d know what was meant by that term, according to Engels.
It is not a call to install ‘a’ dictator to usher in a new socialist world. It is the act of overthrowing the ‘dictatorship of capital.’ The character of the people should be radically democratic, and aim to put all social institutions in the collective hands of everyone who is affected by them. The only magic going on here is the mystification of what has been plainly laid out over the past two centuries, and attempted by numerous cultures across the globe, with varying degrees of success, in no small part due to people who knew what it means to take power away from self-interested tyrants.
You didn’t even spell it right lol, it’s literally the entire name of the linked article, and Wikipedia isn’t a source or a reliable aggregator of sources for anything remotely controversial
Dictatorship of the proletariat literally just means that the state represents the proletariats interests, rather than the bourgeois’ interests (like democracy in the west).
Democracy was supposed to do that. What would prevent a communist state from being usurped by capitalist interests (since capitalists are the ones who pay their bills)?
I mean in the current dictatorships, where it’s a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by Marxist terms, it is usually one dictator and the setup is fairly hierarchical.
Literately Marx himself called for a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Which would then somehow magically give way to a true democratic government, as if any dictator on earth had ever just resigned out of their own accord.
If you are familiar with the Paris Commune of 1871, you’d know what was meant by that term, according to Engels.
It is not a call to install ‘a’ dictator to usher in a new socialist world. It is the act of overthrowing the ‘dictatorship of capital.’ The character of the people should be radically democratic, and aim to put all social institutions in the collective hands of everyone who is affected by them. The only magic going on here is the mystification of what has been plainly laid out over the past two centuries, and attempted by numerous cultures across the globe, with varying degrees of success, in no small part due to people who knew what it means to take power away from self-interested tyrants.
“Varying degrees of success” is a great euphemism for “more people killed than several holocausts”
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
The Holodemor alone killed almost as many people as the Holocaust, and that’s just one item in a very long list of communist “whoopsies”.
You didn’t even spell it right lol, it’s literally the entire name of the linked article, and Wikipedia isn’t a source or a reliable aggregator of sources for anything remotely controversial
I’m sorry, I didn’t spell the name of your favorite genocide right, that means it didn’t happen!
Dictatorship of the proletariat literally just means that the state represents the proletariats interests, rather than the bourgeois’ interests (like democracy in the west).
Democracy was supposed to do that. What would prevent a communist state from being usurped by capitalist interests (since capitalists are the ones who pay their bills)?
Who is the proletariat?
The people specifically the working class
I mean in the current dictatorships, where it’s a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by Marxist terms, it is usually one dictator and the setup is fairly hierarchical.
Why is it called a dictatorship then?