Notably, the dictatorship of the proletariat isn’t meant to be an actual dictatorship. Marx saw feudalism as the dictatorship of the aristocracy, capitalism as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, so by analogy socialism (or the prelude to it, at least) would be the dictatorship of the proletariat—rule by the people for the people. It’s not meant to be a dictatorship in the way we use that term today.
It’s amazing that so many people who claim to be socialists miss that despite Marx stating it pretty clearly in one of his shortest and most accessible (and widely read) works.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
True, but it prescribes rule by one party (the party of the proletariat) alone. In any possible practice this rule can only be held by a party that claims to represent the proletariat, a claim that may or may not be true at any given time.
Well, not quite - we don’t consider it a dictatorship because the proletariat is the largest class by population, but we would recognize it as such if the proletariat were the minority (e.g. in some kind of near-future highly-but-not-fully automated society.)
Notably, the dictatorship of the proletariat isn’t meant to be an actual dictatorship. Marx saw feudalism as the dictatorship of the aristocracy, capitalism as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, so by analogy socialism (or the prelude to it, at least) would be the dictatorship of the proletariat—rule by the people for the people. It’s not meant to be a dictatorship in the way we use that term today.
They brag about all the theory they’ve read. Even as they expose how bad their reading comprehension is. And they think it’s a flex.
It’s amazing that so many people who claim to be socialists miss that despite Marx stating it pretty clearly in one of his shortest and most accessible (and widely read) works.
can we read that quote here?
knowing tankies some probably take that as destroying democracy
True, but it prescribes rule by one party (the party of the proletariat) alone. In any possible practice this rule can only be held by a party that claims to represent the proletariat, a claim that may or may not be true at any given time.
Well, not quite - we don’t consider it a dictatorship because the proletariat is the largest class by population, but we would recognize it as such if the proletariat were the minority (e.g. in some kind of near-future highly-but-not-fully automated society.)