Also to the liberals pearl clutching about “but we need democracy!” not realizing that’s what that quote means.
The proletariat is, pretty much by definition, the VAST majority of the people in a society, by far the largest group. The commoners like you and me, working in order to make a living.
Dictatorship can mean what you think it means in that context. Ruling a country by the will of some dictator.
If the proletariat is the dictator, it means ruling a country by the will of the vast majority of the people. That’s what democracy is. We can further discuss implementations of it and how well they work (hint: Western democracy works very poorly and is very undemocratic, as you’ve definitely experienced), but the general concept described by “dictatorship of the proletariat” is democracy.
The only thing that I feel is necessary to a society is voluntary participation. I just want to be able to leave freely and join something else. If there’s a dictatorship of the proletariat, and I happen to disagree with them, I want to be able to leave freely. That’s why small communities would be best for that sort of thing.
Can’t tell if this is meant as a jab at Anarchists or Communists.
The Anarchist doesn’t want there to be a centralized hierarchy since it gives people absolute power over their fellow men, so they’re asking like “what part of DICTATORSHIP do you not understand?”
The Communist is asking “what part of dictatorship of the PROLETARIAT do you not understand?” Because they think the society Anarchists want is a form of a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat.
That’s what makes it a fun meme!
The end goal, where you dissolve the state, and thus the dictatorship.
The state is a result of class struggle, so to end states once and for all you need to achieve classless society, eliminating the basis of the state. That means collectivizing all production and distribution globally, into one system. Once this is done, there are no classes in contention, and as such the oppressive elements of society used to keep the proletariat on top will gradually disappear and “wither,” being reduced in function and scope until only what’s necessary remains, like administration.
It sounds like anarchist and communists should be allies.
For the most part, yes there are even anarcho-communists. But at the same there is a big difference in the non-authoritarian view of the anarchists and some communists.
AKA communism?
If we agreed the market can’t self regulate, why would the state be able to?
The market cant self regulate because it doesnt represent the interests of the prolotariat. The state in a socialist society by definition is govened by the people.
Well it is a representative democracy in most cases, so in reality it is governed by people’s representatives. That is a big difference because the market also represents the interests of the people in the way of price setting and supply and demand. And we can see it is not working.
Well it is a representative democracy in most cases
It isn’t, and it never was.
Not sure I understand the point, states and markets are entirely different things, especially a state run by the working class whose goal is to collectivize all production and distribution, erasing the basis of class struggle and therefore the oppressive elements of government that make up the state.
Oh god, a repeat of the later half of the Spanish Civil War.
What a cursed set of flags
That makes no sense. Living conditions while losing a civil war are hardly indicative of what planned economies are capable of.
I was referring to the communists and anarchists working together at first then breaking apart
