all of it apparently : memes

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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 in practice, as you've definitely experienced), but the general concept described by "dictatorship of the proletariat" is democracy.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world -5 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] fermionsnotbosons@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

That's what makes it a fun meme!

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

obligatory quote from This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong

[–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thanks for sharing comrade

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

O7

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

.epub version of This Soviet World.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The end goal, where you dissolve the state, and thus the dictatorship.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It sounds like anarchist and communists should be allies.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

From what I have read, it seems communism is the journey and anarchism is basically the destination with a few institutions intact. I'd rather take that road and whatevwr fights that may bring than what I currently see as our future.

Edit: because I don't believe the public on average, especially in the west, is ready for any kind of anarchism. They couldn't handle it. It would be ruined by the same forces currently destroying the world order. We need to join with the communists to defeat it. Whatever consequences come of that are better tha nation state fiefdoms run by billionaire psycopaths and sycophants.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 0 points 5 days ago

Yeah that is one way of seeing it, but I am from an ex socialist county and the idea of communism can also be easily abused and co-opted.

As long as there are power structures be it the market or the state. The people cannot be free.

And I also believe you cannot free other people they must free themselves. If you forcefully free someone you are just imposing new rules.

[–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Right on

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

AKA communism?

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If we agreed the market can't self regulate, why would the state be able to?

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well it is a representative democracy in most cases

It isn’t, and it never was.

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Dang I never thought the bbc would admit that.

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There is no such thing as a representive democracy in capitalism. Power is not spread equally amungst each voter, your power is based off how much wealth you have. The rich class own corporate media and can shape peoples views and opinions to be comfortable with their rule. Political parties are completely reliant on funding from the rich to drive there campaigns, elected candiates are always approved by the rich class.

The market does not represent the interests of the people. Capitalism results in unregulated monopolies or price fixing that cause companies to extract significantly more wealth from people than what is reasonable.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

The an all powerful party would? How?

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

If by all powerful party you mean socialism then this is not correct.

No sane person should expect a single party with absolute rule to represent the people properly, which is exactly why current socialist states don't do this. Socialist states utilise policies that ensure the working class maintain power over the govenment. And the state must own the majority of companies instead of the capitalist class to ensure the capitalist class doesn't have power over the state.

Edit: Oh literally the meme states "dictatorship of the proletariat" and here I am explaining dictatorship of the proletariat. Do you understand what it means?

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago

There is so much wrong with such a short comment it's genuinely quite impressive.

You should read:

Lenin’s What Is To Be Done?, The State and Revolution, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder

Stalin’s Foundations of Leninism, The Role of the Communist Party in the Proletarian Revolution

Chairman Mao's On Practice and On Contradiction, Serve the People, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, Combat Liberalism, Oppose Book Worship and 红宝书 (especially chapter 1).

You can also look at modern China and how nearly a billion people were lifted from abject poverty. How the party has over 80% support. How infrastructure and the people are invested in without the need to wring them for profit. The party is neither all powerful nor perfect it is simply the tool through which the people wield their power.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

states and markets are entirely different things,

They are both power structures.

erasing the basis of class struggle and therefore the oppressive elements of government that make up the state.

IMO you will just create new class (the party) vs the workers. Why would the ruling class relinquish the power that they have?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Markets and states are entirely different things, it looks like you're identifying a partial overlap and using that to ignore that they are extremely diffrrent. Socialist states can be checked because the working class controls it, we see this in socialist states today.

Further, the communist party is not a class, it's the organized segment of the working classes. Administration isn't a class, either. The proletariat as a ruling class wishes not to perpetuate its existence as a class, but to abolish it by collectivizing all of production and distribution.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I hope you are right

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Is there a part you disagree with, or are unsure of?

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I have and also I am from a country with famously failed socialist experiment.

The part that I am most unsure of is the concentration of power within a small group of people. Yes they will be elected but elections can be rigged.

That concentration of power means the system is ripe for abuse. Maybe not in the beginning when the leaders are versed in Marxism or whatever socialism they believe in. But eventually this power going to someone with selfish intentions will not be good.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Ok. So capitalism observably doesn't work. And you have decided a proletarian state is impossible. So what is your solution? Is organising futile? Do we just wait for a magic spark of simultaneous global revolution? Do we wait for the world to end? Is it all just futile and we kill ourselves now?

You are very invested in idealist "human nature" metaphysics for someone who allegedly studied Marxism.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think anarchism is a cool idea.

Also I haven't studied Marxism.

And a lot of the arguments I raise here are implemetational, so there is a very big difference from a socialist country to a socialist country.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Cowbee "have you studied marxism"

You "I have"

???

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I have read a few books on it, take that as you like.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ok so you haven't. You should. Also it's a bad habit to lie to act like you know more than you do.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's a bad habit to act like a dick as well but it doesn't seem to stop you?

If you have some disagreement with what I am saying you can point it out. If you want to just nitpicking around my comments go for it, but there is no way to positively engaged with that.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago

I have been neutral at worst. Why should I go out of my way to grovel be extra nice to you who has done nothing but spout off arrogantly about things you clearly don't understand. Also I have pointed out issues and even recommended some reading across my other comments. Grow up.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The potential for corruption exists in all organizations, vut that doesn't mean you cannot account for this. Socialism, by necessity, has more distributed power than capitalism due to the working classes controlling the state.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Socialism, by necessity, has more distributed power than capitalism

I assume here you mean that this is because the party must fulfill the demands of the citizens and not only of the capitalists.

But if we go back to the beginning I am arguing that in case of thus structured power structures the party and the capitalists are one. So they can use the same ticks that capitalists use now to manipulate the public and answer only to themselves.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

No, I'm saying that socialism requires worker participation in running the economy because that's what happems when you have a publicly run economy. The party cannot be considered the same as capitalists, because this is an entirely different economic structure. Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance helps explain how democracy works within socialism.

You're again looking at particular similarities, ie capitalists have power in capitalism and the communist party has some degree of power in socialism, while ignoring the economic foundations that each relies on and their innumerable qualitative differences. The communist party cannot "use the same ticks that capitalists use now to manipulate the public and answer only to themselves," because socialism and capitalism are entirely different modes of production. You haven't explained how, just equated both by virtue of having some degree of authority.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago

The PRC was founded and has been led by the CPC for over 70 years. Why hasn't it become just as bad as the capitalists? Why does anti corruption still reach the highest rungs of power?

It's almost like a socialist state led by a communist party is qualitatively different to a capitalist one under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[–] finickydesert_1@social.vivaldi.net 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Oh god, a repeat of the later half of the Spanish Civil War.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That makes no sense. Living conditions while losing a civil war are hardly indicative of what planned economies are capable of.

[–] finickydesert_1@social.vivaldi.net 5 points 1 week ago

I was referring to the communists and anarchists working together at first then breaking apart

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

What a cursed set of flags

Memes

Rules: