Source https://lemmy.zip/post/72029200/29026430

Join the lemmy.ml boycott today and help foster a better Lemmy-verse! No more posts, comments (except to counter their propaganda ofc!) or upvotes on any comms on the Lemmy.ml instance! To make this easy you can do an instance block at Settings > Block Tab > Scroll to bottom > Input “lemmy.ml” and apply

And consider donating to individual instances instead.

Check the megathread for more!

  • CommunistEnglish
    211·
    2 days ago

    Dictatorship of the bourgeois doesn’t mean the same thing as just a dictatorship. Marx when he invented the terms dictatorship of the proletariat was referring to which class get what they want out of the government, not referring to a totalitarian single ruler control.

    By the Marxist definition every western country is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

    even overwhelmingly large pro-change majorities, with 80 percent of the public favoring a policy change, got that change only about 43 percent of the time.

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

    this is the case in america, I don’t know of a similar study done by taiwan, but it’s likely the case there as well.

      • CommunistEnglish
        3·
        7 hours ago

        Yes, that’s the purpose of it, marx was talking about the structure of the entire world, vs potential future structures, during his time there was only feudalism and dictatorships of the bourgeois, he was imagining potential alternatives in the future.

    • TanteRegenbogen@feddit.orgMEnglish
      82·
      2 days ago

      I didn’t assume it meant a single ruler system though. Also by Marxist definition, at least according to MLs single party dictatorships that concentrate power in a ruling elite while giving workers shitty employment conditions are supposedly dictatorships of the proletariat when they are far from it.

      And my point is that MLs spout a lot of BS about countries that often have better conditions for workers than supposed socialist states. It especially goes for comparing a modern, hybrid system state or a welfare capitalist state to China or North Korea.

      • CommunistEnglish
        3·
        23 hours ago

        Also by Marxist definition, at least according to MLs single party dictatorships that concentrate power in a ruling elite while giving workers shitty employment conditions are supposedly dictatorships of the proletariat when they are far from it.

        they disagree that it’s the states giving them shitty employment conditions, and disagree that power is being concentrated in a ruling elite, you’d just have to demonstrate these two things to them.

        And my point is that MLs spout a lot of BS about countries that often have better conditions for workers than supposed socialist states.

        they believe this is because the material conditions allowed for those advances and didn’t allow for them in socialist states for various reasons outside of state control, ex: the embargo on cuba.

        • TanteRegenbogen@feddit.orgMEnglish
          2·
          16 hours ago

          Which doesn’t make sense since material conditions aren’t an excuse to not give workers rights. Like Yugoslavia wasn’t necessarily wealthy when they gave their workers control over their own workplaces.

          • CommunistEnglish
            1·
            7 hours ago

            So, next time you make this argument, if you want to have an actual dialog, specify which working conditions should be granted to the people, show that they are not, purely because of the political system and then you’ll have an argument!

            I think to this they would say yugoslavia is not exactly a great example, that system failed rather dramatically.