2 ms·
That's a twisting of terms, in the correct context, it's a temporary switch from a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, to the opposite. The te
by KozmoNau7 9y ago
That's a twisting of terms, in the correct context, it's a temporary switch from a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, to the opposite. The term dicatorship is only used because it retains the state, as it will not yet have withered away. Thus it does not meet the definition of communism.
But it is not the same as the common defition of a dicatorship, with oppression and selfish tyranny, which seems to be the association you want to make.
I loathe linking to Wikipedia, but the page in question does sum it up quite well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletar...
- dogma1138 9y agoAgain in practice how do we switch from A) to B), the truth is that you can’t and you won’t since any dictatorship will naturally always elect to preserve it’s power. The stateless version of your so called communism is essentially pure libertarianism the problem is that both are just as impossible and unlike the latter the former cannot coexist with the free market of ideas which is the natural state of a nationless/stateless society.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago>"the truth is that you can’t" Only defeatist quitters speak in such absolutes. Again, it is not a dictatorship in the commonly understood terminology, but rather a term that is used for a political system where one part has political power over the other under the existence of a state, because we don't really have a proper and precise term for it.
- dogma1138 9y agoHow do you call a system of government that by definition does not operate in a free market of ideas, respects individual freedom and property rights and consists of a monolithic political ideology? >"Only defeatist quitters speak in such absolutes." Can you have a system that does not conserve energy? No, there such things as absolutes. Communism besides being the mother of all bad ideas and the most vile ideology humanity has created is also deeply internally flawed and essentially ensures that it's final outcome can never be reached. And even if we take that final outcome as our starting point it has no mechanism to sustain itself once there is no government and now laws that dictate social behaviour anyone can do whatever they want and no one can stop them. So if at T+0 we have the withering of the state and perfect communism at T+1 nothing would stop me from taking control over whatever resource I want and saying well fuck you now you gotta pay.