3 ms·
> The court points out that the meaning of this concept “inevitably excludes other population groups from the political decision-making process and the indirect
by vidarh 1y ago
> The court points out that the meaning of this concept “inevitably excludes other population groups from the political decision-making process and the indirect exercise of state power,” stating, in other words, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is “undemocratic.”
There are plenty of reasons to argue that Marx might not be compatible with the principles of a capitalist/bourgeois state - he e.g. argued in his works on the Paris Commune that they should have gone further in smashing elements of the state.
But this is a wildly ahistorical, though not atypical, reading, and shows the judge might want to attend a reading grous, given that Marx also used the term "dictatorship of the bourgeoise" about capitalist electoral democracies.
This use doesn't make any sense if one reads the term the way the judge did.
- lostmsu 1y agoThe original statement applies to any parliament majority in a democracy. You win the election - until the next election everyone who lost is excluded. I don't understand the court's point or I do and it is just being very one-sided.
- vidarh 1y agoI'm sort-of not very surprised, given how often people misread this, including intentionally by people purporting to be Marxists, e.g. Leninists/Stalinists, but at the same time it's disappointing if this reporting is accurate. The only way I could see this ruling make sense, though is if the court was saying "this is a possible interpretation, but even if we interpret it this way it doesn't matter, because ..." It would be reasonable for the court to accept it is a reading but punt on deciding it if it's not going to change their final decision. But I haven't looked at the original ruling, and my German is weak enough I wouldn't hazard trying to tease out that distinction in a legal ruling.