Ok, temporary dictatorship, fine. But which mechanism ensures the temporary dictatorship doesn’t turn permanent?
Power corrupts, and if this two step process of achieving a socialist utopia fails and we gets stuck in a dictatorship after the first step, what is there to justify the bloodshed of the revolution?
You’re not understanding what is meant by dictatorship of a class. Right now in Europe, America and much of the rest of the world people live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Power having a mystical ability of corrupting is magical thinking not grounded in reality.
This doesn’t answer my question. If the dictatorship is supposed to be temporary, then how does it end?
Also, while I do agree that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is real and quite obviously exists (money=power), I don’t agree that such a thing as a ‘dictatorship of the proletatiat’ can even exist. The proletariat has the absolute majority in the population. So rule of the proletariat is just democracy.
What ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ means in practice, is that just like in capitalist societies, there is a ruling elite, just one claiming to act in the workers best interest.
There is no magical corrupting property to power, it’s just human nature. Having power is better than not having it, so naturally noone relinquishes it willingly. Power allows you to both act in the interest of the common good, and in your own interest. Realistically, powerful people do both things to some degree, so the longer power remains unchecked, the more it gets abused. And even if there was a truely selfless powerful person, the longer that person works in a government office, the more they tend to lose touch with the struggles of an ordinary worker.
The proletariat has the absolute majority in the population. So rule of the proletariat is just democracy.
And without even realising you get it and then somehow manage to have it bounce right off without it really entering your mind.
it’s just human nature
Magical thinking. Human nature isn’t real humans are shaped by their material reality.
It’s impressive how close you get to getting it in both cases but that it seemingly just bounced right off after you put it into words.
The dictatorship of the proletariat simply means that the proletariat is the ruling class of society in other words true democracy.
Power doesn’t corrupt it simply allows one to act in their interest and given that the majority of the world is that of the dictatorship of capital that interest tends to be aligned with the class interest of capital.
I guess either I am just cynical or you are naive, possibly both to an extend.
You believe that there are people that given unchecked power, will know what the common good is and without fail work for it, indefinitely.
I don’t believe that, which is why I think power must always be checked. Honestly, for that it doesn’t even matter if the power itself has corrupting properties.
Regarding human nature. There is plenty of research (for example with babies) that shows that some behaviour is learned while some we are born with.
You believe that there are people that given unchecked power, will know what the common good is and without fail work for it, indefinitely.
No I believe people generally work in their class interests.
I don’t believe that, which is why I think power must always be checked. Honestly, for that it doesn’t even matter if the power itself has corrupting properties.
Not really relevant but like yes representatives should be tied to their base through recall etc.
You still seem to think dictatorship of the proletariat is just giving a handful of people unchecked power which is simply not it at all hence why I quoted the part where you got it not the part where you completely skipped over it and went back to your misunderstanding.
Not a handful of people, but a ruling elite.
If it was democracy, that’s what we’d call it. But we are not talking about democracy. The post is quite explicit about the fact that after a socialist revolution and before ‘true democracy’ comes a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, which is different.
My grandparents were workers in the GDR. They were part of the proletariat, they didn’t have a say. That’s ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. A government run by ‘socialists’ with a higher standard of living than that of the general population.
If it was democracy, that’s what we’d call it. But we are not talking about democracy. The post is quite explicit about the fact that after a socialist revolution and before ‘true democracy’ comes a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, which is different.
This is your warped view not reality. Communists do not talk of class dictatorship as separate from democracy but the base upon which it is built. It answers the question of democracy for who. The dictatorship of the proletariat is essentially short hand for democracy for the masses, repression for the bourgeoisie. Just as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is democracy for the bourgeoisie and charades and repression for the masses.
My grandparents were workers in the GDR. They were part of the proletariat, they didn’t have a say. That’s ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. A government run by ‘socialists’ with a higher standard of living than that of the general population.
See this isn’t true just off the bat. But I don’t really want to relitigate that with you as it’s entirely irrelevant to the point at hand.
The fact is, you have a preconception of what certain words mean and it is stopping you from grasping what’s actually being said.
I could talk at length about my direct experience with the dictatorship of the proletariat in China and how the people’s voices and wishes are weaved in at every level from direct elections at town, city and county levels to the CPPCC, ACFTU, government hotline like 12345 and mandated representation for minorities etc. versus how the bourgeoisie are outright banned from people’s committee and congresses but it’s not at all relevant to the theoretical point at hand here that you repeatedly look directly in the eyes before casting aside to continue hammering on a strawman of your misconceptions.
It is natural for a liberal to speak of “democracy” in general; but a Marxist will never forget to ask: “for what class?” Everyone knows, for instance (and Kautsky the “historian” knows it too), that rebellions, or even strong ferment, among the slaves in ancient times at once revealed the fact that the ancient state was essentially a dictatorship of the slave owners. Did this dictatorship abolish democracy among, and for, the slaveowners? Everybody knows that it did not.
[…]
If we are not to mock at common sense and history, it is obvious that we cannot speak of “pure democracy” as long as different classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy. (Let us say in parenthesis that “pure democracy” is not only an ignorant phrase, revealing a lack of understanding both of the class struggle and of the nature of the state, but also a thrice-empty phrase, since in communist society democracy will wither away in the process of changing and becoming a habit, but will never be “pure” democracy.)
“Pure democracy” is the mendacious phrase of a liberal who wants to fool the workers. History knows of bourgeois democracy which takes the place of feudalism, and of proletarian democracy which takes the place of bourgeois democracy.
Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
democracy and dictatorship are antipodes, they define each other. as long as class society exists there can be no democracy for some that is not dictatorship for others. the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is very much a democracy for these minorities. the democracy of the proletariat is nothing but the dictatorship of the exploited majority over the exploiters. greek democracy in ancient times was a dictatorship for the serfs.
remember this is the communism community, and the rule is that non marxists should post/comment in good faith. i’m not saying you did something wrong, but you could ask with a bit more curiosity and a little less cynicism in order to better grasp these very basic concepts. those who do not know how to listen, neither can they speak.
the revolving door of politicians don’t matter as much as the forces behind it – we keep vacillating between the red and blue teams over here and it doesn’t change anything; only its people do.
