A dictatorship of the proleteriat will never work because a system where the proleteriat has no say and doesnt choose their own leader will result in the government of a socialist country not actually being beholden to the proleteriat at all. And thus has no incentive to or even need to act in their interest.
Hmmm, how can we help?
The party is the class consciousness.
Everything in the Party, nothing outside the Party, nothing against the Party.
>>2665308sounds like a cult
(pic unrelated)
>>2665317The proleteriat literally voted to rid themselves of the communist party at the first opportunity because that is what 80 years of political repression will do. The communist party had robbed them of any right to choose their destiny and now they had the ability to rob the communist party of theirs most voted against the communist party out of spite and revenge.
A dictatorship of the proleteriat will never last because the proleteriat will rid themselves of it as soon as they get the opportunity.
>>2665360>the USSR was vooooted away>the right to voooote for your destinyWhat the hell is this liberal nonsense. The majority of people voted to keep the USSR intact and even after the collapse, under repression and heavy anti-communist propaganda, splinter communist parties remained extremely popular in almost every post-Soviet country (CPU, although heavily revisionist, was the largest party in Ukraine throughout the 90s for instance)
>>2665387>muh electoralism >muh legalismkys lib
The proletariat can lick my nuts
>>2665335>read my holy textnot at all what a cultist would say
You're conflating the dictatorship of the proletariat as a concept with an (incorrect) understanding of the problems of vanguardism. The the class character of a state has a lot less to do with its structural form than with the mode of production over which it presides. A military junta and a liberal republic are both in equal measure dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, despite the latter not being a literal autocracy. This is the case because they both oversee a mode of production in which the capitalists exploit the workers, and they exist to defend that relationship. Therefore even the most complete proletarian democracy would still be a dictatorship of the proletariat even without any autocratic or authoritarian tendencies whatsoever.
Genuine question: are you retarded?
>>2665399MLs are pro eleKKKtions. That's why they keep citing muh voooting results muh polls muh illegal dissolution muh direct popular democracy that's definitely not liberalism
You're thinking of ultras who don't run in order to lose
>>2665387>The majority of people voted to keep the USSR intact and even after the collapseAnd then after the communist failed coup against the government people then changed their mind and voted for independence and then didnt vote the communists in charge in any republic.
All because communists are terrified of actually allowing the proleteriat to have any real power.
>>2665419>And then after the communist failed coup against the governmentThis never happened. Are you the OP? Why do you have such trouble with basic concepts and history? Head injury?
The "August Coup" was carried out by Gorbachev's cronies in the government to try and save the USSR from the nationalists. But Gorbachev pussied out when his friend George disapproved.
>>2665441It was really the alignment of Yeltsin's faction with the mafias that saved it. But they probably got that idea from the Americans who'd long used the mafia as an anti-communist bulwark.
Doesn't know what dictatorship of the proletariat means award
Not familiar with basic marxist terminology award
Afraid of scary word award
What marxists fail to explain is
1. If workers are in control of the means of production, why do they need a centralized state?
2. Why are Marxists in power immune to corruption? Lenin himself took power and destroyed any semblance of communism.
>>2665498>1. If workers are in control of the means of production, why do they need a centralized state? Anon do you have the slightest idea of how economies work?
>>2665539Are you implying a state is necessary for a socialist economy to work? Hard pass
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the Dictatorship of the Program, only opportunists believe otherwise.
>>2665311It's irony, it's adapted from a famous ᴉuᴉlossnW quote
>>2665399Elections are based purely on who has the best optics and popularity which often has nothing to do with how good they are at ruling. It's how a former TV star who managed to fail at owning casinos became president of the United States, or how a former comedian became the wartime leader of Ukraine. And if it's not that, it's career politicians, who are no better. All they know is how to get votes, not how to actually improve the country.
And yes, it is in fact the proletariat who are wrong - who do you think elected Trump? The 80IQ barely-literate American rednecks who, YES, must have their voting power stripped from them for their own good. Democracy being demagoguery was observed since the very first democracy in Athens. But in the modern age with TV, internet and social media, where the winner of elections depends on which side's wealthy backers can flood the noosphere with more propaganda, democracy has become even worse - a plutocratic oligarchy which is never held accountable due to a dozen layers of separation from the consequences of their actions through the "democratic" system and plausible deniability for all of their behind-the-scenes actions.
TLDR, democracy is fake and gay and gets brutally mogged by CPC meritocracy. The only democracy that achieved something like what the CPC achieved without huge foreign support is Singapore and that was a de facto dictatorship with Lee Kuan Yew playing Sim City.
>>2665583The practical result of anarchy, depending on how developed the area in which it is established, is either warlordism or unchecked mafias/corporations(would be the same thing at that point).
>>2666666
tomorrow i will remind them
>>2665498A centralized state doesn't necessarily mean an autocratic state. You can have a central government with recallable representatives chosen by sortition, and multiple levels of federal autonomy. I agree with your second point though. If we can learn anything from the Cultural Revolution it's that the party itself has a high probability to stand against the workers in practice if they try to perform a social revolution to transition from dotp to socialism on their own terms.
>>2665969And no socialist was there. Such a pity. All carrerists.
>>2665360exactly the opposite dummy, the people voted to keep the Soviet Union going, but the ones at the top had other plans, getting themselves rich and letting the vultures take everything
>>2665300works fine in China
>>2666308>workers voted for gorby and social democracy No wonder there is no revolution
There was no party in USSR.
>>2666330Lenin was a marxist, stupid.
>>2666326I guarantee you that libs would never believe those margins in literally any other context. It's the butt of jokes when some third world autocratic says they've been reelected with 99% of the vote. Now suddenly it's totally believable?
>>2666339A “self proclaimed” marxist, sure. Certainly no communist.
>>2666346A bold take to be sure, even the leftiest of the ultras like Lenin, hell even anarchists respect Lenin to a large extent even if they find him authoritarian.
>>2665300no offense but this is a trivial mistake. 'dictatorship of the proletariat' does not refer to 'a dictatorship, but in the interests of the working class' - in fact the USSR was a representative democracy. instead, 'dictatorship of the proletariat' refers to a 'class dictatorship', not the form of government in which there is a single individual ruler. under bourgeois, capitalist democracy, our governments are a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie', or in other words our government is dominated by the class interest of Capitalists, the economic class which owns the means of production (factory, social media platforms, etc.). Communists propose to invert this class dynamic and create a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which is a government in which the class interests of the Proletariat or workers are dominant. This almost always takes the form of a representative democracy managed by a Communist Party which ideally prevents the Bourgeoisie from re-capturing governance.
>>2666330>>2666346>Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.
>This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier.<Manifesto of the Communist Party
>After the defeat of the European revolution in 1849, socialism was reduced in Germany to a secret existence. It was not until 1862 that Lassalle, a fellow student of Marx, again raised the socialist banner. But it was no longer the bold socialism of the Manifesto; what Lassalle demanded in the interest of the working class was cooperative production assisted by state credit; a reproduction of the programme of the Parisian workers affiliated before 1848 to the National of Marrast, of the programme proposed by the pure republicans, as the alternative to Louis Blanc’s Organisation of Labour. Lassallean socialism was, as we can see, very moderate. Nevertheless, its appearance on the scene marks the starting point of the second phase of socialism in Germany; for Lassalle’s talent, spirit and indomitable energy succeeded in creating a workers’ movement to which everything that had roused the German proletariat over the last ten years was attached by links positive or negative, amicable or hostile.
>Could, then, pure Lassalleanism on its own fulfil the socialist aspirations of the nation that had produced the Manifesto? It proved impossible. Therefore, thanks mainly to the efforts of Liebknecht and Bebel, a workers’ party was soon formed which loudly proclaimed the principles of 1848. Then, in 1867, three years after the death of Lassalle, Marx’s Capital appeared. The decline of Lassalleanism as such dates from this day. Increasingly the theories of Capital became the common property of all the German socialists, Lassalleans and others. More than once entire groups of Lassalleans went over en masse, drums beating and banners flying, to Bebel’s and Liebknecht’s new party, called the Eisenach party. As this party continued to grow in strength, there was soon all-out hostility between the Lassalleans and their rivals; they fought with cudgels precisely at the moment when there was no longer any real difference between the combatants, when the principles, arguments, and even the methods of the struggle of one side were in all essentials identical with those of the other.
>At this point the presence in the Reichstag of deputies from the two socialist factions imposed on them the necessity of joint action. When confronted with bourgeois deputies, the ridiculous nature of this traditional hostility was obvious. The situation became intolerable. Then in 1875 the two factions merged. Since then the brother-enemies have continued to form a family united in harmony. If there was the slightest chance of a split, Bismarck himself undertook to eliminate it when, in 1878, he placed German socialism beyond the pale of the law with his notorious exceptional law. The hammer blows of shared persecution completed the work of forging Lassalleans and Eisenachers into a homogeneous mass. Today, whilst the socialist party publishes an official edition of Lassalle’s works, it is removing from its programme, with the aid of the former Lassalleans, the last remaining traces of Lassalleanism as such.<Socialism in Germany The party is class consciousness. Lenin was a communist while you're a utopian socialist at best.
>>2666377>quotes his scriptureCommunism is a religion
>>2666377>This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party>the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness
Tsk tsk tsk.
>LassalleYour point being?
>>2666393Refer to Marx and Engels dunking on your libshit utopian spontaneity
>>2666377>LassalleYes, your theorist.
>>2666405>Refer to Marx and Engels dunking on your libshit utopian spontaneityWhat do you think I just did?
>Yes, your theoristYour explanation? Your point?
>>2666412I accept your concession
>>2666417Not a coherent statement
Reddit tier thread
Kys my man
>>2666388Marxists dont want to accept that the only way a DOTP can work is by organizing horizontally, just like anarchism. They want to believe in a "vanguard party" because that's how they feel like supreme leaders
>proleteriat has no say and doesnt choose their own leader This never happens anywhere because the pleb is retarded and cannot vote in their own interest. "elect your own dictator" never worked and probably never will. Have you noticed how the only time "they have a say" is in situations where the "have a say" is AGAINST someone? Like shareholders of a company voting against the employees and other numerous examples. It's easy to decide against oneself, it's harder to decide what's best for oneself. I guess this is the nature of entropy etc.
>tldrThis thread is meaningless under any time and place.
>>2665408This is the correct take.
Fake and gay thread.
>>2666845Lower stage communism, numb nuts
>>2666870Marx:
>Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.<Critique of the Gotha Programme, IVLenin:
>Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke. And classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear. <Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The ProletariatRead the book lil vro
>>2666915Why not post the full quote and its context?
>And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) […] Now, there are no other rules than those of “bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products. The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.Lenin here is talking about lower stage communism (the title of the section) where no classes exist and the state has functionally ceased to exist as there are no classes to suppress. You'd also notice by the obvious framing that Lenin is theorizing, he is not talking about the USSR, which he didn't shy from calling capitalist, but rather a distant society beyond the dotp.
>"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any ilusions on that score, and we know how difficult is theroad that leads from capitalism to socialism. But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road and our words will not be empty words"<Third All-Russia Congress I often use the passage you misquoted to prove my point hilariously enough
>>2666915Also since the passage you quoted says no classes exist in lower stage communism that explicitly means it is NOT dotp hence
>>2666906
>classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat >>2666948>Lenin here is talking about lower stage communism (the title of the section) where no classes exist and the state has functionally ceased to exist as there are no classes to suppress<"But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of 'bourgeois law which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary."
complete communism<law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of productsFor additional clarity , while he does speak of a transitional state, he alludes to the continued existence of the dotp into lower stage communism
>Lenin here is talking about lower stage communism (the title of the section) where no classes exist and the state has functionally ceased to exist as there are no classes to suppress. You'd also notice by the obvious framing that Lenin is theorizing, he is not talking about the USSR, which he didn't shy from calling capitalist, but rather a distant society beyond the dotp<But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road and our words will not be empty words">>2666956complete communism >>2666958>>2666959You're unable to form a cohesive response. The most I got out of the sporadic quotes fueled by an underlying conflation of dotp with lower stage communism (which is the subject of debate) is that you're not aware of the Marxist definition of a state. The state is a byproduct of class society, in a classless society (lower stage) the state functionally ceases to be, it retracts into a regulatory tool for production and distribution until its last remaining structures are abolished by the principal 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'.
This is different from dotp, which is a state in the proper sense we know, a tool of class suppression by its very definition. Lenin definitively settled any doubt you have by plainly stating that classes won't be abolished until dotp is abolished.
A dictatorship of the proletariat by definition cannot exist in a classless society.
>>2666976>>2666976>Lenin definitively settled any doubt you have by plainly stating that classes won't be abolished until dotp is abolished. Lenin said it exists into the lower stage, so no
>>2666986Well, Lenin wasn't retarded to claim a classless society can have a dictatorship of a class. He only stated the opposite
>>2666906 and so now retards who just discovered this have to cope about it instead of reading theory.
The proletariat doesn’t exist, even if it did, it has no way to resolve disputes among itself or govern, the party doesn’t work, unions don’t work, nothing works
>>2666990Lenin has already spoken of partial communism.
>For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary >"classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat"
>"(in lower stage communism) The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed."
<conclusion A: dotp isn't lower stage hence no classes to suppress, the LS 'state' is purely an economic tool not a political entity.
<conclusion B: Lenin is a schizo
MLs would rather make Lenin sound like an incoherent retard contradicting his theory all the time (relatable) rather than take the L
>>2667007>>2666993>lower stage (unrelated to dotp which literally cannot exist in this society per Lenin and you couldn't prove otherwise 10 replies later) will be superceded by higher stage I agree!!!! ❤️
>>2667010Or the party just chooses to liquidate itself and the bourgeois come back
>>2667010Only possible among hunter gathering societies
>>2667015It’s never going to happen
>>2667021Doesn’t matter, we’ve had the entire 19th and 20th centuries that proved this theory wrong
>>2667025If the proletariat as Marx theorized existed, this would be in their interests, they don’t, so this won’t happen
>compete communism
>>2667027The states that Lenin founded, both direct and indirect are his fault, their failures are his failures
>>2667031Great Lenin theory
Bumping this thread after I demolished ML mythology and ended their meme movement forever
communism isnt about empowering the working class, its about empowering radical intellectuals, who make up the entire population of the vanguard party
>>2666845I didn't say that a DotP was a new mode of production. I said that a state being a class dictatorship has nothing to do with its structure or form and everything to do with the mode and relations of production that it defends and maintains.
>>2670580>the dotp purpose is to defend the capitalist mode of production So true!
>>2665300>A dictatorship of the proleteriatis a system where the proletariat dictates
> a system where the proleteriat has no say is not a dictatorship of the proletariat
>>2665300>dictatorship of the proleteriat will never work because a system where the proleteriat has no say and doesnt choose their own leader will result in the government of a socialist country not actually being beholden to the proleteriat at all.Then it isnt a dictatorship of proletariat.
>>2666321are you illiterate? the image does not say workers "voted for gorby and social democracy"
it said there was a referendum held on preserving the USSR. soviet citizens voted in favor of preserving the USSR. the revisionist clique who took control of the CPSU dissolved the USSR against the wishes of the soviet people.
>>2670615Wtf are you talking about?
>>2665583A state is necessary to develop socialism, yes.
Whether the state could eventually be abolished once productive forces and society are sufficiently developed is an argument for a future time.
>>2665976To be fair Donald Trump has never gotten a majority of the vote at any point. Even when he "won the popular vote" in 2024 (after losing it in 2016 and 2020) it was a plurality (sub-50%), not a majority. Then you have to factor in the massive amount of people who are eligible to vote but do not.
>>2670755very illustrative of your contention anon
Unique IPs: 39