Screenshot of post from lemmygrad
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Notably, the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't meant to be an actual dictatorship. Marx saw feudalism as the dictatorship of the aristocracy, capitalism as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, so by analogy socialism (or the prelude to it, at least) would be the dictatorship of the proletariat—rule by the people for the people. It's not meant to be a dictatorship in the way we use that term today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's amazing that so many people who claim to be socialists miss that despite Marx stating it pretty clearly in one of his shortest and most accessible (and widely read) works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    True, but it prescribes rule by one party (the party of the proletariat) alone. In any possible practice this rule can only be held by a party that claims to represent the proletariat, a claim that may or may not be true at any given time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Well, not quite - we don't consider it a dictatorship because the proletariat is the largest class by population, but we would recognize it as such if the proletariat were the minority (e.g. in some kind of near-future highly-but-not-fully automated society.)

  • source
  • parent