.epub version of This Soviet World.
Thanks for sharing comrade
O7
Lmao perfect
Also to the liberals pearl clutching about “but we need democracy!” not realizing that’s what that quote means.
The proletariat is, pretty much by definition, the VAST majority of the people in a society, by far the largest group. The commoners like you and me, working in order to make a living.
Dictatorship can mean what you think it means in that context. Ruling a country by the will of some dictator.
If the proletariat is the dictator, it means ruling a country by the will of the vast majority of the people. That’s what democracy is. We can further discuss implementations of it and how well they work (hint: Western democracy works very poorly and is very undemocratic in practice, as you’ve definitely experienced), but the general concept described by “dictatorship of the proletariat” is democracy.
The only thing that I feel is necessary to a society is voluntary participation. I just want to be able to leave freely and join something else. If there’s a dictatorship of the proletariat, and I happen to disagree with them, I want to be able to leave freely. That’s why small communities would be best for that sort of thing.
Can’t tell if this is meant as a jab at Anarchists or Communists.
The Anarchist doesn’t want there to be a centralized hierarchy since it gives people absolute power over their fellow men, so they’re asking like “what part of DICTATORSHIP do you not understand?”
The Communist is asking “what part of dictatorship of the PROLETARIAT do you not understand?” Because they think the society Anarchists want is a form of a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat.
That’s what makes it a fun meme!
The end goal, where you dissolve the state, and thus the dictatorship.
The state is a result of class struggle, so to end states once and for all you need to achieve classless society, eliminating the basis of the state. That means collectivizing all production and distribution globally, into one system. Once this is done, there are no classes in contention, and as such the oppressive elements of society used to keep the proletariat on top will gradually disappear and “wither,” being reduced in function and scope until only what’s necessary remains, like administration.
It sounds like anarchist and communists should be allies.
Only due to collective interests and a shallow understanding of each. When you really get down to it, Marxism and anarchism are opposites.
-
Historical materialism vs rejection of this (idealism)
-
Society is built upon what came before vs society is built anew
-
Centralization vs decentralization
-
Organization at a large scale (collective ownership of the means of production organized across the whole economy) vs organization at a small scale (isolated, individual, and direct ownership of the means of production with collective collaboration)
Sure, both agree that they want a stateless society, but communists and anarchists don’t even agree on what the state is, meaning that while they can be strategic allies, their ultimate goals and approaches are completely different and opposed.
-
For the most part, yes there are even anarcho-communists. But at the same there is a big difference in the non-authoritarian view of the anarchists and some communists.
From what I have read, it seems communism is the journey and anarchism is basically the destination with a few institutions intact. I’d rather take that road and whatevwr fights that may bring than what I currently see as our future.
Edit: because I don’t believe the public on average, especially in the west, is ready for any kind of anarchism. They couldn’t handle it. It would be ruined by the same forces currently destroying the world order. We need to join with the communists to defeat it. Whatever consequences come of that are better tha nation state fiefdoms run by billionaire psycopaths and sycophants.
Right on
AKA communism?
If we agreed the market can’t self regulate, why would the state be able to?
The market cant self regulate because it doesnt represent the interests of the prolotariat. The state in a socialist society by definition is govened by the people.
Well it is a representative democracy in most cases, so in reality it is governed by people’s representatives. That is a big difference because the market also represents the interests of the people in the way of price setting and supply and demand. And we can see it is not working.
There is no such thing as a representive democracy in capitalism. Power is not spread equally amungst each voter, your power is based off how much wealth you have. The rich class own corporate media and can shape peoples views and opinions to be comfortable with their rule. Political parties are completely reliant on funding from the rich to drive there campaigns, elected candiates are always approved by the rich class.
The market does not represent the interests of the people. Capitalism results in unregulated monopolies or price fixing that cause companies to extract significantly more wealth from people than what is reasonable.
Well it is a representative democracy in most cases
It isn’t, and it never was.
Dang I never thought the bbc would admit that.
Not sure I understand the point, states and markets are entirely different things, especially a state run by the working class whose goal is to collectivize all production and distribution, erasing the basis of class struggle and therefore the oppressive elements of government that make up the state.
Oh god, a repeat of the later half of the Spanish Civil War.
That makes no sense. Living conditions while losing a civil war are hardly indicative of what planned economies are capable of.
I was referring to the communists and anarchists working together at first then breaking apart
What a cursed set of flags
