Marx, therefore, further refined the concept of a “transition society” and introduced the idea that the development of communist society would take place in two phases. In the first stage, “socialism” as he called it, the commune state was still necessary both to defeat all attempts at counter-revolution and to reconstruct the international economic system on an egalitarian and planned basis.
Marx was too idealistic. He didn’t account for what happens when you put people into power of this “dicatorship of the proletariat”. Most people who get into power are not going to willingly give up power. You’ll end up with self-proclaimed communist countries that are either stuck in this transition phase indefinitely, or end up abandoning it in favor of state capitalism.
Ah, I see you think yourself an expert on Marx. When he said this was he not meaning that instead of the people being under the dictatorship of a small privileged class of capitalists (see the plutocracy of many capitalist nations) he wanted the entirety of the people, in particular the working class to have control over their own lives, labor, and common interests?
Idk, but it sounds like you think you have read more of Marx’s literature and understand Marx better?
Or perhaps you are arguing that power will always be abused by individuals and thus we shouldn’t resist it and those that currently hold it in the form of capital…
in which case…
I never expect perfection in a human society, but I know for damn certain we can do better than what we do now and the improvements we can make are towards a more equitable society best expressed by socialist and communist thinkers alike.
I’m saying that the transition phase being authoritarian is a mistake. Power always corrupts people, and the only way to make sure a worker’s revolution doesn’t end up failing is to implement a democratic transition government. Everyone gets a vote, and can run for and hold office. And anyone who has ever owned or managed a large bussiness or has ever accumulated a net worth of one million USD (or equivalent amount in other currencies) or more is banned from holding office. Worker’s rights should be entrenched into a constitution, and cannot be redefined unless 3/4 of the people agrees on it.
That’s how I think it should be. Not some “communist party” that would become the new bourgeoisie as soon as the old one is eliminated.
The only moral revolution is one by and for the people, with the working class playing a vital role in driving societal change.
Moreover, one need not look far to find instances of so-called capitalist “Revolutions” supported by the United States, which often resulted in the rise of authoritarian dictatorships. For example, Fulgencio Batista’s regime in Cuba in 1933 and the tyrannical rule of President Rhee Syng-man in South Korea are separate cases illustrating this trend. Additionally, history records numerous coups and regime changes in Latin America, alluding to a broader pattern.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that capitalist economies, exemplified by countries like the US, have at times allied with and propped up dictatorships, fascist movements, and ultra-nationalist regimes.
When examining the actions and consequences of historical revolutions, it becomes apparent that revolutions aligned with capitalism have, both in the past and present, been more numerous and have encountered moral complexities and violence. One might argue that this predominance is partly driven by the capitalist motives associated with imperialism, which facilitated the diffusion of their economic model.
God I am just legitimately bored with all of history being viewed through this particular Marxist lens. France and the US heavily influenced Marx’s revolution framework, not the other way around. You can make a pretty strong argument that Marx’s fundamental ignorance and misunderstanding of these events significantly influenced his fundamentally broken revolutionary model, which has very obviously held back his largely sound economic theory.
Yes, the cold war interventionalism by the US was very often bad. Geopolitical forces in the new nuclear era must have been pretty nuts, but I’m not going to defend most things done in the name of liberal democracy which forces autocracy onto others. To be honest, as a democratic socialist, I happen feel the same way about socialism as well. You will never free people by creating a dictatorship, be it of the proletariat or otherwise.
When reading Marx please keep in mind that not only did he write in German, which has been translated… but if you have read his works he often heavily utilizes foot notes to explain what he means be certain things and at times will take an entire section building up an argument that is later summarized into a more concise statement. My first reaction to “dictatorship of proletariat” was negative, but reading more about his meaning is important.
Did Marx get some things wrong, sure however, while I will never say “everyone has to read this” I will say that “everyone who wants to oppose Marx should actually understand it to a level that probably requires reading”
I’m quite aware of this interpretation and have read plenty on the topic. It is nearly undeniable that in practice, revolutionary communist movements have legitimately produced dictatorships quite often. People need to stop making excuses for Stalin and Mao. The world deserves a better class of communist, in the same way it deserves a better class of liberal.
Like, have you read Lenin yourself?
“Civil war gives the proletariat practice at arms!”
Are you fucking kidding me? You cannot possibly be more glib about violence, or more boorishly modernist .
Forget it, you said you are a democratic socialist right? Don’t fight loosing arguments about history with people. Shut them up with this one argument.
“I will defend every seemingly communist country and their actions, only after you defend every capitalist nation and all of their actions. Simple enough right?”
I’m not interested in defending any atrocities anywhere. Or making tyrants into folk heroes.
My goal is simply to find a single leftist space on the internet which doesn’t just pretend like a century’s worth of real academic criticism of democratic centralism and associated revolutionary praxis doesn’t really exist, and anyone who expresses such criticism must simply be poorly informed and hasn’t read enough… Lenin. It’s misplaced and undeserved elitism at its finest. Or just a weird revolution fetish, it’s hard to tell sometimes. If you can feel my eyes rolling through the screen, it’s because, as I said previously, I’m tired of having this same conversation over and over again.
You don’t know your Marx? socialism-transition-communism
Marx was too idealistic. He didn’t account for what happens when you put people into power of this “dicatorship of the proletariat”. Most people who get into power are not going to willingly give up power. You’ll end up with self-proclaimed communist countries that are either stuck in this transition phase indefinitely, or end up abandoning it in favor of state capitalism.
deleted by creator
Ah, I see you think yourself an expert on Marx. When he said this was he not meaning that instead of the people being under the dictatorship of a small privileged class of capitalists (see the plutocracy of many capitalist nations) he wanted the entirety of the people, in particular the working class to have control over their own lives, labor, and common interests?
Idk, but it sounds like you think you have read more of Marx’s literature and understand Marx better?
Or perhaps you are arguing that power will always be abused by individuals and thus we shouldn’t resist it and those that currently hold it in the form of capital…
in which case…
I never expect perfection in a human society, but I know for damn certain we can do better than what we do now and the improvements we can make are towards a more equitable society best expressed by socialist and communist thinkers alike.
I’m saying that the transition phase being authoritarian is a mistake. Power always corrupts people, and the only way to make sure a worker’s revolution doesn’t end up failing is to implement a democratic transition government. Everyone gets a vote, and can run for and hold office. And anyone who has ever owned or managed a large bussiness or has ever accumulated a net worth of one million USD (or equivalent amount in other currencies) or more is banned from holding office. Worker’s rights should be entrenched into a constitution, and cannot be redefined unless 3/4 of the people agrees on it.
That’s how I think it should be. Not some “communist party” that would become the new bourgeoisie as soon as the old one is eliminated.
Your understanding of communism is fundamentally flawed… Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
Marx: the only moral revolution is my revolution
The only moral revolution is one by and for the people, with the working class playing a vital role in driving societal change.
Moreover, one need not look far to find instances of so-called capitalist “Revolutions” supported by the United States, which often resulted in the rise of authoritarian dictatorships. For example, Fulgencio Batista’s regime in Cuba in 1933 and the tyrannical rule of President Rhee Syng-man in South Korea are separate cases illustrating this trend. Additionally, history records numerous coups and regime changes in Latin America, alluding to a broader pattern.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that capitalist economies, exemplified by countries like the US, have at times allied with and propped up dictatorships, fascist movements, and ultra-nationalist regimes.
When examining the actions and consequences of historical revolutions, it becomes apparent that revolutions aligned with capitalism have, both in the past and present, been more numerous and have encountered moral complexities and violence. One might argue that this predominance is partly driven by the capitalist motives associated with imperialism, which facilitated the diffusion of their economic model.
God I am just legitimately bored with all of history being viewed through this particular Marxist lens. France and the US heavily influenced Marx’s revolution framework, not the other way around. You can make a pretty strong argument that Marx’s fundamental ignorance and misunderstanding of these events significantly influenced his fundamentally broken revolutionary model, which has very obviously held back his largely sound economic theory.
Yes, the cold war interventionalism by the US was very often bad. Geopolitical forces in the new nuclear era must have been pretty nuts, but I’m not going to defend most things done in the name of liberal democracy which forces autocracy onto others. To be honest, as a democratic socialist, I happen feel the same way about socialism as well. You will never free people by creating a dictatorship, be it of the proletariat or otherwise.
Dude, dictatorship of proletariat doesn’t mean what you think it does.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/sep/x02.htm
When reading Marx please keep in mind that not only did he write in German, which has been translated… but if you have read his works he often heavily utilizes foot notes to explain what he means be certain things and at times will take an entire section building up an argument that is later summarized into a more concise statement. My first reaction to “dictatorship of proletariat” was negative, but reading more about his meaning is important.
Did Marx get some things wrong, sure however, while I will never say “everyone has to read this” I will say that “everyone who wants to oppose Marx should actually understand it to a level that probably requires reading”
I’m quite aware of this interpretation and have read plenty on the topic. It is nearly undeniable that in practice, revolutionary communist movements have legitimately produced dictatorships quite often. People need to stop making excuses for Stalin and Mao. The world deserves a better class of communist, in the same way it deserves a better class of liberal.
Like, have you read Lenin yourself?
“Civil war gives the proletariat practice at arms!”
Are you fucking kidding me? You cannot possibly be more glib about violence, or more boorishly modernist .
Forget it, you said you are a democratic socialist right? Don’t fight loosing arguments about history with people. Shut them up with this one argument.
“I will defend every seemingly communist country and their actions, only after you defend every capitalist nation and all of their actions. Simple enough right?”
If they say some shit like “Well I’m not arguing for another trail of tears, I just think the economic system of capitalism is better”
Just respond with “Good, so your alignment with a type of economic system or model still leaves plenty of room for variations on policy🤔”
I’m not interested in defending any atrocities anywhere. Or making tyrants into folk heroes.
My goal is simply to find a single leftist space on the internet which doesn’t just pretend like a century’s worth of real academic criticism of democratic centralism and associated revolutionary praxis doesn’t really exist, and anyone who expresses such criticism must simply be poorly informed and hasn’t read enough… Lenin. It’s misplaced and undeserved elitism at its finest. Or just a weird revolution fetish, it’s hard to tell sometimes. If you can feel my eyes rolling through the screen, it’s because, as I said previously, I’m tired of having this same conversation over and over again.