“Dictator of the proletariat” didn’t mean the proletariats needed a dictator. It meant they needed to be the dictators. The common people must decide what the common people need, is what that sentence means.
I’m very interested to hear your thoughts on how it is possible to have a dictatorship of the proletariat, while simultaneously having an actual dictator.
I’m actually not disagreeing that the USSR was socialist, by the way. For most intents and purposes, they were. But “dictatorship of the proletariat” at least to me, sounds like a democracy which is antithetical to authoritarianism
When you establish a socialist nation, the resources of the ruling must be extracted by force, as they cannot be reasoned with. They will not simply give up their wealth because socialism won. The only option is to take the resources by force. The exact same sort of force they use on us today.
Feel free to provide any other realistic solution to wealth redistribution. That is the issue with people like you that don’t read theory. You think socialism just magically happens. The countries that ACTUALLY did this shit know that isn’t how this works.
There has never been a transition from a large mature capitalist republic to a socialist republic society(ussr certainty didn’t). No one can predict how it will happen, certainly not you and certainly not me. The ussr is no model at all for the future of the United states.
Does pre-revolution Cuba qualify as a comparable stage of capitalist development to the US today? Methinks no and I don’t expect things to go the same way in the US as they did in Cuba. I think the US is closer to the state of capitalism Marx thought would start a transition towards socialism than Cuba or tsarist Russia.
Some significant differences from past iterations:
Many developed industries that don’t have to be built from scratch
The most powerful military in the world
Just based on those two, if a socialist revolution is to occur in the US, there would be no immediate (or any war) waged on it, so no resources would need to be dedicated on that. There would be no need to scramble to develop almost all industry. Due to the extreme consolidation, taking control over the system would likely be easier - fewer levers control everything.
It doesn’t need to be perfectly comparable. The reality is, we know these worms ain’t gonna give up their resources for nothing. It will be taken by force. That is a guarantee.
Socialism requires a dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you never read theory?
“Dictator of the proletariat” didn’t mean the proletariats needed a dictator. It meant they needed to be the dictators. The common people must decide what the common people need, is what that sentence means.
That’s what I’m saying.
I’m very interested to hear your thoughts on how it is possible to have a dictatorship of the proletariat, while simultaneously having an actual dictator.
I’m actually not disagreeing that the USSR was socialist, by the way. For most intents and purposes, they were. But “dictatorship of the proletariat” at least to me, sounds like a democracy which is antithetical to authoritarianism
That is “state socialism” as pushed by cold war propaganda (marxism-leninism interpretation). Socialism certainly doesn’t require a dictatorship.
The only other option would be magic.
When you establish a socialist nation, the resources of the ruling must be extracted by force, as they cannot be reasoned with. They will not simply give up their wealth because socialism won. The only option is to take the resources by force. The exact same sort of force they use on us today.
Feel free to provide any other realistic solution to wealth redistribution. That is the issue with people like you that don’t read theory. You think socialism just magically happens. The countries that ACTUALLY did this shit know that isn’t how this works.
There has never been a transition from a large mature capitalist republic to a socialist republic society(ussr certainty didn’t). No one can predict how it will happen, certainly not you and certainly not me. The ussr is no model at all for the future of the United states.
Cuba
Does pre-revolution Cuba qualify as a comparable stage of capitalist development to the US today? Methinks no and I don’t expect things to go the same way in the US as they did in Cuba. I think the US is closer to the state of capitalism Marx thought would start a transition towards socialism than Cuba or tsarist Russia.
Some significant differences from past iterations:
Just based on those two, if a socialist revolution is to occur in the US, there would be no immediate (or any war) waged on it, so no resources would need to be dedicated on that. There would be no need to scramble to develop almost all industry. Due to the extreme consolidation, taking control over the system would likely be easier - fewer levers control everything.
It doesn’t need to be perfectly comparable. The reality is, we know these worms ain’t gonna give up their resources for nothing. It will be taken by force. That is a guarantee.
Sure, but that force can be exercised via worker’s democracy, like in the Paris Commune or the early Russian Revolution.