Source https://lemmy.zip/post/72029200/29026430
Join the lemmy.ml boycott today and help foster a better Lemmy-verse! No more posts, comments (except to counter their propaganda ofc!) or upvotes on any comms on the Lemmy.ml instance! To make this easy you can do an instance block at Settings > Block Tab > Scroll to bottom > Input “lemmy.ml” and apply
And consider donating to individual instances instead.
Check the megathread for more!
Holy shit. My brain hurts from that last comment. Taiwan a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”? They ignore the fact that workers literally have worse rights and healtthcare coverage in the PRC and you arent even allowed to criticize government corruption in the PRC. You only have a chance if you are a ruthless government bureaucrat, party member and possibly a STEM major (see technocracy).
Also side note: since goat disappeared again, admins made me the mod again.
Dictatorship of the bourgeois doesn’t mean the same thing as just a dictatorship. Marx when he invented the terms dictatorship of the proletariat was referring to which class get what they want out of the government, not referring to a totalitarian single ruler control.
By the Marxist definition every western country is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
this is the case in america, I don’t know of a similar study done by taiwan, but it’s likely the case there as well.
I love when a definition is so broad that it covers every case you can basically think of. lol
Yes, that’s the purpose of it, marx was talking about the structure of the entire world, vs potential future structures, during his time there was only feudalism and dictatorships of the bourgeois, he was imagining potential alternatives in the future.
I didn’t assume it meant a single ruler system though. Also by Marxist definition, at least according to MLs single party dictatorships that concentrate power in a ruling elite while giving workers shitty employment conditions are supposedly dictatorships of the proletariat when they are far from it.
And my point is that MLs spout a lot of BS about countries that often have better conditions for workers than supposed socialist states. It especially goes for comparing a modern, hybrid system state or a welfare capitalist state to China or North Korea.
they disagree that it’s the states giving them shitty employment conditions, and disagree that power is being concentrated in a ruling elite, you’d just have to demonstrate these two things to them.
they believe this is because the material conditions allowed for those advances and didn’t allow for them in socialist states for various reasons outside of state control, ex: the embargo on cuba.
Which doesn’t make sense since material conditions aren’t an excuse to not give workers rights. Like Yugoslavia wasn’t necessarily wealthy when they gave their workers control over their own workplaces.