To play devil’s advocate, the meaning of “dictatorship” in “dictatorship of the proletariat” is different from the modern/conventional meaning of that word. Mao conceived of himself as leading a democracy, as ridiculous as that sounds.
If it’s a state dictatorship it’s always the same. Regardless of how you fantasize about it. It’s still disconnected unaccountable leadership at the top. And if you disagree, there are no democratic solutions for an enemy of the state.
Okay so here’s your mini-lecture on Marxist theory: Basically Marx didn’t believe in universal democracy (as in rule by all) within class society; since to him class conflict lie at the core of society any society with a class must have a ruling class that dominates other classes. Long story short under capitalism this dynamic expresses itself in the bourgeoisie (rich capital owners), who as the ruling class use their control of capital to dominate the proletariat (those who can only live by selling their labor, the working class). To express this dynamic he calls the class system of a society under capitalism the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, irrespective of whether or not the society is governed as a liberal democracy, which can be readily confirmed by glancing around oneself. Therefore, in Marxist theory when the proletariat overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie they’ll assume power, and it’s that dynamic he calls the dictatorship of the proletariat (this is then supposed to wither away as class society transforms into classless communism). Given that the proletariat are the vast majority of the population, anything resembling true democracy in class society is going to be a dictatorship of the proletariat (though a dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t have to be democratic), because of course effective rule by the 0.1% isn’t very democratic.
TL;DR: “Dictatorship of the proletariat” is Marxist terminology for “a society in which the working class runs things,” and doesn’t assume or preclude democracy.
That sure was a way to say a lot of things without saying anything addressing what was said.
I know Marx’s philosophy. Just because Marx theorized something does not make it so. And there are plenty of marxists that reject the dictatorship of the proletariat or the high level vanuardism of Lenin. If your primary response to criticism of the dictatorship of the proletariat within a massive state. Is simply to recite dogma, you have nothing of value to say
Mao has called himself a dictator which is the real irony here…
To play devil’s advocate, the meaning of “dictatorship” in “dictatorship of the proletariat” is different from the modern/conventional meaning of that word. Mao conceived of himself as leading a democracy, as ridiculous as that sounds.
If it’s a state dictatorship it’s always the same. Regardless of how you fantasize about it. It’s still disconnected unaccountable leadership at the top. And if you disagree, there are no democratic solutions for an enemy of the state.
Okay so here’s your mini-lecture on Marxist theory: Basically Marx didn’t believe in universal democracy (as in rule by all) within class society; since to him class conflict lie at the core of society any society with a class must have a ruling class that dominates other classes. Long story short under capitalism this dynamic expresses itself in the bourgeoisie (rich capital owners), who as the ruling class use their control of capital to dominate the proletariat (those who can only live by selling their labor, the working class). To express this dynamic he calls the class system of a society under capitalism the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, irrespective of whether or not the society is governed as a liberal democracy, which can be readily confirmed by glancing around oneself. Therefore, in Marxist theory when the proletariat overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie they’ll assume power, and it’s that dynamic he calls the dictatorship of the proletariat (this is then supposed to wither away as class society transforms into classless communism). Given that the proletariat are the vast majority of the population, anything resembling true democracy in class society is going to be a dictatorship of the proletariat (though a dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t have to be democratic), because of course effective rule by the 0.1% isn’t very democratic.
TL;DR: “Dictatorship of the proletariat” is Marxist terminology for “a society in which the working class runs things,” and doesn’t assume or preclude democracy.
That sure was a way to say a lot of things without saying anything addressing what was said.
I know Marx’s philosophy. Just because Marx theorized something does not make it so. And there are plenty of marxists that reject the dictatorship of the proletariat or the high level vanuardism of Lenin. If your primary response to criticism of the dictatorship of the proletariat within a massive state. Is simply to recite dogma, you have nothing of value to say
Also Maoism ≠ Marxism
Not to mention dengism
Yep, but at that time China didn’t need to look cute in order to sell his crap to the whole globe.