Comment by wk_end
6 days ago
The two tend to go hand-in-hand because communism - in its most popular formulations anyway - encourages consolidation of power in the state, "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and all.
6 days ago
The two tend to go hand-in-hand because communism - in its most popular formulations anyway - encourages consolidation of power in the state, "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and all.
where is that popular, and what is a proletariat?
To clarify what I meant, Marxism and its descendants (Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Juche, etc.) are the most “popular” forms of communism. By which I mean: they’re what was implemented in most (all?) countries that had communists seize power - the USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and so on. In university we read Marx, not Bakunin; in Canada we have a Marxism-Leninism party, not an anarcho-communist party. Etc.
If you’re asking the latter question in good faith, I’d encourage you to consult Wikipedia; it has good articles on both the term “proletariat” and Marx’s phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat”.
true communism has no concept of "The State", what you are describing is authoritarian socialism.
Marx argued the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was an essential part of the transition to "true communism". I think it's fair to say that if X is an essential part of actualizing Y, X "goes hand-in-hand" with Y, regardless of whether or not Y itself when fully actualized (if that's possible) means to incorporate X.
Let’s be clear, I am not advocating for this. Just stating that communism doesn’t recognize a state, not even of the proletariat.
I’m not advocating for this transition. I’m on the side of peace and pacifism. I see no man as above me, or below me. Marx may be right but who really wants to try and test it? History has shown that regimes who try, fail. Those who stop short and just be all dictatorships, end up destroying their own. So, I guess cheers (champagne glasses) to the sinking ship.