“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.
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 361
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 361
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world How do I put on weight without feeling terrible?
Asklemmy @lemmy.ml How often do you read your old conversations?
Showerthoughts @lemmy.world An argument starter: which of these is the "second set of 4 digits in base 10"? (Body)
196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone Free books rule
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