Reading about FOSS philosophy, degoogling, becoming against corporations, and now a full-blown woke communist (like Linus Torvalds)
You do know Capitalism was making the slave trade unfeasable. Technology is superior at mass production. It increasingly made sense to invest in machinery etc. The most skilled slaves were eventually given free reign and only had to pay a fee to their master. White nations and their Capitalist technology ended slavery - at least in the Western world.
Which is perfectly in line with the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism. What is your point?
My point is the moral and economic superiority of the Free Market works in practice (not doctrine).
Free marlets are not the same as capitalism. There have been marketa for way longer than capitalism has existed.
It isn’t capitalism that ended slavery, but humanism.
Capitalism, no matter how technologically advanced it is, will require employees to maintain all those machines. And what kind of employees cost the least, thus making the best profits? Slaves.
The American civil war was capitalism vs capitalism, the only difference was that one side was more humanist than the other.
It is only a thriving (free market) society that has the resources and time to spend on humane projects. A free market society that embraces technology requires less and less manual workers. It does require more skilled (hence free) workers - not slaves. See farming. The American war of succession - where one side humanely denied a divorce. Forced relationships are so humane!
One side wanted to keep slaves, the other didn’t. Guess which one was humanist. And which one was capitalist (hint : answer may be both).
The question isn’t if the war was rightful or not, is why one was for slavery and the other wasn’t. Both being capitalist, this probably isn’t the answer.
My opinion goes toward humanism. Maybe wrong, I’m not a specialist in the history of slavery, but I doubt you are either.
deleted by creator
I am a full blown capitalist, and I despise google and the entire online ad industry and its tracking, I’d say all of my apps (except for games) are foss or atleast somewhat open source
how are being a capitalist and despising the direct product of capitalism compatible lol?
How can someone claim to be a communist if they’re still eating every day?
food insecurity is a huge problem in many places today, including in some of the wealthiest countries on the world. there aren’t too many communist regimes around to blame for it anymore.
Like asking ‘how can you be a marxist if you don’t love every single person?’
There are companies I like and companies I don’t like. Capitalism is all about having the choice to pick what I buy and what I use. Shitty companies are free to fail. That’s actually a really important part of capitalism.
uh huh. because our current system has definitely demonstrated that shitty companies fail, right? i don’t know how you can look at the landscape of modern corporations and come away with the thought that capitalism has in any way increased our freedom to choose, or that that really important part actually in practice weeds out shitty business practices in any way.
what companies do you like? are any of them the large multinational corporations swallowing up every speck of available market share and spiraling us towards climate apocalypse? if so, you’re wrong.
me: looks at cereal aisle at the local grocery store
No…I think i’ve got plenty of choices, thanks. In which areas do you feel like your freedom to chose is badly impinged-upon?
Do you want a list of tech companies that have been allowed to fail? It’s a very long list.
I’m typing this on NixOS on a Framework laptop. Very happy with both. Both were products of (*gasp*) capitalism!
I’m sitting in a 20-year-old La-Z-Boy chair. Not the most beautiful, but it sure is comfortable, and it’s in good condition for it’s age.
Sipping on a nice red wine. Don’t remember the company–it was a random pick, one of thousands of choices. Anyway, it’s great, I’m enjoying it. Snacking on some corn nuts from Trader Joes.
That’s just a few companies whose products I appreciate, and am interacting with right this instant.
Google annoys me sometimes. I’m kinda de-googling, and it’s harder than it ought to be. Still: totally doable. Microsoft was a huge PITA back in the 90s and 00s, but these days they don’t affect me at all. It didn’t fail, but it changed in major ways, and more to the point it became irrelevant in important ways.
Overall, when I compare the system I’m living in with the alternatives that we’ve tried in the past…well, it’s very much a no-brainer.
“The Illusion Of Choice”
deleted by creator
Whew, okay.
food deserts
…Are a thing. They’re around. But the vast majority of people in the US (much less Europe and other developed countries, with developed public transportation) have easy access to fresh food. This…just isn’t a huge deal. It’s a public policy tweak away from being solved.
the complete market domination of amazon
Amazon has a shitload of competitors in every sector. AliExpress, Best Buy, Walmart, Etsy, Wayfair, etc etc etc. But Amazon is solid as hell, so people stick with them. If they slip, people have endless options.
local repair shops being subsumed into corporate enterprise.
Don’t care. I mean, I feel for the owners, but…you know that like 90% of everybody in the Western world worked in agriculture? Including all my great-grandparents. But then they got outcompeted by more successful farmers (including corporate operations in some cases) and ended up shutting down and selling their place. None of my grandparents worked in agriculture.
Was that a tragedy, for me or for them? Do I wish I still owned a dozen acres of land in the middle of the Canadian prairies, on which I could grow just enough to sustain myself? Lol, the fuck do you think?
Small businesses are lost to progress. This is great.
planned obsolescence
I’ve been buying more repairable devices. Thus the Framework laptop. And the government is putting pressure on companies to allow repairs, which is good. In the end, though, this is our fault, because we’re a bunch of short-sighted assholes who are distracted by shiny things. We don’t have to be.
the fact that nearly 100% of the vast variety of cereals you’re referring to are produced by like two corporations
Why on earth would I care? Again, beyond those two companies, there are a thousand up-and-comers, so if the big guys slip there will be alternatives. In the meantime? They do a really fucking good job. If the government operated like Post, I’d enjoy going to the DMV.
the fact that nearly every single piece of consumer electronics you have in your home is almost certainly made from resources extracted by actual real life human slaves.
…In countries that are resolutely authoritarian or anarchic, and non-capitalist. I hope some day China escapes it’s authoritarian tendencies, and Africa manages to pull itself together. If they just establish functioning market economies, then the problem is solved.
nestle sucking up all the water from already drought stressed areas, and also more slave labor, this time with children.
Exploiting those noncapitalist countries. Shame on them. I have no problem punishing them accordingly.
millions of tons of single use plastics funneled into our oceans.
Yeah, that sucks, we should do something about that.
the fact that our access to life-saving medication is dependent on our wealth, rather than our need.
But the ‘wealth’ bar falls every day. People in Africa are able to access AIDS medication so successfully that I read recently it’s on the path to eradication. And there just isn’t a form of government where everybody gets what they need, and nobody has proposed such a government, or a path to get to it, so it’s kinda fucking irrelevant, isn’t it?
capitalism is currently causing massive amounts of real human suffering.
No, reality is causing massive human suffering, and capitalism is the single best tool we have to ameliorate it. Suffering is normal from any sane reading of history. But we’ve driven the share of people in serious poverty, on the verge of famine and starvation, from 80+% a century ago to well under 20% today. There’s a lot of causes for that, but capitalism is high on the list.
East India Company commiting horrific acts of violence against the people of India
East India Company was a monopoly grant by the crown of England. They had an army. They weren’t capitalist, they were colonialist. I know you can’t tell a difference between Amazon shipping you a shirt you bought from them voluntarily because you wanted a shirt, and the East India Company using their military to extract taxes from the natives using fear and violence, but to me it’s a pretty significant difference.
and contributed to massive famines that killed 15 million people.
Famines, again, were completely normal until relatively recently. Look up the the most fatal events in human history, and a whole lot of them are famines in China or India–most of them long before Westerners ever turned up. Saying “capitalism sucks, because there were famines that overlapped with the rise of capitalism!” is like saying “This house sucks, because while we were in the process of building it, before we had a proper roof, we got rained on! We should tear the house down again!”
Fuck this is exhausting.
It’s true that capitalism isn’t perfect, and even more to the point, it doesn’t exist in a perfect world: people trade for goods on open markets, and at the same time there are enslaved people in Africa. People pool their resources to fund enterprises that offer goods & services for sale, and even as they do so, the American government works to achieve policy objectives which I don’t personally agree with. Giving people the freedom to buy, sell, work, and invest as they please has fantastically increased the wellbeing of those people & countries who participated, but it hasn’t solved literally every problem in the world (especially in places that have very specifically not participated).
So you want to rise up and shut down the markets and ban enterprise. In it’s place you have nothing. You have no working system to replace it. Nobody has proposed anything that could take it’s place in anything but the vaguest, most loose terms possible. “What if everything was like…better, man?” Fucking useless. Anyway, even if you did have a goal, you have no politically viable means to reach it. Historically, the best anybody has come up with was, “hey, how about we just kill a bunch of people who are better off than we are, then sit around and talk about how much better things could be?” Then somebody with charisma gathers enough followers to seize power, and things get really fucked up.
Until you have an amazing vision and a bulletproof plan to achieve it, you’re just whining. And I haven’t seen anything even beginning to approach a half-baked vision. I am profoundly unimpressed. At the same time I think you (and others like you) suffer from a profound lack of perspective on where we are and how impressive it is that we got here.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You’re not a full blown capitalist my friend
Im sure you know more about me then I do, But I wont get into this argument, seems pointless
A capitalist gets all their money from investments. It’s not about what you believe in .
You are probably right, it does seem kinda pointless. A full blown capitalist embraces capitalism to its fullest and believes in its values. FOSS kinda contradicts that and hurts capitalism. You should support the economy and pay other companies to develop, manage, license, (…) your software.
Oh I have to disagree here. FOSS is about free as in freedom not free as in beer. Make as much money as you care to with your FOSS software.
Did you see me ask for regulation againts it? I dont think so, again, this seems pointless
What kind of argument is seeing you pushing regulations against it? The question was if you are a full blown capitalist and if you support FOSS, you are most certainly not. You have to stop coming off as an american.
Im not an american.
Supporting foss doesnt make me not a capitalist, capitalism in its root is personal choice, and I choose FOSS over proprietery, and its fine
The root oft capitalism is not having options to freely choose …
FOSS kinda contradicts that and hurts capitalism
How?
-
Reduced Revenue for Proprietary Software: FOSS provides free alternatives to proprietary software, potentially reducing the revenue streams for companies selling proprietary software.
-
Commoditization of Software: FOSS can turn software, which might otherwise be a product to be sold, into a commodity. As a result, traditional software companies have to find new ways to monetize, often through services or specialized solutions.
-
Reduction in Competitive Advantage: Companies that once had a unique software product might find it hard to compete when there’s an equivalent open-source alternative available.
-
Change in Business Models: The rise of FOSS has forced many companies to adapt their business models. Instead of selling software licenses, they may need to offer services, support, or other value-added products.
-
Innovation and Collaboration over Profit: The FOSS philosophy emphasizes community-driven development, which can prioritize innovation and collaboration over profit-making.
Was this generated by chatgpt?
It’s impossible for me to definitively confirm whether a specific text was generated by ChatGPT or another version of GPT-3 (or a different AI model altogether) just by reading it. The content provided is factual and consistent with how FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) is often described, but it could have been written by anyone knowledgeable about the topic. It’s important to remember that GPT-3 produces outputs based on the information it has been trained on, but similar sentences or ideas can also be formulated by humans or other AI models.
-
In my experience I’ve noticed Linux tends to (disproportionately) attract both libertarians and socialists/communists. I feel like I run into more of both within the Linux community than I do in other communities.
I started using Linux because I couldn’t force myself to use Windows 8. Up to that point I used whatever version of Windows came right before the graphical interface but 8 was too awful so I started playing with mint and never went back…
I got off the capitalism train in the middle of that but that was only because I decided to major in business and when I saw how the sausage was made I jumped ship but I didn’t know anything about socialism or communism or marxism or whatever you want to call it. I was so not into politics or economics that I literally had to search the Internet and ask people on social media what was an alternative to the crap I was reading for my classes… And then I went down that rabbit hole. If was enlightening. I learned a lot.
Also… for people who think college is Marxist indoctrination…Marx was brought up for one paragraph in one book at the very very end of my 4 years. But by that point I already knew who he was just from the rabbit hole I went down when I was curious for some alternative to what I was being taught.
Me too frfr
Just wait for the next stage as a libertarian socialist, without a leading communist party, because we can take care of us ourselves - it’s usually called anarchy (which doesn’t mean no social norms, just self-organisation without leadership)
So communism
libertarian socialist
idk about you comrade but I don’t read from thelibertariansocialistlibrary.org
That first link doesn’t work but the second link comes up as a result when I searched for “the librarian socialists library”.
I considered myself libsoc but not anarchist for a long time. Still kinda do. I believe in the ideal of a classless, oppressionless, non-hierarchical society, but I’m not out there living that ideal and doing praxis.
If all it takes to belong to any political movement is simply to claim you belong regardless of what your actions say, I don’t care for nor want your meaningless, substanceless labels. On the other hand, if it takes participation, then spending my time arguing online about whose
fantasy football teampolitical philosophy is better sure ain’t it either.Either way, I’m probably just another lib with lofty aspirations. My best hope is that someone reads this, goes “you know what? That jaded shitlib has a motherfucking point!” And then logs out to go be an anarchist instead of just throwing the term around.
sorted by controversial and found this post. why? this is amazing
it be a slippery slope
Context for those who are baffled (I was)
https://news.itsfoss.com/linus-torvalds-woke-communists/
No Linus hasn’t grabbed a red rag and isn’t off to foment revolution
unfortunately I think this is just him saying he’s a “woke communist” if being a woke communist is atheism, women’s rights, and gun control. I don’t think he’s a marxist of any stripe it seems. However, I am willing to be corrected here. I’ve only seen this post regarding to him
I liked the take by the utterly clueless Polish guy in the comment. I think his complete lack of understanding of any context is quite typical of online political conversation, especially when semantics come into play.
Also Linus did call for “Total world domination” (I have the tshirt).
Yes of course, who doesn’t remember how woke Lenin created a woke revolution based on woke teachings of woke Marx and even woker Engels.
Guy’s Finnish. The chances of him being actually communist are pretty much zero.
His father was into the communist party
This might be a dumb question: what do you mean? I know very little about Finland, so I’m just genuinely curious. Are the Finns in particular well-known for being anti-communist or is it more like a geopolitical thing since they share a border with Russia?
I don’t know where this idea that all Finns are anti-communist comes from. Finland had one of the strongest communist movements in Western Europe during the cold war. At the height of their popularity about one in four Finns voted for communists in elections. Card carrying communists sat as ministers in multiple cabinets, up to the early 1980s. Like many young people of his generation, Linus Torvalds’ father was a member of the Communist Party of Finland in the 1970s. And all this happened after Finland had fought against the Soviet Union in the 2nd world war.
Geopolitical yeah
sudo apt-get install anarchismAUR package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/anarchism
(the pkgbuild is literally just extracting the deb and archiving it again to an arch package lol)
dont tell this guy how many people died in capitalism (capitalist wars, poverty, etc.)
Afghanistan is communist?
Edit: The entire African continent is also communist?
the black book of communism cites deaths of nazi soldiers on the eastern front as victims of the communist regime
Technically correct
I wonder what you think the motive behind colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade was.
Colonialism - you mean a collectivist institution for the “social” and “communal” good (the state) - disrespecting others private property rights? nb. Private property is a principle of the Free Market. All private property rights are an extension of self ownership. To hell with slavery - which includes the collective slavery of Communism!
So you don’t know what communism is since you mentioned it needing a state. I guess Nazi Germany is communist because of the “collectivist” goal of the Nazi party to improve the “motherland.” Wtf am I saying, you probably actually believe that.
Me when I ignore the numerous amounts of right wing genocidal dictators installed by western capitalist governments in other countries in the name of capitalism (I am using Black Book of Communism rhetoric, a book that included stagnating birth rates and death of Nazi figures in war to inflate my figures as I have no other argument of substance).
Communism needs a state as shown by Socialism needing a state. Socialism being the path to (anarchist) Communism. A totalitarian state no less. Yes and the National SOCIALISTS were also collectivists (and Totalitarians) - correct. National Socialists and International Socialists were enemies as they were fighting for the same ideological ground. Many would in fact would switch sides.
Collectivist =/= Communist, I am tired or arguing with Red Scare Americans who do not understand what Communism even is, nor understand the fact that a government that implements mass privatisation that the Nazis put in place is the exact opposite of communism. Fuck me.
Food insecurity and starvation? Brother I much prefer working 5 minutes for a loaf of bread rather than queueing half a day to hopefully get 2 slices
And today under capitalism we have high wages? Low prices? Abundance?
Today under central banks (an tenant of communism) we have government controlled inflationary currency robbing us all.
The federal reserve banks in the US are privately owned so even with your stupid definition of communism being “government does things” you’re wrong. The fed is supposed to act independently of the government.
Privately owned and in kahoots with the government - in the USA. Other central banks are government institutions. They all force the tender upon those within borders and demand payment in that tender - taxes. A true Free Market would have market derived currencies that people would voluntary adopt. No force. The very heart of ‘Capitalism’, that being capital, is not free, not libre. It is captured by private and/or state entities and controlled. True, although central banks are a tenant of communism, the situation in the USA is more akin to that of Fascism - the partnership of state and private business. The term Capitalism itself in its original meaning, as defined by Marx, is what we would more likely now call Crony-Capitalism. We need to abolish Capitalism/Crony-Capitalism and embrace Laissez-faire. Libre Software and libre markets!
You should look into the word ‘tenant’ and see if you’re not trying to say ‘tenet’ half the time
Oh wow you’re just relentlessly stupid huh? Good luck with that
dont get too attached to that computer where you installed it, under communism is no longer yours.
What happens to it under communism?
read into the difference between private property and personal property <3
If the computer is part of the means of production for everyone, then sure,everyone owns the computer. If the computer is your personal computer, then no, it’s your computer.
Doesnt sound very communist to me. To the gulag with you.
well, no, in communism the is no private property, your computer needs to be shared with the rest of the population that are not so lucky to have one. What are you? Some greedy ceo or something?
Communism is the workers own the means of production collectively. That doesn’t preclude private ownership in totality.
No, I’m not a greedy CEO. I’m a filthy hippy witch that’s wants to see capitalism replaced with genuine utopian socialism.
you are wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Communism (from Latin communis, ‘common, universal’)[1][2] is a left-wing to far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement,[1] whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).
ITT: people who have no idea what communism is
That would be in every thread, from the most pro-communism to the most anti-communism threads.
People also misuse other *ism words, it is quite normal to make general stereotypes of *ism especially for jokes.
Ironic as I went the other way. I was a Communist when I got into FOSS and as I got older I realized I could never defend the historical record of Communism.
The ideas are why it failed. Thats the core problem. Marx believed he could build in essence a church of Communism that would be incorruptible zealots who would lead society to Communism. A dictatorship of the proletariat led by an enlightened few who could teach and reeducate the masses to live in productive harmony with one another. And that, for many reasons, never works.
nOt rEaL cOmMunIsM
You do get that Bad People don’t usually label themselves as such right? It would be like the Nazi party (unironically) labelling themselves as the Fascist Genocidal Aryan Elite Supremacists Party instead of National Socialist German Workers Party.
How many people do you think would support fascist, genocidal dictators if they outed themselves as such to begin with?
I agree on that, but that doesn’t mean that those who outed themselves aren’t communists. They were communists, and all of the attempts at a communist system has failed horrifically. I say this as a person who lives in a ex-communist country.
You’re not more Communist than Lenin. Read his letters and works (they’ve been translated to English) and tell me that’s not a man who truly believes in the things Marx said.
I think if we cooperate like our gentle cousins the Bonobos for a century or two we’d basically have Star Trek. Instead we (Americans) are spending 3x the cost of housing the homeless on hostile architecture and armed goons to raid/destroy their camps with the aim of making our metally ill & vulnerable as invisible as possible- while we slaughter animals we know are able to suffer & grieve as powerfully as any of our beloved dogs, en masse, at absurd environmental cost, washed and neatly sealed from any evident cruelty so they can be consumed or spoil, 50/50 with hardly a thought.
The concept of cooperation transcends any flawed man. We can do better than this but continuing to enable the psychopaths that got us here seems beyond impractical.
you don’t have to defend the history of communism-aspiring countries to be in favor of communism ;)
You don’t have to, but you should. Lenin and Mao practically worshiped Marx and they both attempted to implement his system faithfully to the spec he advocated for. And I know that viewpoint is somewhat controversial in non-Leninist/Maoist circles but I think it’s true.
What’s more I think the historical records of economic collectivism outside of Socialism and political Authoritarianism outside of Socialism are numerous and expensive enough to justify an opposition to Communism as a system.
I think the main realization that made me nominally support Capitalism is it’s performance in a “degraded” state. You can have the absolute worst scenarios (think Pinoche Chile) and Capitalism provides constant incentive to improve things and doesn’t seize up in the meantime. It continues to function even in the face of severe inefficiencies.
This is what happens when everything you know is based on vibes instead of actually reading any theory or history from primary source historians instead of third.
Not really sure what you’re trying to say here.
I’m saying I don’t believe you’ve ever engaged with communism. I don’t believe you’ve read a single book. I don’t believe you’ve even read a single pamphlet. I don’t think you could give me a simplified breakdown of what historical materialism is and I don’t believe you could tell me what the 5 basic classes are that marxists define, along with a simple 1 sentence description of their scientific definition. I don’t think you were a communist and I don’t think you know anything about the “historical record of communism” beyond what you have passively consumed from the far right wing fuckwads that you’ve surrounded yourself with and allowed to rot your brain. I’m saying that the confident manner in which you bullshit about these things is a severe personal failing.
All of these are 101 things that anyone who has actually engaged with the topic of socialism for more than like 1 single week would be able to answer instantly and easily.
I’m saying that your political opinions and knowledge of history is based on vibes that you have attained from the massive quantity of propaganda you uncritically consume and not from any actual meaningful knowledge.
Clear enough?
You’ve not looked into Communism too much have you?
Marx had the opportunity to see Communist movements rise in his own timeline. And he opposed the implementation of Communism in a Democratic manner. And wrote about it in his criticiques of the Germany’s Communist movements source. In his criticiques he lays out how he believes a transitional state should be laid out, how it should be organized. And later Lenin refers extensively to this blueprint in his written works and it’s clear to me upon reading that he truly believes what he says.
In my experience about almost every modern day Communist hear arguments made about the USSR not being based in Communism and have failed to even hear of this critique of the mythic Democratic Communism they believe I’m so much.
Read the critique, and given everything you know about human beings tell me honestly, do you truly believe a multi-generational dictatorship of the proletariat, led by you (or someone whom you’d champion), would really work?
I’m saying that your political opinions and knowledge of history is based on vibes…
I’ve been on the internet a very long time. But this is the first time I’ve seen a Communist (or anyone really) ague their position based on the vibes of the person their arguing against.
Yeah so you’re avoiding everything I said and injecting a completely different topic that you also don’t understand.
Marx’s critique isn’t with democracy it’s with bourgeoise-democracy. You would understand this if you understood even the basic bare minimum about marxist theory. All you are doing here is demonstrating that you do not understand the difference between what marxists refer to as a bourgeoise-democracy and what marxists refer to as a proletarian-democracy. Or if you prefer, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie vs the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marx’s “opposition to democracy” that you are utilising for bullshit propaganda here is opposition to using the mechanisms of bourgeoise-democracy to achieve socialism (because they’re designed for the bourgeoisie and to produce outcomes the bourgeoisie want) and instead advocates for revolution to destroy that dictatorship-of-class and install a new democracy of the workers, a new dictatorship of class but one instead run by the working class (the vast majority) instead of the former ruling class (the bourgeoisie, the vast minority).
These are incredibly basic 101 concepts that, if you were a communist as you claim, you would already be aware of and understand. You were not a communist. You haven’t even read a pamphlet like the manifesto, let alone the Critique Gotha Programme that you’re linking to. I have though. And to anyone that actually HAS read these things that you’re pretending to have read you look like and absolute clown who is winging it.
Marx’s critique isn’t with democracy it’s with bourgeoise-democracy.
Marx’s critique isn’t with democracy, it’s with democracy that disagrees with him.
All you are doing here is demonstrating that you do not understand the difference between what marxists refer to as a bourgeoise-democracy and what marxists refer to as a proletarian-democracy.
I do understand the difference. The difference is that to transition from the former to the later, Marx advocates for violent revolution and the establishment of a dictatorship to “re-educate” the populace. It’s practically hand waved over by Marx and modern Communists, but it’s the most important part of the process. Who controls that dictatorship has all the effective powers of a dictatorship and has the ability to make life for the people they rule hell. Essentially Marx unironically created a worse version of Feudalism where there was no check on the power of the ruler(s) on the assumption that compassion.
a new dictatorship of class but one instead run by the working class (the vast majority) instead of the former ruling class (the bourgeoisie, the vast minority).
Unfortunately, even in a post revolution environment; the working class will never voluntarily choose to rule in the fashion that Marx things they would. No matter the re-education instilled.
You haven’t even read a pamphlet like the manifesto, let alone the Critique Gotha Programme that you’re linking to. I have though. And to anyone that actually HAS read these things that you’re pretending to have read you look like and absolute clown who is winging it.
My interpretation of it is essentially Lenin and Mao’s interpretation of it, just with the benefits of historical hindsight. I imagine, a younger, more idealistic me in 1920s St. Petersburg would have been a proud Bolshevik with the utmost confidence in the party leadership to lead us into a glorious, worker led future. If that makes me a clown whose winging it; my only request is that I get some ranch dipping sauce so at least I can get my vibes right.
“Dictatorship” doesn’t mean the same thing when Marx uses it vs what you understand the word to mean. Marx is talking about a dictatorship of CLASS. IE a large group of people within society. In liberal democracy the “ruling class” are the bourgeoisie, the capitalists, the billionaires and millionaires. They are the ruling class because when they led the revolutions to overthrow feudalism they designed the new system so that they would be the ruling class. That’s how it works. A dictatorship of CLASS.
Marx calls for exactly the same thing. A revolution that overthrows the current ruling class and installs a new ruling class. When the bourgeoisie overthrew the monarchs and their aristocracy they installed themselves as the ruling class, Marx calls for overthrowing the bourgeoisie and installing the proletariat as the new ruling class.
This isn’t a downgrade to democracy it is an UPGRADE to democracy. The current system only produces the results that the bourgeoisie wants. Socialism on the other hand with the proletariat in charge produces the results that the proletariat want.
My interpretation of it is essentially Lenin and Mao’s interpretation of it, just with the benefits of historical hindsight.
No it isn’t because your description above is fucking wrong. I’m telling you what Lenin and Mao’s interpretation is literally right now. This is basic as fuck stuff.
Who controls that dictatorship has all the effective powers of a dictatorship and has the ability to make life for the people they rule hell.
You’re acting like socialist countries don’t objectively provide a better quality of life than capitalist countries when compared at an equal level of development lmao. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/
Your understanding of any of these topics is incredibly vulgar. A warped and contorted understanding that you’ve only learned through extremely passive engagement with the topic.
