Have you read State and Revolution by Lenin? I hate to do the “go read something” type of message, but I strongly recommend it if you haven’t. He goes into the concept of a socialist state and what the point of it is. If you have no familiarity with that context, we might just be talking past each other.
It is a dictatorship of the proletariat (working class), which sounds less democratic than it is if you go only by the word “dictatorship” and don’t read it in the context of the monopoly on violence that every state has. It essentially (at risk of oversimplifying) means that the working class has democratic power and doesn’t allow the capitalist class to have it. So in a word, is it a form of democracy? I would say so. But if one’s view of democracy is something more akin to a populist free-for-all, they might not agree; though I’m not sure there is such a thing as a free-for-all democracy in any state or community in history. Whose interests are being represented is a critical question, especially as class and/or caste stratified societies and global systems are concerned.
I’m good with the dictatorship of the proletariat. As long as you can become one through non-violent means like getting rid of your Capital and if the proletariat can vote.
It’s pretty much impossible to change a system of power without some violence because the existing state power has a monopoly on violence. But if it makes you feel any better about it, historically, it’s not like communists tend to like or desire violence and sometimes the technical beginning of a revolution (where power changes hands) may have minimal violence overall. As it is meant to be a cause sympathetic to most people in the society, you would not expect that regular people will be fighting it massively, provided it does a successful job of working for their needs. But like, the newly formed Soviet Union was attacked by western powers very quickly. Or like, Fidel Castro was targeted by multiple assassination attempts and Cuba has suffered from economic embargo for decades, in the US’s attempt to squeeze it out and force the conditions for an overthrow of the communists. Point being, it’s not like the capitalist class hands over power willingly and historically, they can get very brutal toward those who stand against them.
Hell, we’re currently seeing an example of the brutality in how the US acts with its desperate tariffs toward China and other countries. Even though the US empire sits on mounds of gold (figuratively speaking… well maybe literally too if Fort Knox still has a lot of gold), it will not be satisfied until every country bends the knee and becomes a vessel to extract from, and even then, the exploitation and extraction is not sustainable. And China refuses to and is powerful enough now to shift the balance of global power away from the US. In their case, they are doing it without even firing a shot, which is some impressively complex geopolitical organizing. The interdependent ties they have built, the manufacturing they have at home, and so on. Hopefully any actual shots fired needed in dismantling the empire will be minimal, but we have to expect and prepare for the idea that it will not all go peacefully. And some protracted fights are in progress right now, like the cause of Palestinian liberation, with the Houthis playing a pivotal part in defending them in the region.
So in summary, would love it if it was all bloodless and world liberation could be achieved without firing a shot. History, as well as the inherent problem in trying to non-violently achieve liberation out of a system that is rabidly violent, shows that’s not how things happen in practice, but it’s a nice sentiment.
Have you read State and Revolution by Lenin? I hate to do the “go read something” type of message, but I strongly recommend it if you haven’t. He goes into the concept of a socialist state and what the point of it is. If you have no familiarity with that context, we might just be talking past each other.
I have not, so in this socialist state proposed by Lenin. Is it a Democracy? If not, then it could be improved by Democracy.
It is a dictatorship of the proletariat (working class), which sounds less democratic than it is if you go only by the word “dictatorship” and don’t read it in the context of the monopoly on violence that every state has. It essentially (at risk of oversimplifying) means that the working class has democratic power and doesn’t allow the capitalist class to have it. So in a word, is it a form of democracy? I would say so. But if one’s view of democracy is something more akin to a populist free-for-all, they might not agree; though I’m not sure there is such a thing as a free-for-all democracy in any state or community in history. Whose interests are being represented is a critical question, especially as class and/or caste stratified societies and global systems are concerned.
I’m good with the dictatorship of the proletariat. As long as you can become one through non-violent means like getting rid of your Capital and if the proletariat can vote.
It’s pretty much impossible to change a system of power without some violence because the existing state power has a monopoly on violence. But if it makes you feel any better about it, historically, it’s not like communists tend to like or desire violence and sometimes the technical beginning of a revolution (where power changes hands) may have minimal violence overall. As it is meant to be a cause sympathetic to most people in the society, you would not expect that regular people will be fighting it massively, provided it does a successful job of working for their needs. But like, the newly formed Soviet Union was attacked by western powers very quickly. Or like, Fidel Castro was targeted by multiple assassination attempts and Cuba has suffered from economic embargo for decades, in the US’s attempt to squeeze it out and force the conditions for an overthrow of the communists. Point being, it’s not like the capitalist class hands over power willingly and historically, they can get very brutal toward those who stand against them.
Hell, we’re currently seeing an example of the brutality in how the US acts with its desperate tariffs toward China and other countries. Even though the US empire sits on mounds of gold (figuratively speaking… well maybe literally too if Fort Knox still has a lot of gold), it will not be satisfied until every country bends the knee and becomes a vessel to extract from, and even then, the exploitation and extraction is not sustainable. And China refuses to and is powerful enough now to shift the balance of global power away from the US. In their case, they are doing it without even firing a shot, which is some impressively complex geopolitical organizing. The interdependent ties they have built, the manufacturing they have at home, and so on. Hopefully any actual shots fired needed in dismantling the empire will be minimal, but we have to expect and prepare for the idea that it will not all go peacefully. And some protracted fights are in progress right now, like the cause of Palestinian liberation, with the Houthis playing a pivotal part in defending them in the region.
So in summary, would love it if it was all bloodless and world liberation could be achieved without firing a shot. History, as well as the inherent problem in trying to non-violently achieve liberation out of a system that is rabidly violent, shows that’s not how things happen in practice, but it’s a nice sentiment.