would...would there be a bourgeoisie in a dictatorship of the proletariat?Revolutionary socialists aren't in favor of the Second Amendment. They're in favor of arming the proletariat specifically. The bourgeoisie would not have the right to weapons under the dictatorship of the proletariat, I suspect.
Or to put it another way, I've seen it said: "I support gun control, if by that you mean giving communists control of the guns."
would...would there be a bourgeoisie in a dictatorship of the proletariat?
Given Jefferson's ideal of the free, self sufficient, yeoman farmer I think he considered himself as part of the proletariat and/or representing the proletariat.Revolutionary socialists aren't in favor of the Second Amendment. They're in favor of arming the proletariat specifically. The bourgeoisie would not have the right to weapons under the dictatorship of the proletariat, I suspect.
Or to put it another way, I've seen it said: "I support gun control, if by that you mean giving communists control of the guns."
Reading "Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia" right now, it's a very artistic book, and it struggles to land itself at a lot of points. But it's a great read still and highlights how the culture Western Democracies have fostered is just this bloated behemoth of consumerism and capitalist hellishness that endures because people are terrified of being labeled and ostracized.
you have failed hobsbawn sphagnumI was reading some Hobsbawm at Barnes and Nobel yesterday. Got too depressed and read some goofy pseudo-historical conspiracy theory stuff about Denisovans instead.
It's a bookshop, not a libary. You bring shame upon all of us, comrade. Back to the Gulag with you. 😝I was reading some Hobsbawm at Barnes and Nobel yesterday. Got too depressed and read some goofy pseudo-historical conspiracy theory stuff about Denisovans instead.
Whenever I get too deep into "we're all going to die" territory I read some zany LaRouche shit about the queen of England and feel a little better.I was reading some Hobsbawm at Barnes and Nobel yesterday. Got too depressed and read some goofy pseudo-historical conspiracy theory stuff about Denisovans instead.
Whenever I get too deep into "we're all going to die" territory I read some zany LaRouche shit about the queen of England and feel a little better.
My mind hasn't changed since then. If we assume capitalism is irrevocably a failure, even if MMT "doesn't work", if it's enough to get people to sign on board with some left policies we should make use of it. It's not like austerity works either. Whatever it takes to improve the life of workers/working class.For what it's worth I support the GND entirely and if we need to use some voodoo economics to justify the spending in the event that the military industrial complex is too strong to fight against (for people who think we should reshuffle spending instead of adding to the deficit which is a fine option) we absolutely should. As the bailouts showed, our economy can take injections of one or two trillion without breaking stuff and I'd rather see those trillions in the hands of workers than bankers.
But [Micheal] Roberts provides a convincing rebuttal to MMT as a long term policy, so while I support its tactical usage now, I do not support making it the Reaganomics of our generation.
To each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)i looked at the red yenta twitter account and like 95% of them were poly lmao
5'3", 125 years old. Anti-Revisionist revisionist.
Cute and cuddly, will rub bald head on you.
I will bury you (in the sheets).
Must love Pepsi and corn.
That they think this site is a viable idea is almost endearing in a way.i looked at the red yenta twitter account and like 95% of them were poly lmao
Poly, you say *rubbing chin with both hands*To each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
OP's refusal to buy her a personal tablet/computer is puzzling. She lives in your house and is financially dependent on you. You realize how denying her autonomy is a bad look, right?
For perspective, my family has had maids come in monthly to my house as long as I've lived, and my parents have always tried to do right by them, help them get jobs, buy cars, etc. Don't treat her like a prisoner. Help her improve her lot in life. I come from an upper middle class background and I was always raised to share my fortunate circumstances with others.
would...would there be a bourgeoisie in a dictatorship of the proletariat?
I don't think the USSR properly achieved DoP status due to their elections not being free/fair, but let's say for a moment hypothetically that they were. Bourgeois elements still existed. The NEPmen were growing in the 20s. The government controlled the "commanding heights" but still allowed private ventures until Stalin's five year plans. The DoP isn't synonymous with socialism - its a state structure trying to complete the revolutionary transfer of power and control.
minimum income in dollars is +/- 260,00 over here, add tax, permission, training.It's the transitional state where the bourgeoisie would be, at best, declassed.
Weapons are (relatively) pretty cheap. Couple years back I bought an AK for $300
Elections are bourgeois, so yeah, you're right. Lenin never characterize the NEP, or Soviet Russia under his leadership, as Socialist. Small to medium sized businesses still existed under Stalin.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is proletarian State power, but not merely the seizing of the bourgeois state and placing it into the hands of the proletariat. That simply changes the class character of the proletariat into something else. The DOP is the expression of the proletarian state in flux, the dismantling of capital relations though they still exist.
The USSR was the latter for a very brief moment of time. Once the Soviet's collapsed and the proletarian class ceased to exist in the USSR so did the DOP, and so was the advent of the NEP and Lenin's State Capitalism.
I'm having difficulty parsing this. What does it look like as a concrete society?The DOP is the expression of the proletarian state in flux, the dismantling of capital relations though they still exist.
I'm having difficulty parsing this. What does it look like as a concrete society?
Oh my God he's armed.Weapons are (relatively) pretty cheap. Couple years back I bought an AK for $300
Don't know much about early Soviet history, but didn't those two communes last about a month or two at best?Marxists will point to Soviet Russia prior to the dismantling of the Soviets as well as the Paris and Shanghai Communes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_symbolismAnyone have examples of Marxist/Socialist iconography besides the hammer and sickle? I'm trying to get a custom hat made but I worry just using the hammer and sickle will make me look like a tankie, so I just wondered if there were other options.
Anyone have examples of Marxist/Socialist iconography besides the hammer and sickle? I'm trying to get a custom hat made but I worry just using the hammer and sickle will make me look like a tankie, so I just wondered if there were other options.
Don't know much about early Soviet history, but didn't those two communes last about a month or two at best?
Oh relax it's just to wear at work. I think I'll go with a raised fist symbol instead anyway.
Oh relax it's just to wear at work. I think I'll go with a raised fist symbol instead anyway.
take a look in the rage against the machine shirts
https://www.google.com/search?q=rag...yv3gAhWoHrkGHaSbC1sQ_AUIDygC&biw=1366&bih=645
edit: hats
https://www.google.com/search?q=rag...zP3gAhV1EbkGHa0xCCcQ_AUIDygC&biw=1366&bih=645
corrected
Unfortunately, corn is now a symbol of capitalist oppression with Big Maize.
The bourgeoisie wouldn't exist under the dictatorship of the proletariat.Revolutionary socialists aren't in favor of the Second Amendment. They're in favor of arming the proletariat specifically. The bourgeoisie would not have the right to weapons under the dictatorship of the proletariat, I suspect.
Or to put it another way, I've seen it said: "I support gun control, if by that you mean giving communists control of the guns."
The bourgeoisie wouldn't exist under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
How, exactly? Are you saying a DoP wouldn't immediately abolish private property?It wouldn't exist under socialism but it can still exist in limited form under the DoP until full socialism is achieved.
How, exactly? Are you saying a DoP wouldn't immediately abolish private property?
sphagnum said:It's possible, sure. If the proletariat seizes power, that doesn't mean that everything immediately changes.
I don't think the USSR properly achieved DoP status due to their elections not being free/fair, but let's say for a moment hypothetically that they were. Bourgeois elements still existed. The NEPmen were growing in the 20s. The government controlled the "commanding heights" but still allowed private ventures until Stalin's five year plans. The DoP isn't synonymous with socialism - its a state structure trying to complete the revolutionary transfer of power and control.[
/quote]
Nothing happens immediately!
How, exactly? Are you saying a DoP wouldn't immediately abolish private property?