Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Those states would agree that they have not achieved communism, and they would agree that they are authoritarian, namely the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin, 1917, The State and Revolution
Let's just skip the euphemisms and use 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'
There is a euphemism for dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and it is bourgeois democracy.
Bourgeois democracy is a separate term. It can describe something like European nations voting between which bourgeoisie will rule the proletariat. The more you know.
Even NATOPedia thinks they’re synonyms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_bourgeoisie
The only time they’re not synonyms is when the capitalist class finds kayfabe democracy insufficient, at which point they deploy fascism. That’s what’s been developing in many Western capitalist states around the world in recent years. The working class is more and more agitated by their deteriorating conditions under neoliberalism. Even the petit bourgeois feel threatened. The far-right surge isn’t organic, though: the capitalist class fuels it to maintain their position.
You scratch some accuratish points now that the comment is redone from the pre-edit slip-up.
Let's sum it all to the audience: Western capitalist states are being agitated with far-right surges by the Eastern capitalist states to cause internal instability with have the same foreign sources, and yes, targeting to mislead the working classes. Even the "moderate" right wingers let that happen because they'd rather have fascists in power than lose capitalism.
Basically capitalists are infighting between the previous topic of bourgeois democracy & bourgeois dictatorship camps. East and West have integrated fascism in their systems, just with slightly different methods. Western capitalism that voting makes a difference, eastern capitalism lies that their dictatorships are something else and just a facade of fascism.
Both are pretty obvious 'open secrets' / kayfabe. Even the states don't act like this with straight faces and many from the populations see through it all (and displays fascist state lie parrots as pretty comical — but it just bolsters the suffering). The critical mass is still in theater mode, which is enough for the oligarchies as it prevents revolutionary action.