I know that this term is pretty central to Marxism and has been in use for over a century now, but does anyone else think that the use of the term DOTP is counterproductive, especially in less class-conscious countries such as the United States? Thinking back to my ignorant conceptions of Marxism before I actually dove into theory, the concept of the DOTP in my mind instantly evoked thoughts of anti-communist propaganda (totalitarian states, mass-killings, etc). Surely my own preconceived notions of the DOTP are not unique to myself and are more common in those ignorant of what Marxism really is at large. Wouldn't a term such as "proletarian democracy" or "worker's democracy" have better results and not have people's brains shut off as soon as they hear dictatorship? I'm not suggesting that the term DOTP is even inaccurate, it obviously means to anyone familiar with Marxism the proletariat organized as the ruling class and not some sort of quasi-fascist totalitarian state like Americans seem to conceive of it as. Thoughts? Are there any benefits of using one term over another when debating or trying to convince people in real life?
“Dictatorship of the Proletariat”
Other urls found in this thread:
library1.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
For people new to socialism, I don't use it for the reasons you describe. People hear "dictatorship" and flip out, but not without reason. Whenever I talk about socialism I say something like "I believe in workers owning and running their workplaces" and the results are pretty good. If you can answer the obvious "but muh chaos without a manager" questions it's easy. That's not all of what socialism is but it's better than using DOTP, at least in the beginning.
Dictactorship of the proletariat is kind of an oxymoron, how can a class (a multitude of people) be a dictator.
Just use the term proletarian democracy.
Dictatorship of the proletariat class over the bourgeois class as opposed to the other way round.
It is definitely a phrase that has negative connotations. I think a better term would be "the phase of transition" i.e TPOT.
"Workers democracy" is fine by me.
Marx used the term "rule of the proletariat" as well. I think that term is a lot more palatable to people. Of course, no one in the US knows what "proletariat" means, so maybe something like 'worker's state" would work better.
Just tell them about the example David F. noble describes in his book Forces of production: A social History of Industrial Automation (library1.org
A few US plants did an experiment about how it would be if the workers themselves ran the shop. It turned out great, but the managers feared their loss of control over the workers and their work process, so they immediately canceled it. The book also describes how CN machines came to be and how capitalists chose a more clunky way of programing them in order to take control away from the workers.
The same as capitalists are now dictators as a class.
DOTP is not a literal dictatorship.
Sounds catchy
Just take a look at what happened in Paris after the fall of Paris commune. That's why you NEED the dictatorship of proletariat
"freedom for the people
dictatorship for the bourgeois"
youtube.com
I heard this on a portuguese adaptation of Through Valleys and Over Hills and I think it's the simplest explanation (and fun to sing). I'm sorry I'm not giving a more detailed answer but I'm currently on vacation.
I've met with working class people and was not impressed by their intelligence. Are these the people we want in power? Or do we want the smartest bunch from them?
I have also met with working class people and was, however, inmpressed by their intelligence. Now what?
I am a working class person and I'm willing to bet I'm smarter than you, lumpen.
Go fuck yourself.
That's why we are supposed to educate them, silly.
What if these people are Zig Forums tier morons who do not want to be educated and feel like they've got everything figured out?
Convince the rest. Stupid people are easy to control through peer pressure.
The only reason Zig Forums can behave that way is because of anonymity. It would be unimaginably embarrassing in real life.
Isn't it like "dictatorship over proletariat" at this point?
I have met a few Zig Forumsacks irl at college parties and they all behaved pretty acceptably for drunk standards of behaviour
Major shareholders and boards of directors aren't doing anything amazingly intelligent or anything anyone else could do but possibly far better since the corporations goals are far more to do than profits but what impacts it has on a community.
please learn to write
They can be decent people, but they wouldn't say the stupid shit they do online in person with a straight face. Some of these numbers can quickly lose their focus on their alt-right mentalities if their momentum vanishes. Many go back to their lives like nothing happened.
They instinctively understand that something is holding back society but they blame it all on scapegoats; Like immigrants, "destruction of white race", and "SJWs"
You're sounding a little fascist there, comrade. You might want to meditate on the words of the original neet for another decade, before spreading the word of full luxury auto gay space communism
Try to avoid using scary words like "job" and "work". Use more words like "simple/easy", "common sense", and "free". This will attract the hyper intellectuals we're looking for.
(me)
In fact, I've been thinking for a while now… To solve racism, we simply have to force these retards to have a conversation with an actual brown person. Put the two in a room together and make the idiot explain all about white nationalism. They'd feel like such pieces of shit. It would be beautiful. Publish it on YouTube while we're at it. Shit, someone should make this a reality.
There's no way they can talk about actual politics at such events.
"Dictatorship" in "dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't refer to what we today call a dictatorship. Changing it to "democracy" would be a translation of the same concept to modern terminology.
I've heard fascists say the same thing. "The oppressive majority", or something to that effect. It's bad optics but I'm not sure lying is a great way to enlighten others.
can we have communism without the brown people? Just don't feel like they'd bring anything beneficial to the table
This is not what I said. Dictatorships in the modern sense didn't yet exist when Marx was writing. The concept had a very different meaning and connotation. We need to change it exactly because the two aren't interchangeable.
The people at the top of the economic hierarchy making decisions for the rest of us to follow don't seem too smart either.
Yes. I've worked many places. Ordinary workers are capable of impressive things but most of the time they have no incentive to really shine or be productive.
Basically you're proposing a false dilemma by creating the impression that ordinary workers aren't already running 90% of society. The difference between capitalism and socialism will be that workers will be working directly for their own benefit and society as a whole instead of CEOs and shareholders.
A state is an instrument of class rule. Right now we’re living under what is essentially the dictatorship of capital (the bourgeoisie). When the tables are flipped, it’s the dictatorship (class rule) of the vast majority of society – that is the DOTP
I've been thinking about this and the simplification of political and economic terms when talking about politics with fellow workers less educated them me, and I reached the conclusion:
DON'T DO IT!
First off, to limit your vocabulary necessarily implies limiting the ideas you can express. The transitional phase is called a DICTATORSHIP because it is a violent period of fighting counter-revolution, and repressing reactionary forces. Call it a transitional phase and you make it broad to the point of being unclear what it even is. Call it a democracy of workers and people will be fooled into believing the bourgeoisie should have their rights preserved, allowing the pork to plot against the interest of the people, like it always happens in social democracies.
Secondly, you're robbing the workers of the joyful and fulfilling process of learning. People like learning new words and gaining new insights. And to dedicate some time to educate workers is to have a more intelligent, more capable of resisting workers; dumber people have a more limited vocabulary, but fortunately the opposite is also true.
Yes but mostly because the concept of the proletariat is obsolete and not the for cowardly reasons you list.
The older definitions of 'dictatorship' can easily be explained in a sentence or two, this is no problem for anyone with a functioning brain.
There's nothing left to say and I have no idea why this thread has more than one reply to it.
It’s not being “afraid” of the word dictatorship per se, it’s a question of which language is the best to use and the least obscurant when spreading Marxist ideas, especially in places like America where people are spooked out of their minds and have been raised from birth on anti-communist propaganda and blatant lies. Of course the term can be easily be explained, and would be too. The person would obviously learn the terms anyway if they went and looked at any Marxist literature. This isn’t about concealing the fact that we’re Marxists or engaging in revisionism, it’s about which terms and language are most conductive to actually getting people to listen to our ideas and start seriously considering them. I don’t know if you’re American or not but if you start going around and preaching for a dictatorship (no matter what this means) you cannot tell me that you would not be ripped to shreds by right-wingers and bourgeois retards in the media and elsewhere if you started to get involved in serious politics and started getting attention. Of course they will do this regardless, but I still think it’s valid to raise questions about the terminology most fruitful for winning people over or when speaking to actual proles. It doesn’t matter that the DOTP is synonymous with proletarian / worker’s democracy, people will go nuts here in the US if you start talking about dictatorships of any form. I think having a discussion on what terminology is must fruitful for speaking to the less class concious is a needed thing. It’s not the language Marx and Engels used which is important, it’s the substance of their ideas, no matter the term used. I care about the substance rather than the forms of words themselves and if changing terminology while keeping the exact substance is needed of course I’ll do it. Think realistically here. I think back to my own anti-communist days. The DOTP in my mind was associated with totalitarianism, mass-killings, 1984-tier governments and anti-communist propaganda. Sure, it was a belief taken in ignorance but surely I did not deviate from the view of the average person in any truly significant way.
How so? If we define the proletariat as those who live by selling their labor-power to the bourgeoisie I’d say most of society can accurately described as proles