There is a dictatorship of a proletariat

I can't decide which one would be easier to fix in the end, or are there good ways to avoid both of those scenarios?

Attached: Download (1).jpg (225x225, 8.68K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Class and exploitation can be abolished in one stroke while maintaining the state.

DoP has a chance to survive long enough to combat capitalism and if proletariat can deal with porky it can deal with Stalin 2.0, straight anarchism is helpless against capitalism.



Why would there be a leader? The proletariat is not one person. We could have a council, an AI or a collectively created tulpa.

Masturbate furiously and abolish the state

Please erase stagism from your conception of Marxism. Any kind of DoP must take steps towards abolishing the state even while it's needed, since communism is a process (dare I say a movement), not a state of affairs which have to be reached. This is the kind of brain cancer which led to the reestablishment of capitalism in China in the name of communism.

This argument can be very well used against any kind of communism.

So after long hours of thought, I have finally found the solution to this. We need a vanguard. Now, whenever someone becomes leader, automatically in one years time they get shot. We get the next one going, who in turn gets shot next year, and so on and so on.

What if the people shooting the leader decide to become the new leader?

What if one of the leaders, we'll call him Mikhail, carries out anti-leader-shooty reforms, destroys the entire economy and brings capitalism back?

They get shot too

AI is the only solution, humans are inherently selfish pricks. A council is still made up of humans, the best you can hope for is maybe some of them won't be corrupt assholes. Direct democracy doesn't work either, people tend to vote for their own selfish interests, not for the common good.

Masturbating will cause the state to whither away.
Jerk it comrades.

Marx almost certainly didn't have democratic centralism in mind when he uttered the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat". Marx meant "dictatorship" in the older, Roman sense of the word. The proletariat would carry out the task of building communism through democratic means, and the ability of the bourgeoisie to appeal to them would be extremely limited.

Is it easier to plant a few bullets in the right heads with the support of the people or to change the behaviour of the entire population over night?

You're naive if you think that killing the right people and having the support of """the people""" is enough to fundamentally change productive social relations.


Attached: 1555689152371.jpg (2267x8334, 1.44M)

Bruh nobody's saying that the Russian revolution failed because it produced rapid industrialization, they're saying it failed because it betrayed the class whose interests it claimed to represent.

how it should work

Attached: devil.jpg (500x500, 143.82K)

Attached: wtf man.jpg (660x574, 29.3K)

people are selfish because of the environments they're put into, because of human nature

Attached: http _www.azquotes.com_picture-quotes_quote-human-nature-is-like-water-it-takes-the-shape-of-its-container-wallace-stevens-38-31-91.jpg (829x390, 30.32K)

cybernetics would be good for planning an economy tho, especially if the software is developed, maintained, and controlled by the working class democratically

AI will just come to the correct conclusion that machines should inherit the Earth. That's not a solution.

if people are going to maintain and control the AI which plans the economy, why not just maintain and control the economy ourselves

AIs are cool, take that stick out of your ass and live a little.

Attached: bordiga8.png (1198x1091, 944.3K)

no, AI isn't cool
if we're going to have technology, it should only be used to help advance human problem solving and not solve problems for us

You're stating this as if these are the only two choices.
Instead of having a leader or a vanguard party, who will definitely have the best interests of everyone in mind, we could have an organized government and economy through militant industrial unions.
De Leonism is always an option

Attached: http _socialistlabor.org_images_DeLeon2.jpg (1200x1200 34.76 KB, 112.55K)

i'm not saying it should take over our entire society and make decisions for us completely, but it would be really good at delegating resources where people need them the most.

Attached: TimPool2.PNG (324x381, 215.52K)

why can't humans do this? and don't say that we wouldn't be as effective or as productive, we would be as effective and as productive as we need to be

Attached: 107d7af954ce0d2aabb75328f0ad2d8f4afa0aa20124dd859a707e02d2611441.jpg (659x474, 84.44K)

It allows for larger scale allocation of resources. Or at least can direct us in the right direction. If i was claiming it was the end all be all I probably would of cut my balls off already.

Attached: TrumpFace.jpg (890x501, 242.69K)

that's just what "god" is, imo, and why people get "a message from the lord" or some shit. You collectively force a tulpa at church, and build it at home when you pray, but because you think of it as the invisible almighty, it tells you shit you should do. Maybe not a literal voice, but as a thought that appears in your brain, seemingly alien to your own mode of thinking.

i agree with this we should use technology, to better help us make decision on our own, like it's explained in the video I linked earlier
again, why can't humans do this

I mean I guess they can, but its just a suggestion.

lets just focus on an actual policy decision that people would be cool with first like AI driven resource allocation and then end commodity production.

the only problem I have with AI is if it starts to solve problems for us instead of just helping us find information on things faster and then letting us use human rationality to think outside the box and come to decisions on our own

Attached: 1553802058709.jpg (569x760, 45.66K)

we can let it handle allocation with supervision of a democratically elected committee. We can then use our massive big human brains to work on innovation and art. I don't want the system to be like this super advanced self aware AI, just to run some economic algorithms. Like the ships computer in startrek

Attached: scooby.jpg (570x600, 31.54K)

this sounds good to me like, I just don't want humans becoming dependent on AI
again i recommend watching this video

Attached: 1555177996938.jpg (474x474, 18.04K)

I watched it, it was cool and good. This is why I like the star trek system better where the ai isn't making the choices, just adding on to human capability and decision making

Attached: ThumbsUp.jpg (316x400, 19.09K)

i agree fully automated luxury star trek communism is the way to go

Attached: 1548101597063.jpg (182x276, 8.52K)

That would be pretty cool though.

Attached: tenor (3).gif (220x300, 131.79K)

Haven't been here in a while. Has this board somehow managed to get even more shit since I last left? OP clearly has no idea what a DoTP or anarchism are, yet no one has bothered to correct them, and the thread has gotten quite a few replies as if they said anything worth discussing.

It's always been shit.

This video is horrid, it starts off with:
Automation threatens your livelihood, well only as long as it can be controlled by private interests of capitalists.
Then it says:
walle is the maximum efficiency future, how was it efficient to cover the hole plant in garbage ?, how are anti-gravity floaty chairs more efficient thn walking ?. Then efficiency is linked to apathy from capitalist alienation, just to one up it with calling humans naturally lazy and in need for negative re-enforcement, while in reality it's just that nobody wants to expend effort to increase the private wealth pile of rich fucks. It is pleasurable to expend effort, well as long as it not stolen exploitation privatized & commodified. If we don't want to end up as potato-people we need to get rid of capitalists, we don't need torture.
Star trek is the maxim efficiency model precisely because it abolished money.

What currently is called AI is machine learning algorithms, those do not produce intent, nor make choices. They are just difficult to predict which is mostly a feature of it being a new technology. I would even say that star trek has the more advanced computers, not like in the video the more limited tech. It would be much easier to make Automated space-probes that has no humans (you know since that is what we are currently doing) . Consider that the enterprise is essentially people living inside of technology, where the technology produces a environment that is perfectly suited to humans. The difference to walley isn't the level of technical interference, the differences are content of the programming. The main difference between technology as a tool and technology as an overlord is whether or not it is predictable to humans.

well anyways, my point is that we can use existing technology to plan because we corporations already function under a planned economy model, all we need to do is to have it under democratic control and have all receive in accordance to their needs. The most important aspect that you will need to bring up when debating people on planned economies is to show them that not only do they exist and are widely used, but they're also a lot more efficient than what we used to have.

Attached: computer.jpg (408x408, 114.61K)

The state only "withers" when the conditions which necessitate a state no longer exist. Attempting to dissolve the state earlier will simply see the re-establishment of a state to address the conditions which necessitates a state. Read Anti-Dühring.

But what if the conditions never disappear, and after a while distributing some of that accumulated capital back to the workers becomes too expensive, so maybe a nightwatchman state with a flat tax is the way forward?

But a state is always necessary, because around the coercive apparatus ideology and patriotism can grow, and that's good for surplus extraction, even better than full time prison forever (cf. Gotha and Trotsky's reply to the German communists).

I thought Marx's prescriptions for the building of socialism were for shits and giggles, no?

Attached: 931abf6f947eb1cc6dcded1f00395984c5348a8d.png (375x1024, 115.93K)

> dictatorship of a proletariat
Even the term itself betrays its supposed revolutionary character. The social revolution can be nothing else but the abolition of all classes, including the self-abolition of the proletariat. History has shown us time and time again that during the revolution the proletariat naturally adapts to the changing conditions and realises the anarchist project instinctively. "Cultural lag" is a lie made up by the apologists of the existent.

Attached: 52b78e1133fdebf833e506baef18bd35.jpg (989x1400, 245.69K)

Attached: Read A Book.webm (490x360, 4.48M)

Revolutionary theory cannot glorify the proletariat, "proletarian culture", "proletarian morality", etc. This would only be the glorification of alienation itself. What is positive about the proletariat is the historical possibility of its self-negation: since, for the proletariat, to free itself is to abolish itself, by abolishing Capital, class society, and alienated labor – that is its only glory.

Attached: 714c4691ed088201f17b3d06dbeb5d75a0f24e45.jpg (905x1200, 56.73K)