• TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    I hop off the train at the part where the top-down dictatorship comes into play. Probably a bit before the level of authoritarianism where the Joseph Stalin type starts killing people for having a dissenting opinion, and what not.

    Using the state to enforce good wages and end the terribleness of the stock market/landlord culture does not need to involve a top down dictatorship and a lack of democracy.

    I know about the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and all that, and in my opinion, it should involve all of the workers, not one person or a small group of people. A top down dictatorship just makes it all that easier for the party to be infiltrated and controlled by bourgeois interests. If said dictatorship is a true democracy, with each worker having an equal say, it makes it pretty hard to control the proles.

    • ssj2marx@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      So you wouldn’t accept any system that’s not a direct democracy? Where every single person is involved in every single vote? It’s a coherent position I suppose, but IMO totally impractical and idealistic.

      • Gigasser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t think it’s realistic or pragmatic to expect a perfect direct democracy system. Trying to get as close to one as feasibly possible can be a goal though, and once we’re at that point, try to continually and slowly improve that direct democracy system until it’s even closer and closer and closer, ad infinitum.