this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
106 points (85.8% liked)
Memes
54678 readers
1857 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Lmao perfect
Also to the liberals pearl clutching about "but we need democracy!" not realizing that's what that quote means.
The proletariat is, pretty much by definition, the VAST majority of the people in a society, by far the largest group. The commoners like you and me, working in order to make a living.
Dictatorship can mean what you think it means in that context. Ruling a country by the will of some dictator.
If the proletariat is the dictator, it means ruling a country by the will of the vast majority of the people. That's what democracy is. We can further discuss implementations of it and how well they work (hint: Western democracy works very poorly and is very undemocratic in practice, as you've definitely experienced), but the general concept described by "dictatorship of the proletariat" is democracy.
Can’t tell if this is meant as a jab at Anarchists or Communists.
The Anarchist doesn’t want there to be a centralized hierarchy since it gives people absolute power over their fellow men, so they’re asking like “what part of DICTATORSHIP do you not understand?”
The Communist is asking “what part of dictatorship of the PROLETARIAT do you not understand?” Because they think the society Anarchists want is a form of a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat.
That's what makes it a fun meme!
Thanks for sharing comrade
O7
The end goal, where you dissolve the state, and thus the dictatorship.
The state is a result of class struggle, so to end states once and for all you need to achieve classless society, eliminating the basis of the state. That means collectivizing all production and distribution globally, into one system. Once this is done, there are no classes in contention, and as such the oppressive elements of society used to keep the proletariat on top will gradually disappear and "wither," being reduced in function and scope until only what's necessary remains, like administration.
It sounds like anarchist and communists should be allies.
Only due to collective interests and a shallow understanding of each. When you really get down to it, Marxism and anarchism are opposites.
-
Historical materialism vs rejection of this (idealism)
-
Society is built upon what came before vs society is built anew
-
Centralization vs decentralization
-
Organization at a large scale (collective ownership of the means of production organized across the whole economy) vs organization at a small scale (isolated, individual, and direct ownership of the means of production with collective collaboration)
Sure, both agree that they want a stateless society, but communists and anarchists don't even agree on what the state is, meaning that while they can be strategic allies, their ultimate goals and approaches are completely different and opposed.
For the most part, yes there are even anarcho-communists. But at the same there is a big difference in the non-authoritarian view of the anarchists and some communists.
From what I have read, it seems communism is the journey and anarchism is basically the destination with a few institutions intact. I'd rather take that road and whatevwr fights that may bring than what I currently see as our future.
Edit: because I don't believe the public on average, especially in the west, is ready for any kind of anarchism. They couldn't handle it. It would be ruined by the same forces currently destroying the world order. We need to join with the communists to defeat it. Whatever consequences come of that are better tha nation state fiefdoms run by billionaire psycopaths and sycophants.
Right on
Yeah that is one way of seeing it, but I am from an ex socialist county and the idea of communism can also be easily abused and co-opted.
As long as there are power structures be it the market or the state. The people cannot be free.
And I also believe you cannot free other people they must free themselves. If you forcefully free someone you are just imposing new rules.
AKA communism?
If we agreed the market can't self regulate, why would the state be able to?
The market cant self regulate because it doesnt represent the interests of the prolotariat. The state in a socialist society by definition is govened by the people.
Not sure I understand the point, states and markets are entirely different things, especially a state run by the working class whose goal is to collectivize all production and distribution, erasing the basis of class struggle and therefore the oppressive elements of government that make up the state.
states and markets are entirely different things,
They are both power structures.
erasing the basis of class struggle and therefore the oppressive elements of government that make up the state.
IMO you will just create new class (the party) vs the workers. Why would the ruling class relinquish the power that they have?
Markets and states are entirely different things, it looks like you're identifying a partial overlap and using that to ignore that they are extremely diffrrent. Socialist states can be checked because the working class controls it, we see this in socialist states today.
Further, the communist party is not a class, it's the organized segment of the working classes. Administration isn't a class, either. The proletariat as a ruling class wishes not to perpetuate its existence as a class, but to abolish it by collectivizing all of production and distribution.
I hope you are right
Is there a part you disagree with, or are unsure of? Have you studied Marxism or socialist states before?
I have and also I am from a country with famously failed socialist experiment.
The part that I am most unsure of is the concentration of power within a small group of people. Yes they will be elected but elections can be rigged.
That concentration of power means the system is ripe for abuse. Maybe not in the beginning when the leaders are versed in Marxism or whatever socialism they believe in. But eventually this power going to someone with selfish intentions will not be good.
Ok. So capitalism observably doesn't work. And you have decided a proletarian state is impossible. So what is your solution? Is organising futile? Do we just wait for a magic spark of simultaneous global revolution? Do we wait for the world to end? Is it all just futile and we kill ourselves now?
You are very invested in idealist "human nature" metaphysics for someone who allegedly studied Marxism.
I think anarchism is a cool idea.
Also I haven't studied Marxism.
And a lot of the arguments I raise here are implemetational, so there is a very big difference from a socialist country to a socialist country.
Cowbee "have you studied marxism"
You "I have"
???
I have read a few books on it, take that as you like.
Ok so you haven't. You should. Also it's a bad habit to lie to act like you know more than you do.
It's a bad habit to act like a dick as well but it doesn't seem to stop you?
If you have some disagreement with what I am saying you can point it out. If you want to just nitpicking around my comments go for it, but there is no way to positively engaged with that.
I have been neutral at worst. Why should I go out of my way to grovel be extra nice to you who has done nothing but spout off arrogantly about things you clearly don't understand. Also I have pointed out issues and even recommended some reading across my other comments. Grow up.
The potential for corruption exists in all organizations, vut that doesn't mean you cannot account for this. Socialism, by necessity, has more distributed power than capitalism due to the working classes controlling the state.
Socialism, by necessity, has more distributed power than capitalism
I assume here you mean that this is because the party must fulfill the demands of the citizens and not only of the capitalists.
But if we go back to the beginning I am arguing that in case of thus structured power structures the party and the capitalists are one. So they can use the same ticks that capitalists use now to manipulate the public and answer only to themselves.
The PRC was founded and has been led by the CPC for over 70 years. Why hasn't it become just as bad as the capitalists? Why does anti corruption still reach the highest rungs of power?
It's almost like a socialist state led by a communist party is qualitatively different to a capitalist one under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
No, I'm saying that socialism requires worker participation in running the economy because that's what happems when you have a publicly run economy. The party cannot be considered the same as capitalists, because this is an entirely different economic structure. Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance helps explain how democracy works within socialism.
You're again looking at particular similarities, ie capitalists have power in capitalism and the communist party has some degree of power in socialism, while ignoring the economic foundations that each relies on and their innumerable qualitative differences. The communist party cannot "use the same ticks that capitalists use now to manipulate the public and answer only to themselves," because socialism and capitalism are entirely different modes of production. You haven't explained how, just equated both by virtue of having some degree of authority.
Oh god, a repeat of the later half of the Spanish Civil War.
That makes no sense. Living conditions while losing a civil war are hardly indicative of what planned economies are capable of.
I was referring to the communists and anarchists working together at first then breaking apart
What a cursed set of flags