“Dictator of the proletariat” didn’t mean the proletariats needed a dictator. It meant they needed to be the dictators. The common people must decide what the common people need, is what that sentence means.
I’m very interested to hear your thoughts on how it is possible to have a dictatorship of the proletariat, while simultaneously having an actual dictator.
I’m actually not disagreeing that the USSR was socialist, by the way. For most intents and purposes, they were. But “dictatorship of the proletariat” at least to me, sounds like a democracy which is antithetical to authoritarianism
“Dictator of the proletariat” didn’t mean the proletariats needed a dictator. It meant they needed to be the dictators. The common people must decide what the common people need, is what that sentence means.
That’s what I’m saying.
I’m very interested to hear your thoughts on how it is possible to have a dictatorship of the proletariat, while simultaneously having an actual dictator.
I’m actually not disagreeing that the USSR was socialist, by the way. For most intents and purposes, they were. But “dictatorship of the proletariat” at least to me, sounds like a democracy which is antithetical to authoritarianism