I critically support China, but the existence of billionaires is a constant existential threat to the working class character of the cpc and the Chinese state and any "socialist" who says otherwise is full of shit.
This isn't synonymous with the dotp, and it's only necessary to maintain capitalist relations of production like this when the productive forces are too underdeveloped to switch immediately to fully or at least primarily socialist relations of production (some form of planned economy which produces goods directly according to social need). Situations like China, Vietnam, and the USSR during the NEP are examples of this. The dotp is just any state in which the working class is the ruling class and wields state power in their interests.
control of the means of production via the state. the state being controlled by the proletariat.
you can say that in practice the proletariat has to make concessions to the bourgeoisie during some period but having the mops being mostly owned by the bourgeois is not a feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. the whole point is to shift to workers owning the mops (via the state) and control the state to prevent counterrevolution.
ok so we are mostly mental wanking by now but defining the dotp as a period where the mops are mostly owned by the bourgeoisie seems a bit ass backwrds.
also, even if you have literally nationalised and collectivised all the mops (all the big, beautiful mops, folks) the bourgeoisie may technically not exist anymore but they won't happily accept the new status quo, which is why the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to protect the collectivisation. so in my view the dictatorship of the proletariat would still exist after the bourgeoisie/proletariat are technically no more.
What part of socialism says that billionaires are good and necessary for the transition to communism? Because I must have skipped that book.
deleted by creator
I critically support China, but the existence of billionaires is a constant existential threat to the working class character of the cpc and the Chinese state and any "socialist" who says otherwise is full of shit.
Figures. There is room for criticism in all things. Except for Uncle Joe's poetry. I will hear no criticism of those.
He has poetry?
Under the pen name of Soselo
deleted by creator
This isn't synonymous with the dotp, and it's only necessary to maintain capitalist relations of production like this when the productive forces are too underdeveloped to switch immediately to fully or at least primarily socialist relations of production (some form of planned economy which produces goods directly according to social need). Situations like China, Vietnam, and the USSR during the NEP are examples of this. The dotp is just any state in which the working class is the ruling class and wields state power in their interests.
dictatorship of the proletariat is when the means of production are mostly owned by the bourgeoisie
big brain takes on my chapo?
deleted by creator
control of the means of production via the state. the state being controlled by the proletariat.
you can say that in practice the proletariat has to make concessions to the bourgeoisie during some period but having the mops being mostly owned by the bourgeois is not a feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. the whole point is to shift to workers owning the mops (via the state) and control the state to prevent counterrevolution.
deleted by creator
ok so we are mostly mental wanking by now but defining the dotp as a period where the mops are mostly owned by the bourgeoisie seems a bit ass backwrds.
also, even if you have literally nationalised and collectivised all the mops (all the big, beautiful mops, folks) the bourgeoisie may technically not exist anymore but they won't happily accept the new status quo, which is why the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to protect the collectivisation. so in my view the dictatorship of the proletariat would still exist after the bourgeoisie/proletariat are technically no more.
deleted by creator