A citizen democracy under dicatorship of the citizen. The citizen had democracy and dictated over those that did not.

If we assume your interpretation is correct, then it relies on the (true) premise that Athens had clear laws about who was a citizen.

That premise does not hold true of “the proletariat”. So, the contradiction remains.

Proof 1

Was Stalin still “proletarian” in Nov 1907, when he was leader of an organised crime ring (he controlled their means of production)? In early 1912, as editor of Pravda (ditto)? In 1918, while directing death squads in Tsaritsyn (ditto)? In 1928 as General Secretary and de facto leader of the USSR (ditto)? From 1941-1953 as Premier (ditto)?

As a kid, he was proletarian. During adulthood, he was increasingly bourgeois - but was still allowed by “Communists” to be a dictator.

So, “dictatorship by the proletariat” is in fact not dictatorship by the proletariat.

=> “Dictatorship by the proletariat” is contradictory. QED.

Proof 2

If you define the proletariat as the disenfranchised, then as soon as the proletariat becomes enfranchised, it is no longer the proletariat.

=> “Dictatorship by the proletariat” is contradictory. QED.

Proof 3

If you define the bourgeoisie as those who ultimately control the means of production, and “dictatorship of the proletariat” as proletarians controlling the bourgeoisie, then in “dictatorship of the proletariat”, the bourgeoisie do not ultimately control the means of production and therefore are not bourgeoisie.

=> “Dictatorship by the proletariat” is contradictory. QED.

I’m flattered by your insistence on proving my point.

Me: You’re scraping the bottom of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement. You: You dumb ass gringo.

I rest my case.

You: The dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship. Me: So, not a democracy then. You: You are a fascist!

You’re scraping the bottom of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement .

So, not a democracy then.

Cheers, but that doesn’t resolve the contradiction.

“for whom is there democracy?” and “over whom is there a dictatorship?”

Case 1: Sloan’s example

Athenian citizens had democracy; non-citizens didn’t.

Two separate groups: no contradiction. (Partial suffrage, as opp. universal suffrage.)

Case 2: OurToothbrush

“a proletarian democracy under dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Same group (“proletarians”), so there is contradiction.

a proletarian democracy under dictatorship of the proletariat

Do you not see the contradiction there?

You’re promoting [dictatorship of the bourgeoisie] as an alternative to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Like I said: point me to where I did that. Oh, you can’t, because I didn’t.

Where did I “promote the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”? You’re talking out of your hat.

Don’t take this the wrong way but you might be in the wrong instance.

How so? I’m not promoting any extreme viewpoints, and Lemmy.ml is the primary instance of Lemmy so surely ought to be welcoming

Also, colonialism.

That seems very OT. No-one in this thread is advocating colonialism, AFAICT.

What a lot of whataboutism. You didn’t directly answer a single one of my questions.

That’s just simply objectively not true

Look at the footnotes here.

US state media

CNN? The same CNN that is being blocked by the White House?

You know who wouldn’t have let this happen? The German Democratic Republic.

Maybe.

That aside: wild take.

antidemocratic destruction of communism in Europe

🙄

Soviet rule killed tens of millions. And was not democratic.

Are you saying Gorbachev should not have pursued glasnost or perestroika?

That the Berlin Wall should not have come down?

That Vaclav Havel was wrong to say, “[T]he sooner, the more quickly, and the more peacefully the Soviet Union begins to move along the road toward genuine political pluralism, respect for the rights of nations to their own integrity and to a working—that is a market—economy, the better it will be, not just for Czechs and Slovaks, but for the whole world.”?