There has been outrage after a small town in eastern Germany banned the installation of new Holocaust memorial plaques that mark the last known residence or workplace of Jews and other victims of the genocide.

Crossposted from https://thebrainbin.org/m/germany@feddit.org/t/1945027

A small town in eastern Germany banned the installation of new Holocaust memorial plaques that mark the last known residence or workplace of Jews and other victims of the genocide.

The motion was proposed by the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU)…

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
      12·
      8 hours ago

      You’re promoting it as an alternative to the dictatorship of the proletariat. East Germany went from a proletarian democracy under dictatorship of the proletariat to a bourgeois democracy under dictatorship of capital when reunification happened.

      • modem_down@thebrainbin.orgOP
        212·
        8 hours ago

        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.

        • Horse {they/them}@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          15·
          7 hours ago

          Do you not see the contradiction there?

          there is no contradiction
          you only believe there is because you don’t know what the term means and refuse to investigate and learn

          • Horse {they/them}@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
            9·
            7 hours ago

            in simple terms, dictatorship of the proletariat means that the proletariat (the working class, those of us who make our income by selling our labor power) controls the state apparatus as a class
            as opposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which means the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class, those who make their income by owning the means of production) controls the state apparatus as a class
            the second is the current state of things in most countries around the globe

        • Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself]@lemmy.ml
          10·
          7 hours ago

          Do you not see the contradiction there?

          no

            We are sometimes inclined, I think unwisely, to treat democracy and dictatorship as two mutually exclusive terms, when in actual fact they may often represent two aspects of the same system of government. For example, if we turn to the Encyclopedia Britannica, to the article dealing with “Democracy,” we read: “Democracy is that form of government in which the people rules itself, either directly, as in the small city-states of Greece, or through representatives.”
            But the same writer goes on to say this: “All the people in the city-state did not have the right to participate in government, but only those who were citizens, in the legal and original sense. Outside this charmed circle of the privileged were the slaves, who had no voice whatever in the making of the laws under which they toiled. They had no political and hardly any civil rights; they were not ‘people.’ Thus the democracy of the Greek city-state was in the strict sense no democracy at all.”
            The Greek city-state has been cited time and again by historians as the birthplace of democracy. And yet, on reading the Encyclopedia Britannica, we find that in fact this was a democracy only for a “charmed circle of the privileged,” while the slaves, who did the work of the community, “had no voice whatever in the making of the laws under which they toiled.”
            The classical example of democracy was, then, a democracy only for certain people. For others, for those who did the hard work of the community, it was a dictatorship. At the very birthplace of democracy itself we find that democracy and dictatorship went hand in hand as two aspects of the same political system. To refer to the “democracy” of the Greek city-state without saying for whom this democracy existed is misleading. To describe the democracy of the Greek city-state without pointing out that it could only exist as a result of the toil of the slaves who “had no political and hardly any civil rights” falsifies the real history of the origin of democracy.
            Democracy, then, from its origin, has not precluded the simultaneous existence of dictatorship. The essential question which must be asked, when social systems appear to include elements both of democracy and dictatorship, is, “for whom is there democracy?” and “over whom is there a dictatorship?”

          —Pat Sloan, in the Introduction to Soviet Democracy

          • modem_down@thebrainbin.orgOP
            13·
            6 hours ago

            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.

            • davel@lemmy.mlEnglish
              4·
              2 hours ago

              There basically has never yet been a democracy for all residents of a state. The purpose of the state is to impose the will of the ruling class upon the other classes.

              Bourgeois democracy is a democracy for the bourgeoisie, to the exclusion of the proletariat.

              Proletarian democracy is a democracy for the proletariat, to the exclusion of the bourgeoisie.

              Until capitalism/imperialism has been nearly universally phased out, there will be competing economic classes. Once capitalism is gone, there will only be one economic class, the proletariat, allowing democracy to finally be for everyone. That’s what Marxists mean by a “stateless” society: one that is classless.

              Previously:

              The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

              The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.

              As you have already chosen to remain ignorant by blocking me, this is for the peanut gallery.

            • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
              5·
              3 hours ago

              no, in the dictatorship of the proletariat the majority of people, this means the working class, imposes a dictatorship upon the bourgeoisie, the minority group that lives by stealing other people’s work.

            • ttayh@lemmy.zip
              5·
              4 hours ago

              The athenian citizens had a democracy under the male-citizen dictatorship. You are just using a different definition of dictatorship than the one that is used for “dictatorship of the proletariat”

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                3·
                2 hours ago

                Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.

                Somehow always remind me when people mention Athenian democracy

        • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
          13·
          7 hours ago

          you just don’t know what these words mean and you think they’re bad things. read a fucking book and stop acting like a smug.

            • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
              111·
              7 hours ago

              you’re doing cia propaganda talking points motherfucker what is there that you don’t understand? promoting western imperialism is an extreme view, the only thing that your cracker ass brain can’t process is how white settler colonialism can be an extreme viewpoint. do you understand now? doing what you did means you’re bourgeois shill, thus you’re promoting the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. is that enough evidence bro? or do you want to quote some literal nazi propaganda bullshit to keep your red scare story straight?

              • modem_down@thebrainbin.orgOP
                110·
                7 hours ago

                Swearing at me and accusing me of things I haven’t done is kangaroo court stuff, and offensive.

                You still haven’t evidenced your claims - because you can’t.