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)…

  • modem_down@thebrainbin.orgBanned from communityOP
    14·
    8 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
      6·
      4 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
      7·
      5 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.

        • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
          5·
          4 hours ago

          didn’t you just read about it? it’s a democracy for us, its a dictatorship for you nazi trash. we’ll be ruling over the oppressors. of course you disagree with that because you’re a fascist.

    • ttayh@lemmy.zip
      6·
      6 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
        6·
        4 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

      • modem_down@thebrainbin.orgBanned from communityOP
        14·
        2 hours ago

        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.