• doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dictatorships aren’t progressive. I don’t even consider them communisms, tbh. How can workers own the means to production if one guy or family owns the nation?

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Agree with your last sentence but it is the path all the Marxist revolutions have taken. A reason being that proletariat dictatorship is a step to communism in Marx’s ideology. But from history, it seems it just stops at the dictatorship.
      So maybe the conclusion is that Marx methodology doesn’t actually lead to a progressive/left country.

      • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is Kerala, a state in India with 34.6 Million people.

        TBF there probably would be more than a few if not for USA intervention, like when they overthrew the Marxist Democratic Socialist Allende of Chile in 1973.

        There is also Nepal currently, although they’ve very recently enacted a constitution in 2015 and score lower than the USA according to DemocracyMatrix they still qualify as a “Deficient Democracy” the same as the USA.

        There was also San Marino from 1945 to 1957 where the “Rovereta Affair” ended in a coup and the Christian Nationalist party took control of the government. TBF though they probably would have just had a shitty Stalinist communism just like Turkmenistan did.

        I realize most people define communism and socialism as republics in which most if not all goods are public, but I personally like to include nations in which a sizeable number of goods and services are state owned or distributed, which would include a great many democratic nations like Germany or the UK (as long as we agree the crown has no real political authority in the UK).