/b/ - Siberia

The USSR wasn't a dictatorship in the formal sense, and the US's internal military intel admitted as much. The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" essentially just translates into "workers' republic" - the same peopke who say "dictatorship of the proletariat" will critique bourgeois "democracy" as a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." Understanding this actually helps illuminate a lot about hiw the US really works, and how republics really work.

At many points in the USSR's history, the average person was happy with their country there. It wasn't really a dictatorship, but even some actual dictatorships have had relatively satisfied publics.

>>160196
If the government is genuinely democratic and is for the interests of the people, then it should have the ability to exercise its authority in order to enact the will of the people.

ML's use the word dictatorship in a weird way, it's usually used to describe one class oppressing another, bourgeoisie dictatorship when the bourgeoisie oppress the workers, and a proletarian dictatorship when it's the other way around.

While it's true about the USSR, the dictatorship was there nonetheless. There were elections into the government, but they were really formal: You either elect who's suggested, or who's aligned with the party.

>What do you think about dictatorship?
depends on what your goal is
i want governance to reflect the interests of all members of society, therefore i dislike dictatorship
>What do you think about dictatorship where dictator isn't a single person, but a group of people?
strictly speaking, this is known as oligarchy
you could argue that an ideal democracy is the dictatorship of the masses
however, the notion of dictatorship is usually coupled with pervasive state power
in that case i dislike it, i would prefer to have a healthy civil society that is more or less free from state interference
>Is there theoretically a dictatorship where people are happy about their lives?
yes, and this is more common than some might think
>Why do you think dictatorships are still around nowadays?
capitalist society still relies on the state in order to stabilize it and mediate its internal conflicts

>>160203 (me)
apologies, didn't address the last point well at all
dictatorship traditionally arises in response to highly ineffective elite rule
the leader (president, prime minister, what have you) often acts as a check on oligarchic bodies
when they cause more problems than they can solve, the power of the leader can be expanded (through various means, usually antagonistic) in an attempt to resolve this
as to why this happens, elites tend to disproportionately represent certain sections of society which have narrow interests, and thus they tend to be very ineffective at responding to certain crises
for example, in the past, you might see the serfs be in favor of an expansion in the power of the king as a way to counteract the misrule of their lords
there are many other factors involved of course, but so long as there is crisis and class society, this will be a relatively common pattern
this was known of course and there were attempts to manage this, the state structure of the United States is an example of this, whether it succeeded or not is up to you to decide