If you were really obsessed with liberation of the proletariat as a class you too would try to oppose and resist racism, colonialism, imperialism, sexism, cissexism, heterosexism, ableism, anti-immigrant bigotry, etc. If you gave a fuck about the working class and not just maintaining a slightly higher (or much higher) social position than others you would find the way these things harm and oppress the proletariat, as a class and as individual human beings, totally fucking unacceptable.
It’s not “an injury to one is an injury to all, unless that one of us is Black or an immigrant in which case fuck them”.
While it’s absolutely important for theory to discuss and really address how things like these are foundational and necessary for the development of and function of capitalism (not just coincidental to it), even if you didn’t do that, if you were actually even remotely committed to supporting the working class, you wouldn’t be okay with racist violence against its Black members, exploitation of its immigrant members, extermination of its disabled members, etc.
“The workers and peasants constitute the vast majority of the
population. And does not “democracy” mean carrying out the will of the
majority? How then can one be a democrat, and yet be opposed to the
“dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry”?”
During the time of Marx, the term “dictatorship” didn’t have the same political context as it does today. If you ask LDR, we argue that continued use of the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” in conversations without sufficient scaffolding suggests a certain dogmatism with regard to semantics choice. If socialism is to be viable with the people of today, language choice is key. “Radical democracy of the proletariat” is a phrase that can properly convey what Marx always meant to a modern listener, without causing them to picture the tyranny and autocracy that accompanies the term “dictatorship”.
gayfeline 