communism is defined as classless, stateless, moneyless. the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is meant to imply working class collective ownership and control of the means of production, not a ‘people’s autocrat.’ If you’re paying attention, this means that state-capitalist (a term used by lenin)/ socialist regimes waving a red flag can not be considered communist, any more than the dprk could be considered democratic.
One party democracy that is meant to be the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat over the capitalists, no?
I’m failing to see insult in the message’s content compared to it’s delivery as communism is meant to be a dictatorship that leads to Utopia.
communism is defined as classless, stateless, moneyless. the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is meant to imply working class collective ownership and control of the means of production, not a ‘people’s autocrat.’ If you’re paying attention, this means that state-capitalist (a term used by lenin)/ socialist regimes waving a red flag can not be considered communist, any more than the dprk could be considered democratic.
So it a figurative dictatorship, more of a means to an end. Hence, calling the leader an autocrat - is an insult to the ideology at play.
Thank you for clearing up my misconception!