Dictatorship of Proletariat or Democracy of Proletariat?

Photo of Karl Marx. Kind Courtesy Government of United States.

Question: Does Marxism really lead to dictatorship?

Ans: There is a misconception that Marxism compulsorily involves dictatorship. It does not.

This erroneous belief has arisen from the experiences citizens of the defunct Soviet Union, the East European Countries, and the China had with one party rule.

Karl Marx, if he had envisaged one party rule with a dictator at the top, with the elections involving 'take it'(Not take it or leave it!!!), then Marx needs correction.

Whatever was in the minds of Marx, Angels and Lenin, about the 'Dictatorship of Proletariat (Working Class), the Marxist Socialism of the 21st Century needs a clarificatory modification:

---

We can propose the modification as under: "We can have any number of parties which can have their origin from the proletariat. We need not find anything wrong in workers founding any number of parties for participating in election. The Government can be run by such parties formed by the Workers and their Unions. They can contest for representation in the State Assemblies and the Parliament. There should be no question of the Ruling Communist Party proposing a candidate who should be elected by the electorate. We can allow any number of candidates and parties to contest, as long as they are not barons or tycoons.

In true Marxist Socialism, every citizen will have to be a worker and belong to the proletariat, unless they are too young or too old to work; unless they suffer from diseases and disabilities. The Society has a duty to support children, diseased persons and too-old persons.

It may be necessary to deny voting rights to persons who are too young/old/diseased to exercise their mind in a rational manner, because their faculties are not developed or the faculties ceased to work. This incapacitation, a Medical Board with experts has to decide.

Hence, the 'Dictatorship of Proletariat' is a part of 'democratic tenets'. If the Communist regimes of the past and present (China) misused/are misusing them, it is because peoples' will has become weak and they lost their ability to protest.

---

VISIT OF CPM LEADER TO CHINA

By ybrao a donkey.

Question: What Mr. Sitaram Yechuri is doing in Beijing?

Answer: People going to a fish-market go there, probably to buy fish. They do not go there to smell the aroma of fish. Mr. Sitaram, the Polit Bureau Member of the CPI-M (Communist Party of India, Marxist), presumably went there to buy Communism. China drifted away from Communism or Marxism or Socialism long back. It has little to teach the poor Indians, in the form of theory or practice of Communism-Marxism-Socialism.

Question: Comment on Chinese leaders telling Mr. Sitaram that China would not have any objection to India becoming the permanent member of the Security Council.

Answer: China should communicate such 'no-objections' through their Ambassadors to the Government of India. What for are the Embassies and Ambassadors? Is Mr. Sitaram an Official Emissary of China to India? Is he a trojan horse of China, planted in India? He must have been treated like any other Indian tourist.

Question: Has the favourable indication of China for the Indian permanent membership of Security Council, to do with the quid pro quo it expects with regard to Dalai Lama?

Answer: Obviously. China may be expecting three rewards from India in return for the support. 1. Control the activities of Dalai Lama or extradite him to China. 2. Protect the Chinese exports to India. 3. Surrender Arunachal Pradesh to China. India must be wary of Chinese overtures.