• AchillesUltimate@lemy.lol
    17·
    1 year ago

    Not really

    -no one ever showed me why a dictatorship for the proletariat would be for the proletariat (adjacent to human nature, since there’s the assumption that they wouldn’t be) -a dictatorship for the proletariat would never wither away because its existence ensures the existences of an oppressor and oppressed, on top of never being able to tell when its intended job is completed -humans don’t want to sacrifice control (absolutely human nature, but I want to list it here as well just to list all my arguments) -governments aren’t exclusively the tool of oppression for the use of a separate class -if governments are purely oppressive, granting them control over media is always bad -in a society on the brink of becoming a post-class society, control over the press would be the perfect tool to perpetuate idea that more oppression is needed (again human nature adjacent, since there’s the assumption that governments would want to do that)

    If my argument were entirely based on my idea of human nature though, what part of human nature am I wrong about?

    • relay@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      If there is no Bourgeoisie or the government explicitally restricts the Bourgeoisie from controlling the media, who else but the proletariat would control the media?

      Just because some people want to oppress others to feed their weak egos doesn’t mean that all of humanity wants that. I think most people actually want to live in a society that takes care of them, and in turn will love to help out and serve society. Once it becomes the norm to look out for the collective interest instead of self serving behavior, self serving individuals will either need to learn to adapt, hide or get ostracized by society.

      Human nature is not static. Human nature is reacting to the conditions they live in.