Out right lies. The communist parties (the ones that have existed, not the the theoretical ones) derive their power from threat of violence against workers. They’re a non-hereditary nobility that oppress workers (except North Korea which is now a hereditary monarchy).
Incorrect, on all counts. Communist parties derive their power from popular support from the working classes, as they themselves are working class. State violence is used against fascists, sabateurs, capitalists, and landlords. If they truly were a nobility concerned only with oppressing workers, then you have to prove why there was such dramatic improvements in social welfare, poverty eradication, key life metrics, studied Marxism and taught it in universities, and more. Certainly these would have been of no importance to a new ruling class?
Out right lies. The communist parties (the ones that have existed, not the the theoretical ones) derive their power from threat of violence against workers. They’re a non-hereditary nobility that oppress workers (except North Korea which is now a hereditary monarchy).
Incorrect, on all counts. Communist parties derive their power from popular support from the working classes, as they themselves are working class. State violence is used against fascists, sabateurs, capitalists, and landlords. If they truly were a nobility concerned only with oppressing workers, then you have to prove why there was such dramatic improvements in social welfare, poverty eradication, key life metrics, studied Marxism and taught it in universities, and more. Certainly these would have been of no importance to a new ruling class?
You’re dramatically incorrect here.