Jun 9, 2021space0cadetI just don't understand how social democracy will work in the global south w the material conditions we have. Feel free to respond or not but would appreciate if some1 can chime in agreeing or disagreeing w me or critiquing my points (plz do fellow socialists I feel like I'm missing something)
First instituting social democracy in the global south assumes that these countries are already developed industrially to become self sufficient and to provide adequate welfare systems. They are not.
Second instituting social democracy in the global south assumes that these countries which try to become developed industrially do not get overthrown. If we look at history we can see this is not the case -- they either get couped (Hussein's nationalization of Oil, Nasser Suez Canal) or financially massacred (e.g Corporate imperialism, IMF + restructuring loans)
Many attempts of semifuedal countries are becoming industrialized stifled from imperialism. Ultimately the national bourgeoise give up from trying to industrially develop and become the west's lackeys via neocolonialism and they continue to set up their economy to get what they can while still being in power. Ultimately this bolsters the west's profits even more while completely slaughters the economy so they HAVE TO rely on loans. The little profit the global south country receives goes to paying off loans, buying arms from the west (in the case of the Middle East) or lining their own pockets.
This causes the national bourgeoise to become so weak. They cannot build industry to build a surplus to provide welfare to their citizens because of imperialism (also bc its against their class interest). They are stuck paying off IMF loans (which furthers their industrialization); and the rest of the profit they have tends to be so small that they cannot even think about giving welfare to their citizens (I can't imagine that they would want to either, considering the class interest).
Ok but imagine if they never took IMF loans and if they were wildly anti imperialist but still capitalist and wanted to industrialize their deeply impoverished country. Imagine they nationalize businesses, and begin focusing on commodity production. Citizens of the country compete with each other with the little capital they have to develop the best technologies to be active in their home market (despite foreign superior technology). Several factories go bankrupt because the market determines them moot. When the bourgeoisie has enough profits to do so, the state DECIDES to give some welfare. (This is assuming they even decide to do it - we can see in the US we have had the ability to do so for hundreds of years but we still have folks w/o clean drinking water BY DESIGN).
There's also a reason why socdem countries only happen in Western Europe - it's because they NEED that imperialist loot to give their bourgeoise lavish lifestyles while at the same time being able to give their ppl decent lifestyles. SLAVERY IS WHAT GAVE WESTERN EUROPE THE CAPITAL TO INDUSTRIALIZE. Slavers literally gave loans to the dude who invented the steam engine. It cannot happen on the same magnitude as the west without imperialism.
Ok now imagine that despite the IMF loans they become wildly anti imperialist and wanted to industrialize. Instead they nationalize businesses, institute mass land reform and instead of focusing on commodity production (e.g focusing on building profit) being the #1 interest in their economy they focus on social welfare being their #1 interest in their economy so everyone can get education, water, food. This happens faster than a capitalist economy because there is no bolstering of the bourgeoisie pockets. This happens because the country works together as a WHOLE not as separate parts to industrialize and there are no factories going bankrupt due to the market - the logic of capital no longer dominates, and less advanced technological industry can coexist with advanced technology industry. This happens because of a planned economy where industry doesn't depend on the shims of capital for production and investment decisions; rather it is made rationally by considering factors like conserving resources and the value for the country as a whole. The welfare is also guaranteed because there is a dictatorship of the proletariat and the people control the government. Now we're talking, right? And now we have socialism.
There's a reason socialist countries happen in the global south and it's because of the incredible way to drastically improve living standards quickly. Instead of a lavish bourgeoise class, and poor working class, every working class person can have a good living standard (because there is no bourgeoise.)
I just don't understand how someone can be anti imperialist and pro social welfare but like, not take the leap to socialism/communism -- it's just the most logical step IMO -- it's the peoples power.
Also my comment leaves out the environmental question. Capitalism isn't going to solve that but Socialism will.
Wondering what your thoughts on all of this are.
"I just don't understand how someone can be anti imperialist and pro social welfare but like, not take the leap to socialism/communism -- it's just the most logical step IMO -- it's the peoples power"
Because they are two drastically different things its one thing to provide for poor its another thing to "abolish classes and hierarchy"
western civilization didnt need to have slavery to industrialize they just needed a lot of low wage workers (no its not the same thing)
- Jun 9, 2021https://twitter.com/comradeadriana/status/1396663206727331842
CudderwalksCringe and fascist pilled
- Jun 9, 2021·2 repliesspace0cadet
I just don't understand how social democracy will work in the global south w the material conditions we have. Feel free to respond or not but would appreciate if some1 can chime in agreeing or disagreeing w me or critiquing my points (plz do fellow socialists I feel like I'm missing something)
First instituting social democracy in the global south assumes that these countries are already developed industrially to become self sufficient and to provide adequate welfare systems. They are not.
Second instituting social democracy in the global south assumes that these countries which try to become developed industrially do not get overthrown. If we look at history we can see this is not the case -- they either get couped (Hussein's nationalization of Oil, Nasser Suez Canal) or financially massacred (e.g Corporate imperialism, IMF + restructuring loans)
Many attempts of semifuedal countries are becoming industrialized stifled from imperialism. Ultimately the national bourgeoise give up from trying to industrially develop and become the west's lackeys via neocolonialism and they continue to set up their economy to get what they can while still being in power. Ultimately this bolsters the west's profits even more while completely slaughters the economy so they HAVE TO rely on loans. The little profit the global south country receives goes to paying off loans, buying arms from the west (in the case of the Middle East) or lining their own pockets.
This causes the national bourgeoise to become so weak. They cannot build industry to build a surplus to provide welfare to their citizens because of imperialism (also bc its against their class interest). They are stuck paying off IMF loans (which furthers their industrialization); and the rest of the profit they have tends to be so small that they cannot even think about giving welfare to their citizens (I can't imagine that they would want to either, considering the class interest).
Ok but imagine if they never took IMF loans and if they were wildly anti imperialist but still capitalist and wanted to industrialize their deeply impoverished country. Imagine they nationalize businesses, and begin focusing on commodity production. Citizens of the country compete with each other with the little capital they have to develop the best technologies to be active in their home market (despite foreign superior technology). Several factories go bankrupt because the market determines them moot. When the bourgeoisie has enough profits to do so, the state DECIDES to give some welfare. (This is assuming they even decide to do it - we can see in the US we have had the ability to do so for hundreds of years but we still have folks w/o clean drinking water BY DESIGN).
There's also a reason why socdem countries only happen in Western Europe - it's because they NEED that imperialist loot to give their bourgeoise lavish lifestyles while at the same time being able to give their ppl decent lifestyles. SLAVERY IS WHAT GAVE WESTERN EUROPE THE CAPITAL TO INDUSTRIALIZE. Slavers literally gave loans to the dude who invented the steam engine. It cannot happen on the same magnitude as the west without imperialism.
Ok now imagine that despite the IMF loans they become wildly anti imperialist and wanted to industrialize. Instead they nationalize businesses, institute mass land reform and instead of focusing on commodity production (e.g focusing on building profit) being the #1 interest in their economy they focus on social welfare being their #1 interest in their economy so everyone can get education, water, food. This happens faster than a capitalist economy because there is no bolstering of the bourgeoisie pockets. This happens because the country works together as a WHOLE not as separate parts to industrialize and there are no factories going bankrupt due to the market - the logic of capital no longer dominates, and less advanced technological industry can coexist with advanced technology industry. This happens because of a planned economy where industry doesn't depend on the shims of capital for production and investment decisions; rather it is made rationally by considering factors like conserving resources and the value for the country as a whole. The welfare is also guaranteed because there is a dictatorship of the proletariat and the people control the government. Now we're talking, right? And now we have socialism.
There's a reason socialist countries happen in the global south and it's because of the incredible way to drastically improve living standards quickly. Instead of a lavish bourgeoise class, and poor working class, every working class person can have a good living standard (because there is no bourgeoise.)
I just don't understand how someone can be anti imperialist and pro social welfare but like, not take the leap to socialism/communism -- it's just the most logical step IMO -- it's the peoples power.
Also my comment leaves out the environmental question. Capitalism isn't going to solve that but Socialism will.
Wondering what your thoughts on all of this are.
A dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship
- Jun 9, 2021·1 replyYuzzy
A dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship
Pretty smart take
Wonder what a dictatorship of the bourgeoise looks like
Jun 9, 2021·1 replyYuzzyA dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship
what’s wrong with a dictatorship of the common people ? vs a dictatorship of the rich like we have now
- Jun 9, 2021·1 replyspace0cadet
I just don't understand how social democracy will work in the global south w the material conditions we have. Feel free to respond or not but would appreciate if some1 can chime in agreeing or disagreeing w me or critiquing my points (plz do fellow socialists I feel like I'm missing something)
First instituting social democracy in the global south assumes that these countries are already developed industrially to become self sufficient and to provide adequate welfare systems. They are not.
Second instituting social democracy in the global south assumes that these countries which try to become developed industrially do not get overthrown. If we look at history we can see this is not the case -- they either get couped (Hussein's nationalization of Oil, Nasser Suez Canal) or financially massacred (e.g Corporate imperialism, IMF + restructuring loans)
Many attempts of semifuedal countries are becoming industrialized stifled from imperialism. Ultimately the national bourgeoise give up from trying to industrially develop and become the west's lackeys via neocolonialism and they continue to set up their economy to get what they can while still being in power. Ultimately this bolsters the west's profits even more while completely slaughters the economy so they HAVE TO rely on loans. The little profit the global south country receives goes to paying off loans, buying arms from the west (in the case of the Middle East) or lining their own pockets.
This causes the national bourgeoise to become so weak. They cannot build industry to build a surplus to provide welfare to their citizens because of imperialism (also bc its against their class interest). They are stuck paying off IMF loans (which furthers their industrialization); and the rest of the profit they have tends to be so small that they cannot even think about giving welfare to their citizens (I can't imagine that they would want to either, considering the class interest).
Ok but imagine if they never took IMF loans and if they were wildly anti imperialist but still capitalist and wanted to industrialize their deeply impoverished country. Imagine they nationalize businesses, and begin focusing on commodity production. Citizens of the country compete with each other with the little capital they have to develop the best technologies to be active in their home market (despite foreign superior technology). Several factories go bankrupt because the market determines them moot. When the bourgeoisie has enough profits to do so, the state DECIDES to give some welfare. (This is assuming they even decide to do it - we can see in the US we have had the ability to do so for hundreds of years but we still have folks w/o clean drinking water BY DESIGN).
There's also a reason why socdem countries only happen in Western Europe - it's because they NEED that imperialist loot to give their bourgeoise lavish lifestyles while at the same time being able to give their ppl decent lifestyles. SLAVERY IS WHAT GAVE WESTERN EUROPE THE CAPITAL TO INDUSTRIALIZE. Slavers literally gave loans to the dude who invented the steam engine. It cannot happen on the same magnitude as the west without imperialism.
Ok now imagine that despite the IMF loans they become wildly anti imperialist and wanted to industrialize. Instead they nationalize businesses, institute mass land reform and instead of focusing on commodity production (e.g focusing on building profit) being the #1 interest in their economy they focus on social welfare being their #1 interest in their economy so everyone can get education, water, food. This happens faster than a capitalist economy because there is no bolstering of the bourgeoisie pockets. This happens because the country works together as a WHOLE not as separate parts to industrialize and there are no factories going bankrupt due to the market - the logic of capital no longer dominates, and less advanced technological industry can coexist with advanced technology industry. This happens because of a planned economy where industry doesn't depend on the shims of capital for production and investment decisions; rather it is made rationally by considering factors like conserving resources and the value for the country as a whole. The welfare is also guaranteed because there is a dictatorship of the proletariat and the people control the government. Now we're talking, right? And now we have socialism.
There's a reason socialist countries happen in the global south and it's because of the incredible way to drastically improve living standards quickly. Instead of a lavish bourgeoise class, and poor working class, every working class person can have a good living standard (because there is no bourgeoise.)
I just don't understand how someone can be anti imperialist and pro social welfare but like, not take the leap to socialism/communism -- it's just the most logical step IMO -- it's the peoples power.
Also my comment leaves out the environmental question. Capitalism isn't going to solve that but Socialism will.
Wondering what your thoughts on all of this are.
Ghana and Botswana are both developing with social democratic models, and the former just told the west to stick it. I could answer more but I have a full time job but I'd read into those countries.
- Gojira 🦖Jun 9, 2021CLB Fractions
u mean what synopsis does all the time?
- Gojira 🦖Jun 9, 2021
Frogfr S is a despot
He defends Khamenei so yes
- Jun 9, 2021TragedyBerlusconi
Ghana and Botswana are both developing with social democratic models, and the former just told the west to stick it. I could answer more but I have a full time job but I'd read into those countries.
Thanks I appreciate it
AFAIK too the Peruvian guy who got elected is a socdem so definitely will look into it
- Jun 9, 2021space0cadet
Pretty smart take
Wonder what a dictatorship of the bourgeoise looks like United States
- Jun 9, 2021·2 repliesamericana
what’s wrong with a dictatorship of the common people ? vs a dictatorship of the rich like we have now
I don't think such a power structure is stable. The bourgeoisie have their common motivation earning capital but I claim the working class has diverse ends they work towards which may be at odds. This situation creates conditions for a Great Leader to appear claiming to be the unifier who governs for all in the working class resulting in a dictatorship no longer controlled by the people but another power hungry snake
Jun 9, 2021space0cadetI just don't understand how social democracy will work in the global south w the material conditions we have. Feel free to respond or not but would appreciate if some1 can chime in agreeing or disagreeing w me or critiquing my points (plz do fellow socialists I feel like I'm missing something)
First instituting social democracy in the global south assumes that these countries are already developed industrially to become self sufficient and to provide adequate welfare systems. They are not.
Second instituting social democracy in the global south assumes that these countries which try to become developed industrially do not get overthrown. If we look at history we can see this is not the case -- they either get couped (Hussein's nationalization of Oil, Nasser Suez Canal) or financially massacred (e.g Corporate imperialism, IMF + restructuring loans)
Many attempts of semifuedal countries are becoming industrialized stifled from imperialism. Ultimately the national bourgeoise give up from trying to industrially develop and become the west's lackeys via neocolonialism and they continue to set up their economy to get what they can while still being in power. Ultimately this bolsters the west's profits even more while completely slaughters the economy so they HAVE TO rely on loans. The little profit the global south country receives goes to paying off loans, buying arms from the west (in the case of the Middle East) or lining their own pockets.
This causes the national bourgeoise to become so weak. They cannot build industry to build a surplus to provide welfare to their citizens because of imperialism (also bc its against their class interest). They are stuck paying off IMF loans (which furthers their industrialization); and the rest of the profit they have tends to be so small that they cannot even think about giving welfare to their citizens (I can't imagine that they would want to either, considering the class interest).
Ok but imagine if they never took IMF loans and if they were wildly anti imperialist but still capitalist and wanted to industrialize their deeply impoverished country. Imagine they nationalize businesses, and begin focusing on commodity production. Citizens of the country compete with each other with the little capital they have to develop the best technologies to be active in their home market (despite foreign superior technology). Several factories go bankrupt because the market determines them moot. When the bourgeoisie has enough profits to do so, the state DECIDES to give some welfare. (This is assuming they even decide to do it - we can see in the US we have had the ability to do so for hundreds of years but we still have folks w/o clean drinking water BY DESIGN).
There's also a reason why socdem countries only happen in Western Europe - it's because they NEED that imperialist loot to give their bourgeoise lavish lifestyles while at the same time being able to give their ppl decent lifestyles. SLAVERY IS WHAT GAVE WESTERN EUROPE THE CAPITAL TO INDUSTRIALIZE. Slavers literally gave loans to the dude who invented the steam engine. It cannot happen on the same magnitude as the west without imperialism.
Ok now imagine that despite the IMF loans they become wildly anti imperialist and wanted to industrialize. Instead they nationalize businesses, institute mass land reform and instead of focusing on commodity production (e.g focusing on building profit) being the #1 interest in their economy they focus on social welfare being their #1 interest in their economy so everyone can get education, water, food. This happens faster than a capitalist economy because there is no bolstering of the bourgeoisie pockets. This happens because the country works together as a WHOLE not as separate parts to industrialize and there are no factories going bankrupt due to the market - the logic of capital no longer dominates, and less advanced technological industry can coexist with advanced technology industry. This happens because of a planned economy where industry doesn't depend on the shims of capital for production and investment decisions; rather it is made rationally by considering factors like conserving resources and the value for the country as a whole. The welfare is also guaranteed because there is a dictatorship of the proletariat and the people control the government. Now we're talking, right? And now we have socialism.
There's a reason socialist countries happen in the global south and it's because of the incredible way to drastically improve living standards quickly. Instead of a lavish bourgeoise class, and poor working class, every working class person can have a good living standard (because there is no bourgeoise.)
I just don't understand how someone can be anti imperialist and pro social welfare but like, not take the leap to socialism/communism -- it's just the most logical step IMO -- it's the peoples power.
Also my comment leaves out the environmental question. Capitalism isn't going to solve that but Socialism will.
Wondering what your thoughts on all of this are.
Judging by your previous responses, you seem somewhat willing to have a conversation. In this case let’s agree to avoid insults and ad-hominems when discussing this. I’ll try to address each of your paragraphs one by one
1. True, but that being said many of these countries have the means to at least provide secondary education, roads, electricity and stable healthcare, all while maintaining a market economic system.
2. Many countries have nationalized oil without complaint from the west such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and mexico. When it comes to corporate imperialism, it’s true that multinationals get away with paying foreigners way less money than they’re western counterparts. But the truth is the majority of this exploitation is not based on labor, instead on resources. This would not change even if these countries decided to stop doing business with the west, because commodity prices are set at a standard rate throughout the globe. Low wages are a result of unproductivity in many of these countries, which can (and is currently being) solved. Income rates across Africa have been steadily increasing over time, but it could be faster. What matters in addition is if the citizens in these countries are able to do business without being hampered by violence, restrictive laws, or unnecessary taxation (not talking about income taxes either). But at its current rate some countries may reach developed status in the coming decades as TragedyBerlusconi said, such as Botswana, Gabon, and Ghana. Rwanda has also made strides but I’m not sure how much of that is inflated so idk
3. WHO policies have lead to economic disasters in the case of ignorance and sabotage in some instances, but the general principle of economic liberalization have not been discredited. Often times a country will attempt to industrialize by making its own industrial products instead of relying on imports. This is know as the import-substitution model, and it is largely ineffective. The problem with smaller nations doing this is that it leads to a high prices for these goods while also not providing a sufficient market for them, as much of the income for the population had not increased to the level of mass consumption. It also doesn’t allow a country to benefit from its comparative advantage in exports, thereby making more money otherwise. That’s not to say that countries should attempt to make their own products, they should absolutely. And there should be some level of tariffs to prevent foreign companies from completely dominating native businesses. But left to its own devices, economic trade between nations on business to business level results in higher wages and living standards, while socialist attempts to organize an entire economy often lead to misallocation.
4. There are countries in Europe that did not participate in the slave trade in any extensive level. There are countries in Asia that participated in neither the slave trade nor in colonization and were still able to modernize. The uniting factor in all developed nations isn’t their use of unpaid labor as much as it is their ability to create a competitive and productive workforce through the means of mass education and improved infrastructure, along with providing said workforce the ability to create jobs through businesses.
5. Socialism was popular in the 20th century because these long term gains seen in countries like South Korea and Singapore were not yet realized while the Soviet Union managed to industrialize. The thing is, the Soviet Union had the largest area, amount of resources, and second largest population in the world. It was able to put its people to work in a way most poor countries would never be able to. When african and asian countries tried the same methods, they found that they did not have the adequate resources to put their counties population at work, so they needed to trade a lot just like every other country. Even when trading with other countries, commodity prices will still be too low to bring about any dramatic rise in income, coupled with the economic misallocation associated with command economies leads to countries where living standards do not rise as fast as their western counterparts
6. The leap is not simple. If these countries were to all adopt such socialism, they would face the same problems they already have, the difference would be that their internal economies would not have the ability to build up living standards as fast. However, if these countries adopt free market policies while also devoting most economic gains to the benefit of their people, not only will their growth not be inhibited by ineffective government policy, but the average citizen will be able to see the gains.
7. The climate problem can be solved with free markets. There can be carbon taxes put in place while gas cars and other fossil fuel services are phased out through government policies. You could say “well the capitalist class would never let that happen” but they didn’t want slavery to end either and that happened too. With enough public outcry, the governments of the world can steer the world in the direction of non renewable sources. While a socialist government can more easily do it, that’s assuming they believe there’s a climate crises in the first place. Hypothetically, a socialist government can just flame climate change is a western imperialist hoax and continue on as normal, and combined with its propaganda campaign, there would be little recourse for citizens to change anything.
In the end, socialist governments in the third world have only really managed to increase literacy in many cases, which could have been achieved by a government which allowed free market economics as well. In some cases, the socialist governments couldn’t even fix the healthcare situation as well as their capitalist neighbors. The only feasible way for socialist governments in the third world to all of a sudden reach western standards of living, would be if the west also adopted socialism and worked out deals that specifically paid third world countries more for there commodities than they’re global worth. This could never happen, and it would not address the inefficiencies that are inherent within a country’s economy if they were to be planned by the government
- Jun 9, 2021·1 replyYuzzy
I don't think such a power structure is stable. The bourgeoisie have their common motivation earning capital but I claim the working class has diverse ends they work towards which may be at odds. This situation creates conditions for a Great Leader to appear claiming to be the unifier who governs for all in the working class resulting in a dictatorship no longer controlled by the people but another power hungry snake
the thing is that this leader is under the control of the people, since it would be a dictatorship of proletariat
Jun 9, 2021
castillo
Jun 9, 2021·2 repliesisnt money and the rich stupid guys? yup we gon eat em up, epic style
- Jun 9, 2021·1 replyitsnottrue
isnt money and the rich stupid guys? yup we gon eat em up, epic style
👋hi new account
- Jun 9, 2021·1 replyitsnottrue
isnt money and the rich stupid guys? yup we gon eat em up, epic style
wealth inequality on such a scale that prolongs suffering of millions of people is stupid though, and corporations asking for bailouts from the government when they’re worth trillion + dollars is stupid as well, that money should go toward uplifting people not given to the rich at every turn
- Jun 9, 2021·1 reply
- Jun 9, 2021space0cadet
I'm
I feel like directing him to socdemethread is an insult in itselfsending him to weenie hut jrs
- Jun 9, 2021·1 reply
Hypothetically, a socialist government can just flame climate change is a western imperialist hoax and continue on as normal, and combined with its propaganda campaign, there would be little recourse for citizens to change anything.
u mean how a frighteningly large percentage of Americans voted for a man who claimed climate change is a chinese hoax and continued on with what its doing? and removed itself from paris accords? - Jun 9, 2021
and the govt just allowed s*** like this to happen? and the kicker is it wasn’t even a socialist government that recently did exactly what you said, that’s crazy
- Jun 9, 2021TragedyBerlusconi
@abc I'm too busy to give you a full write up and feel a bit s***ty for not responding as you clearly put a huge amount of effort into that (much appreciated), but definitely look at @Enpax response
Eh it's ok I enjoyed writing it because i just finished my finals 🤷🏼♂️
Will be checking his response out - Jun 9, 2021·1 reply
u talking bout hypotheticals of what a socialist govt might do meanwhile capitalist /anti-socialist governments are actively doing most of the things u claim these crazy “unhinged,” “hypothetical” socialist governments will do. the point of socialism is to stop exploitation and capitalism exploits workers and the climate they live in by its main principles. it has to. because more money and expansion has to be done for the model to continue to return what it’s leaders want.
more more more just to hoard it all
and i know you’re arguing for some type of middle ground but you blaming s*** on socialism that is inherent to capitalism . u firing your shots in the wrong direction
- Jun 9, 2021·1 replyspongebob
Hypothetically, a socialist government can just flame climate change is a western imperialist hoax and continue on as normal, and combined with its propaganda campaign, there would be little recourse for citizens to change anything.
u mean how a frighteningly large percentage of Americans voted for a man who claimed climate change is a chinese hoax and continued on with what its doing? and removed itself from paris accords? Yes, I mean how a frighteningly large percentage of Americans voted for a man who claimed climate change is a Chinese hoax and continued on with what it’s doing.
Now imagine if this was a socialist head of state and made it official policy to deny climate change in such a way where after we voted him out of power, we couldn’t just re enter the Paris accords.
My point isn’t that capitalist governments handle it better or worse, it’s that capitalism wouldn’t cease to exist if climate change was taken seriously and that it’s fully possible for a socialist government to not do anything about it. Fortunately most of the worlds governments (mostly capitalist) have agreed to try to target goals of sustainable and renewable energy use
Jun 9, 2021YuzzyI don't think such a power structure is stable. The bourgeoisie have their common motivation earning capital but I claim the working class has diverse ends they work towards which may be at odds. This situation creates conditions for a Great Leader to appear claiming to be the unifier who governs for all in the working class resulting in a dictatorship no longer controlled by the people but another power hungry snake
This thinking isn't based on anything but your ideas of human nature. There's no proof of this.
I do, agree, that power corrupts people. But a leader checked by the people is what is necessary.