Why Does People Like Torturing Breast?

explained in a dictatorship of the proletariat is the largest democracy.

The title may seem provocative to some and perhaps incomprehensible to others. This is a theoretical problem, no doubt, but is a major issue on the weight of a huge mistake that our purpose is starting to clear.
When Marx, in the famous Critique of the Gotha Program speaks of dictatorship of the proletariat, it is in a broad sense, which then has become blurred in performers, up to be upset:

between capitalist society and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the former on the latter. In this period is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat .

recap. For Marx, a State is, by definition, the organ of the rule of a class (or in some cases, a partnership of sorts) on society. Then, every state is ultimately a dictatorship.
political forms taken by this dictatorship are, however, different at each stage of development of society. Simply put: Not all dictatorships are the same (and boy are not, here is the crux of the matter!).
It would be idle to explain that extended over the feudal slave system was a step forward in history (slavery is changed by the easement), and, similarly, the transition from the feudal to bourgeois regime marked another major advance (changing the wage-labor servitude). Political forms adopted by the bourgeois state to obey, in his confrontation with feudalism, you need to assert the rights of the individual, to allow the free operation market, as we know.
is the need for the bourgeoisie that creates the institutional form of the bourgeois state, so that, in general, is known as the Democratic Republic. Are characteristic of that political form universal suffrage, parliamentary democracy and freedom of opinion and thought, primarily. These
democratic freedoms, none of which existed in the feudal system, are at the same time gains of the bourgeoisie, achievements of mankind. These are advances in the arduous journey from man to his freedom verdadera.Vistos dialectically, these advances are simultaneously liberating and limiting. Are liberating because they allow the individual access rights that the company had no precedent. But there are limitations because, at the same time allow to maintain the domination of the bourgeoisie over society and with it, the exploitation of man by man.

What Marx says is that all the democratic institutions, with everything that can be advanced, still maintain the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. All modern states, even the most liberal and least repressive of them are forms of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. They are, simply because the mere existence of the state is proof that there is a dictatorship of one class over others.
This statement, which may seem conviction of bourgeois democracy is, if we see the dialectical question, the more enlightened opinion. Marx, as we know, recognizes and highlights the tremendous progress of the bourgeoisie, while pointing out its limitations:

At each stage of development covered by the bourgeoisie is for a new stage of political progress (Communist Manifesto) .

As Berman says, capitalism is at the same time, the best and the worst thing that ever happened to mankind.

Now to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx says, for starters, there is a substantial difference between this and previous dictatorship, while the former were dictatorships of minorities on the vast majority, it is now to establish the dictatorship of the vast majority over a minority.
clarified that the dictatorship is, moreover, according to Marx, a transitional regime, ie, a dictatorship which is moving towards its dissolution (and this is another fundamental difference with its predecessors). But do not get ahead of ourselves yet the question of its dissolution, and be done to elucidate the features that should be the transitional regime.
If the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, being a minority, conquests as possible to establish universal suffrage, parliamentary democracy and, in general, human rights, is not it follows that the dictatorship of the proletariat, the dictatorship of the overwhelming majority, to strengthen, expand and increase these democratic freedoms to infringe instead?
He did not this happen in the regimes that tried to establish socialism in semi-feudal country because, as I said Marxist theory itself, it was impossible to move to socialism in countries where there is not yet the rule of the bourgeoisie, was not developed the proletariat.
But a true dictatorship of the proletariat, when it comes to settle, should not be, by definition, the largest of democracies hitherto known? Can such a broad democracy infringe the freedom of association, freedom of the press, universal and secret ballot, and all other freedoms that the proletariat shed his blood when he and the bourgeoisie, won the overthrow of the monarchy and the feudal nobility?
Not only can not and should not, violate those freedoms. It should and can make them larger! This, said the dictatorship of the majority over a minority, and is also a temporary dictatorship, en route to its dissolution.
human rights, the great achievement of the citizens, not only must be recognized and defended better than ever in the dictatorship of the proletariat, but expanded. What is inconceivable to think that can be trimmed in any way.
is true that Marx and Engels did not extend in clarifying the characteristics of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but if we follow the thread of his argument, as I have outlined here, the issue is not open to doubt.
There is, for the sake of a text that addresses, in our view, explicitly and definitively this false dilemma, rounding and clarifying what's Critique of the Gotha Programme was just a statement.
This is the Review Erfurt program, written by Engels in 1891:

is absolutely no doubt that our party and the working class can only come to dominance in the form of a democratic republic. The latter is even the specific form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as he has shown since the Great French Revolution.

In the "History of the Bolshevik communist patido the USSR" (Foreign Languages \u200b\u200bPublishing House, Moscow, 1939) published with the approval of Stalin, it is recognized that
"Until the second Russian revolution (February 1917), Marxist all countries started from the view that the democratic parliamentary republic was the form of political organization of society most suitable for even transition period of capitalism to socialism "(p. 415, op. cit.)
was Stalin, as stated in the book and other texts of his, who was in charge of changing the concept, denying that the republic democreatica had that role. But Stalin will be discussed in a later release, more widely.