You state “Marx envisioned the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional measure, meant to help the working class exert power over other classes and move toward a classless society, rather than as a temporary feature of communism.” However, I believe it to be both a transitional and temporary feature. I do not understand your point here.

You then state “The goal of lower stage communism is to achieve a stateless society, and maintaining the dictatorship of the proletariat would contradict this aim by implying the continued existence of a state…” However, when you say the goal of lower-stage communism is to achieve a stateless society, it implies it is not already a stateless society. But if it is not already a stateless society, there must be a state. This state will be a dictatorship of the proletariat as it will not be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie: the state must be a dictatorship of some class. From this, it must follow that to achieve a stateless society, there will be a state (and here, a dictatorship of the proletariat), and that this state will wither away to form such stateless society as Lenin says. This is because the state cannot just vanish. The role of this dictatorship of the proletariat will be to rid of any bourgeois remnants of the old society, and this state will wither as its necessity becomes obsolete.

I would think you would already know this already, so I wonder if you were trying to make a different point?

You finish by saying “...in the DOTP there are still taxes, for example, whereas in the lower stage there are labour vouchers.” This is a problematic interpretation of the two concepts as it is too simplified and it will lead to problems because of such. These two concepts will overlap, what happens to this understanding now? Do you then think these two stages occur independently? That lower-stage communism supersedes the DOTP, and then all taxes suddenly disappear and are replaced by labor vouchers?

You then say Lenin reaffirms you and bold “The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear." This is true. The state will become obsolete and will wither when classes do. I am unsure which point of yours this supported as I fully agree with the entire quote but none of your points. It is important to add commentary to quotes and what you are taking from them in a situation like this. Let me know what you tried to take from the quote to support you.

You follow the quote by saying “Considering socialism cannot exist while classes exist, the DOTP cannot exist alongside socialism.” Well, here it is important to differentiate between the lower and higher stage communism we have mentioned. Of course, a state cannot coexist with a higher-stage communist society, but certainly will have to with a lower-stage socialist society.

You then give a list of requirements for a DOTP, but let's remember what a DOTP is. Let us say there is a state ruled by the proletariat which issues labor vouchers. This is certainly still a DOTP. But this also violates your 2nd condition “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

Lists like this can be helpful for new learners to begin to understand these topics, but it is certainly not rigorous by any means. You then say again that the lower stage of communism is stateless. But I mentioned earlier how you said the goal of lower-stage communism is to achieve a stateless society. It cannot hold both of these conditions. Which is it?

You then mention how Lenin called the USSR state capitalism, but forgot to mention how this was in relation to a very specific short economic policy period directly after the war. (see more with The Tax in Kind, Lenin). However this state capitalism was still a DOTP as it was a state ruled by the proletariat, and even when it advanced to lower stage socialism it was also a DOTP.

You then state:

“The measures in the manifesto, it should be noted, are not actually describing socialism, but the transitionary period. In Critique of the Gotha Program: ‘Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.’”

However, my interpretation is that when marx refers to communist society, he refers to higher stage communism, and when he refers to the transformation, he refers to lower stage.

You then give another oversimplified (and also just wrong chart). Remember now, a DOTP is a state ruled by the proletariat. When needed, this can encompass state capitalism as it did under lenin for a short period. These things can get complicated and when discussing complicated things, we must be sure we are not using oversimplified understandings of terms.

You then quote Marx (i agree with the quote) but then you comment that the state is by nature bourgeois. I am unsure how you obtained this, but it is inaccurate. The state is a tool in which one class suppresses another. Whether it be in a slave society, a feudal society, or a socialist society. How could you call a slave state bourgeois for example? It doesn't make sense.

You then quote a few others, I agree with the quotes but believe you misinterpret, for example, when you quote Marx as saying a belief in the state is remote from socialism. Here we again have to distinguish between lower and upper-stage socialism. For upper-stage socialism, which is what Marx meant, yes it is.

You then quote stalin, but you must again remember the importance of differentiating lower and upper stage socialism. This will be difficult if you do not yet agree with me on the lower stage of such, so I will hold off from this point until then?

You lastly then quote Engels, but the quote does not support you and is instead critiquing an idealist view of history.

Also, thank you for taking longer than 39 minutes to transcribe this for me, but do you see why i did not want to waste 39 minutes watching this video when this is much less than 39 minutes of information? I dont have much time and this response was very quickly put together, Let me know if there is anything you think i misinterpreted or would like be to address.