In Marx's usage (the common usage of the time), dictatorship just means "leadership", and doesn't have the same connotation of "ruling over others without their consent". Which is his point, really: socialism exists to take the reins of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (whose contradictions are propped up by a force-monopoly in the form of "a state") into a dictatorship of the workers so society can be transitioned over time into one where a state no longer needs to exist ("communism").
So, yes, in the meantime, the state takes control over some amount of enterprise and manages it for its own goals rather than to generate profits for a small number of owners. Is that a bad thing? In a world where for-profit healthcare in the US is famously more expensive and less effective than nationalized healthcare in any other OECD country, where the (unionized!) USPS is one of this country's most-popular and most-reliable services even despite years of meddling from capitalists in government pushing to gut it, in a world where famously most of our R&D is publicly funded, is it really so hard to imagine that it might be an effective way to manage production?
> socialism exists to take the reins of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
> doesn't have the same connotation of "ruling over others without their consent".
Usually taking things by force requires violating consent. That is a very basic tenant of Commmunism. The bourgeoisie are forcibly removed from power, with arms, usually killed, and their property taken.
> whose contradictions are propped up by a force-monopoly in the form of "a state"
And how is the dictatorship of the proletariat preserved against the minority who disagrees? Hint, it involves rifles and usually firing squads.
> society can be transitioned over time into one where a state no longer needs to exist
Yes, that's gone so well up to date. Dictators with extreme powers over entire states are well known for quietly surrendering their power and moving to a form of utopic anarchy.
Even Marx couldn't answer how the utopic Communist post-state society actually continued it's existence without a state. "The vanguard" who at best are stateless secret police?
> in the meantime, the state takes control over some amount of enterprise and manages it for its own goals
Correct
> Is that a bad thing?
DMV, VA, Census Bureau, the IRS.
> USPS is one of this country's most-popular and most-reliable services
and is private but government directed
> In a world where for-profit healthcare in the US is famously more expensive
and has no waiting lists compared to 14.5 weeks in the UK at the moment and 20.9 weeks in Canada
> and less effective than nationalized healthcare
The US is in the top 10 for survival rates for most diseases/conditions (eg cancer) and we beat out the UK and Canada significantly. We have a lower life expectancy because we are too fat.
So, yes, in the meantime, the state takes control over some amount of enterprise and manages it for its own goals rather than to generate profits for a small number of owners. Is that a bad thing? In a world where for-profit healthcare in the US is famously more expensive and less effective than nationalized healthcare in any other OECD country, where the (unionized!) USPS is one of this country's most-popular and most-reliable services even despite years of meddling from capitalists in government pushing to gut it, in a world where famously most of our R&D is publicly funded, is it really so hard to imagine that it might be an effective way to manage production?