Dictatorship of the proletariat

[Idealism]

what is the Dictatorship of the proletariat? what system(s) could it operate under?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is just pretty much worker's democracy. In otherwords, "dictatorship of the majority". It's an easily misunderstood term, confusing alot of people into thinking we literally support dictatorship. Anyway, i'll compare it to the system we have now: "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". In our current system of "democracy" all decisions are controlled by the ruling class because the politicians are funded by them. Therefore in order to get funding they need to act in the interests of these people funding them. Also, it comes into effect after the revolution. The bourgeoisie are overthrown and the Proletariat controls them and everything that needs to be done in a sense hence the term "dictatorship of the proletariat".

[Tower of Bebel]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is working class rule over bourgeois society. It's the most democratic state in the history of class struggle. Is proletarian democracy a working class dictatorship? "Yes, [a] dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights [or: privileges] and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished" (Luxemburg).

It operates under (actually it forms:) a democratic, socialistic republic of the working class. Workers' power is derived from collective control over and ownership of the means of production.

[Idealism]

is there any other purpose than fending off the bourgeois? would it be democratic in the representative or direct sense? would power be centralized?
how is it expected that this state should go into a free, classless, stateless society?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

would it be democratic in the representative or direct sense?

Direct.


how is it expected that this state should go into a free, classless, stateless society?
The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state.

By getting rid of private property, we get rid of class. By getting rid of class, we get rid of the state, since the state is the dictatorship of a class.

[Idealism]

is this universal among most strains of marxism? and if thats how it works, how come cuba hasnt achieved a free society yet?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

is this universal among most strains of marxism?

Yes.


and if thats how it works, how come cuba hasnt achieved a free society yet?

Do you really expect Cuba to build socialism by itself?

[StalinFanboy]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is just a way of saying that the proles have the power. By Marx's theory, today's world would be a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie as they are the ones calling the shots.


I dislike the wording a lot.

[Idealism]

Yes.



Do you really expect Cuba to build socialism by itself?

i was under the assumption that they were a socialist country, and so was asking why they haven't become a free society yet. are they not a socialist country?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

i was under the assumption that they were a socialist country, and so was asking why they haven't become a free society yet. are they not a socialist country?

The DotP is the transition to socialism.

[Idealism]

thank you guys for answering my many questions.

[ZeroNowhere]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is just a way of saying that the proles have the power. By Marx's theory, today's world would be a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie as they are the ones calling the shots.


I dislike the wording a lot.
Well, of course. He didn't use the term much. When he did, it was generally to contrast with the Blanquist 'Educational dictatorship', a dictatorship of a minority. So the use of the word 'dictatorship' was fairly appropriate in the context.

[Tower of Bebel]

is this universal among most strains of marxism? and if thats how it works, how come cuba hasnt achieved a free society yet?
That's because they still have an international bourgeoisie to fend off. But since the Cuban Revolution is an isolated case the country tends to degenerate from a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasants to a party dictatorship. The fact that it was a country dominated by agriculture also makes it inevitable that without any releave it will degenerate into a dictatorship based on peasants instead of an extreme democracy based on workers.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Did Marx ever say anything about a Vanguard party which would take power and work for 'the good of the people' or did Lenin come up with that one.

[Tower of Bebel]

Did Marx ever say anything about a Vanguard party which would take power and work for 'the good of the people' or did Lenin come up with that one.
That's explecitely Lenin and implicitely Marx. But rule number one stays the same: socialism can only be the work of the working class itself. The word vanguard came from the 2nd International, yet it didn't mean something like a small group of marxists who are, or think they are, the most theoretically advanced of all other parties. A true vanguard can only emerge out of a dialectical relationship with mass struggles.

[revolution inaction]

i was under the assumption that they were a socialist country, and so was asking why they haven't become a free society yet. are they not a socialist country?

they are state capitalist

[sanpal]

they are state capitalist

They are duhringist socialist society created on the same principles as the former ussr - merge the capitalist mode of production and spreading communist relations and all are as the whole.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Did Marx ever say anything about a Vanguard party which would take power and work for 'the good of the people' or did Lenin come up with that one.


Vanguardism was Lenin's creation. He felt that without a party guiding them, the working class would not gain the neccessary class conciousness to spark a revolution. They need encouragement.

[Yehuda Stern]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is working class rule over bourgeois society.I get what you're trying to say here, but I think it's imprecise. It's true that a workers' state, i.e. a proletarian dictatorship is still bourgeois, in the sense that the law of value is still in operation and that all sorts of principles of bourgeois right apply. But the class character of the state is still firmly proletarian, not bourgeois.


That's because they still have an international bourgeoisie to fend off. But since the Cuban Revolution is an isolated case the country tends to degenerate from a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasants to a party dictatorship.So wait, let me get this straight - is Cuba a degenerated workers' state or (and this is interesting) a degenerating workers' state, or a workers' state with a tendency to degenerate, or some other strange new definition?

I can see where the confusion is coming from, as the DWS theory never made sense. But if I'm reading you right, you're actually saying that the Cuban state is a healthy proletarian dictatorship, in which case it means the CWI has sunk to a new low.


Vanguardism was Lenin's creation. He felt that without a party guiding them, the working class would not gain the neccessary class conciousness to spark a revolution. They need encouragement.That's not at all what a vanguard party is about. A vanguard party is led by the workers - it doesn't "guide" them from the outside. In fact, Lenin stressed that workers can reach a revolutionary consciousness even without any outside "encouragement."

[robbo203]

That's not at all what a vanguard party is about. A vanguard party is led by the workers - it doesn't "guide" them from the outside. In fact, Lenin stressed that workers can reach a revolutionary consciousness even without any outside "encouragement."

This is rubbish. Here is what Lenin said in What is to be Done (1902)

"We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It could only be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.

The whole concept of leadership is absurd and totally antithetical to the Marxian notion that the working class must emancipate itself. Who precisely are the workers supposed to "lead" and for what purpose

[Yehuda Stern]

It's always so funny when people use What is to be Done, thinking they've won the argument and that I've never seen it before. They apparently never read anything newer than WITBD by Lenin:


The working class is instinctively, spontaneously Social-Democratic, and more than ten years of work put in by Social-Democracy has done a great deal to transform this spontaneity into consciousness.
~The Reorganization of the Party

A tip that's helpful in general in life - it is usually better not to say "rubbish" about something you don't know enough about, lest one gives the impression of being a pretentious ignoramus.

[Idealism]

what are the conceptual things that are differ between different strains of Marxism ? (i.e. how the DotP should be run, getting there and so on.)

[Black Sheep]

Rakunin:

That's because they still have an international bourgeoisie to fend off. But since the Cuban Revolution is an isolated case the country tends to degenerate from a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasants to a party dictatorship. The fact that it was a country dominated by agriculture also makes it inevitable that without any releave it will degenerate into a dictatorship based on peasants instead of an extreme democracy based on workers.
How do you explain this model of 'isolated DotP----(time)---->party dictatorship/degenerated workers' state' , because it is a pattern upheld by most trotskyist.

Also what are the characteristics of power structure and economics on the deformed DotP?


The word vanguard came from the 2nd International, yet it didn't mean something like a small group of marxists who are, or think they are, the most theoretically advanced of all other parties. A true vanguard can only emerge out of a dialectical relationship with mass struggles.
Could you explain this dialectical relationship?

[Tower of Bebel]

So wait, let me get this straight - is Cuba a degenerated workers' state or (and this is interesting) a degenerating workers' state, or a workers' state with a tendency to degenerate, or some other strange new definition?
I was imprecise and thank you for picking that up because I never intented to claim that Cuba was ever a healthy workers' state (neither was the USSR, but that's a different story). I'm not very familiar with the Cuban revolution so all I can say is that it has "degenerated" and will degenerate further.

How do you explain this model of 'isolated DotP----(time)---->party dictatorship/degenerated workers' state' , because it is a pattern upheld by most trotskyist.When workers take power they immediatly start building a socialist society. But for socialism we need certain economic and social preconditions. But a country with a peasant majority normally doesn't have these social and economic preconditions. That's why workers, when the revolution ebbs, when the revolution hits its boundaries, will have to abide the real, underlying balance of (class) power. The political revolution is a moment where the working class shows its strenth as a revolutionary class. But when this class is not supported by society as a whole it cannot hold out forever.

In Russia this meant "giving power back to the peasants". But normally peasant societies are never ruled by peasants. In general they don't have the capabilities to govern. They need to plough and toil. This means that (in most cases) in order to extract surpluses in a more or less centralized way a form of parasitic despotism arises. In other cases an emancipating bourgeoisie used a political revolution to lose the chains of despotism. But in cases where there is no strong bourgeoisie there's always some sort of despotism. In the Roman empire this meant Caesarism, during the Ancient Regime of France this meant absolutism and in the USSR this meant stalinism (the party's dictatorship over the proletariat).

So, if a workers' revolt in an underdeveloped country wants to survive it will need help from abroad. That's what Trotsky's internationalism in Permanent Revolution is all about. That's why "Permanent Revolution" is the revolutionary strategy we need for underdeveloped countries.


Also what are the characteristics of power structure and economics on the deformed DotP?The proletariat, the majority of society, uses the means of production collectively against their former oppressors who're the minority of society. Because the workers are the majority they truely represent the rule of the people (= democracy). Therefor the working class can only exercice power through a democratic republic. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a democratic republic. Not a bourgeois democratic republic but a proletarian democratic republic pushing for socialist reforms. This republic doesn't mean soviets alone but also revolutionarized courts, trade unions (!), parties, an elected "police" force (which is far from the police force we know today - it will probably a body made out of proles who make sure public areas are safe from those who're drunk for example), etc.

Of course this republic isn't something like the republic of the US or France or Weimar Germany (then ruled by the SPD) or any other republic that claims to be democratic but has no workers' rule as its social kernel.


Could you explain this dialectical relationship?I quote Marx if you don't mind:

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others [i.e. the vanguard - therefor I think I'm right to say that Marx mentioned the vanguard implicitely and Lenin did so explicitely]; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
Or maybe I should quote Louis Proyect (see my signature) who didn't spoil that much ink on the vanguard concept:

"A vanguard is a goal, not a set of ideas. The goal of the vanguard is to coordinate the conquest of revolutionary power by the workers and their allies. Building a true vanguard will require correct ideas but these ideas can only emerge out of dialectical relationship with mass struggles. To artificially separate a revolutionary program from the mass movement is a guarantee that you will turn into a sectarian." - L. Proyect

[Cumannach]

The proletariat, the majority of society, uses the means of production collectively against their former oppressors who're the minority of society. Because the workers are the majority they truely represent the rule of the people (= democracy). Therefor the working class can only exercice power through a democratic republic. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a democratic republic. Not a bourgeois democratic republic but a proletarian democratic republic pushing for socialist reforms. This republic doesn't mean soviets alone but also revolutionarized courts, trade unions (!), parties, an elected "police" force (which is far from the police force we know today - it will probably a body made out of proles who make sure public areas are safe from those who're drunk for example), etc.

I'm sorry, but this is all wrong. The revolutionary potential of the proletariat does not lie in, or depend on, their being the majority of the society, it lies in their nature as proletarians. In being completely without any means of production or property and having to sell their labour to live, in the potential of class and revolutionary consciousness that exists in such a population, in the socialization of production which concentrates masses of proletarians together with the potential for their education, for communication and the strong organization of their movement, in their unique ability as a class to actually defeat the existing state power. All of which are the natural results of the capitalist mode of production.

"All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property."
(Communist Manifesto)- Marx

This is the whole point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and not the Dictatorship of the People.

"All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority."
Ibid

This does not say the Dictatorship is the Proletariat is the dictatorship of the 'majority of society', but that a proletarian movement is in the interests of the majority of society. The seizing and wielding of the state power by the proletariat is in the interests of the poor (and middle) peasantry and depends on the support of that class. This is one of the foundations of Leninism, an alliance with classes of the peasantry. Universal sufferage is not the dictatorship of the proletariat.



When workers take power they immediatly start building a socialist society. But for socialism we need certain economic and social preconditions. But a country with a peasant majority normally doesn't have these social and economic preconditions. That's why workers, when the revolution ebbs, when the revolution hits its boundaries, will have to abide the real, underlying balance of (class) power. The political revolution is a moment where the working class shows its strenth as a revolutionary class. But when this class is not supported by society as a whole it cannot hold out forever.

The basic precondition for building socialism is the prior existence of capitalism, and the proletariat and socialized production that goes with it. This is a fundamental of Marxism. The exercise of state power by the proletariat already has the ability to begin organising socialist production step by step, as long as it takes care not to alienate it's class allies in doing so.




In Russia this meant "giving power back to the peasants". But normally peasant societies are never ruled by peasants. In general they don't have the capabilities to govern. They need to plough and toil. This means that (in most cases) in order to extract surpluses in a more or less centralized way a form of parasitic despotism arises.


This bizarre notion has nothing to do with Marxism. In Russia, the peasantry were given land, and had to pay a tax on their produce to keep it. This tax was the 'surplus' that formed the capital investment needed to construct socialist industry. The peasants weren't 'exploited'. They owned their produce, and paid a tax on it, that supported the state power of the proletariat to defend, the proletariat from the capitalists, and the peasantry from the landowners, by constructing a strong socialist industry and repressing the common class enemies. Later, the peasants were encouraged and aided in abandoning small peasant agriculture and forming large collective farms, abandoning petty property ownership and taking a step towards socialization of agriculture, towards Socialism.



So, if a workers' revolt in an underdeveloped country wants to survive it will need help from abroad. That's what Trotsky's internationalism in Permanent Revolution is all about. That's why "Permanent Revolution" is the revolutionary strategy we need for underdeveloped countries.

It is possible for a country to build socialism as long as it can defend itself against foreign attack, and internal bourgeois subversion.

[robbo203]

It's always so funny when people use What is to be Done, thinking they've won the argument and that I've never seen it before. They apparently never read anything newer than WITBD by Lenin:



A tip that's helpful in general in life - it is usually better not to say "rubbish" about something you don't know enough about, lest one gives the impression of being a pretentious ignoramus.



It is always so funny to find Leninists like Stern when confronted with a quote from his master which directly contradicts what he says about him trying to squirm their way out a sticky situation.

The fact is Lenin was always a vanguardist and if, at times, he talked about the spontaneity of the masses, it was from a perspective of distrust and out of a conviction that they need to be led and controlled and generally subordinated to the iron discipline of the vanguard. It is clearly undeniable that Lenin did not believe workers by themselves could effect a socialist revolution

In 1918 in the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government he was arguing

We must consolidate what we ourselves have won, what we ourselves have decreed, made law, discussed, planned—consolidate all this in stable forms of everyday labour discipline. This is the most difficult, but the most gratifying task, because only its fulfilment will give us a socialist system. We must learn to combine the “public meeting” democracy of the working people—turbulent, surging, overflowing its banks like a spring flood—with iron discipline while at work, with unquestioning obedience to the will of a single person, the Soviet leader, while at work.
We have not yet learned to do this.

So called "socialist democracy" in Lenin´s ridiculous view was fully compatible with dictatorship by a single individual. But perhaps Stern is too embarrased to acknowlege this which may explain his curious insistence on trying to present Lenin as something other than the vanguardist he clearly was

[Yehuda Stern]

I have no need to "present Lenin as something other than the vanguardist he clearly was." I'm just showing that it's obvious that vanguardism clashes in no way with trust in the capability of working people to make their own revolution and to run their own state, as expressed in the passage I quoted above and in Lenin's model for a workers' state, which allowed every "soviet leader" to be replaced at any given time by a democratic vote. So much for "dictatorship by a single individual."

[Black Sheep]

Rakunin

Also what are the characteristics of power structure and economics on the deformed DotP?
Thank you comrade, but i was talking about the deformed DotP(= degenerated workers' state / state capitalism, etc)

[Tower of Bebel]

Rakunin

Thank you comrade, but i was talking about the deformed DotP(= degenerated workers' state / state capitalism, etc)
As you can see I'm not a champion of the concept "deformed" or "degenerated workers' state". Lenin also said the USSR was a workers' and peasants' state with a bureaucratic twist to it. I only recently bought a book containing articles about Permanent Revolution and The Revolution Betrayed selected by Ernest Mandel. I think it might help me learn a thing or two about the concept of a degenerated workers' state.

[robbo203]

I have no need to "present Lenin as something other than the vanguardist he clearly was." I'm just showing that it's obvious that vanguardism clashes in no way with trust in the capability of working people to make their own revolution and to run their own state, as expressed in the passage I quoted above and in Lenin's model for a workers' state, which allowed every "soviet leader" to be replaced at any given time by a democratic vote. So much for "dictatorship by a single individual."

Hilarious. Its the only word I can think of to capture the sheer inanity of this. A leninist of all people claiming that the Glorious Soviet Leader exercising iron discipline over the proles - to use Leninñs favourite metaphor - could somehow be be replaced at any given time by a democratic vote of the proles. Thanks mate. I havent laughed myself so hoarse for a long time. It really cheered me up no end

[Idealism]

what are the conceptual things that are differ between different strains of Marxism ? (i.e. how the DotP should be run, getting there and so on.)

Sorry, but could leninists and non-leninist stop arguing?

[Yehuda Stern]

I find that it's very easy to amuse people under a certain intellectual level.

[robbo203]

I find that it's very easy to amuse people under a certain intellectual level.


Im not surprised. It fits the elitist contempt that vanguardists invariably betray whenever they look down their noses at ordinary workers and their alleged inabilty to acquire a revolutionary conasciousness without being "led" by a bunch of armchair trotskyist "revolutuonaries"

[KC]

It's always so funny when people use What is to be Done, thinking they've won the argument and that I've never seen it before. They apparently never read anything newer than WITBD by Lenin:Hal Draper also completely demolished such attempts at dishonest mischaracterization in his book "The Myth of Lenin’s “Concept of The Party”/What They Did to What Is To Be Done? (http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/index.htm)


Hilarious. Its the only word I can think of to capture the sheer inanity of this. A leninist of all people claiming that the Glorious Soviet Leader exercising iron discipline over the proles - to use Leninñs favourite metaphor - could somehow be be replaced at any given time by a democratic vote of the proles. Thanks mate. I havent laughed myself so hoarse for a long time. It really cheered me up no end

This view of the organizational structure of the RSDLP and the Bolshevik party later, as well as this view of Lenin's perspectives on party organization at the time, are not only wrong but have absolutely no basis whatsoever:



Let us put demonology aside. It must be noted that, in the period inaugurated by the 1905 upheaval, as the situation in Russia changed and the pressure of the autocracy lightened, Lenin’s “concept of the party” changed drastically, in accord with the new circumstances – just as we would expect if his protestations were taken seriously.
Already in February 1905, in a draft resolution for the Third Party Congress, Lenin wrote: “Under conditions of political freedom, our Party can and will be built entirely on the elective principle. Under the autocracy this is impracticable for the collective thousands that make up the party.” [14] (http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n14) Writing in September 1905, he hailed the German party as “first in respect of organization, integrality and coherence” and pointed to its organizational decisions as “highly instructive to us Russians.”

Not so long ago organizational questions occupied a disproportionate place among current problems of Party life, and to some extent this holds true of the present as well. Since the Third Congress two organizational tendencies in the Party have become fully defined. One is toward consistent centralism and consistent extension of the democratic principle in Party organizations, not for the sake of demagogy or because it sounds good but in order to put this into effect as Social-Democracy’s free field of activity extends in Russia. The other tendency is toward diffusiveness of organization, “vagueness of organization” ... [15] (http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n15)
In November 1905 he stressed in an article that the socialist worker “knows there is no other road to socialism save the road through democracy, through political liberty. He therefore strives to achieve democratism completely and consistently in order to attain the ultimate goal – socialism.” [16] (http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n16) The same month he published an important essay, titled The Reorganization of the Party. In it he called for a new party congress in order to put the whole organization “on a new basis.”
This article went to the main point directly: “The conditions in which our Party is functioning are changing radically. Freedom of assembly, of association and the press has been captured.” [17] (http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n17) What followed? Lenin answered: “organize in a new way” ... “new methods” ... “a new line.”


We, the representatives of revolutionary Social-Democracy, the supporters of the “Majority” [Bolsheviks], have repeatedly said that complete democratization of the Party was impossible in conditions of secret work, and that in such conditions the “elective principle” was a mere phrase. And experience has confirmed our words. ... But we Bolsheviks have always recognized that in new conditions, when political liberties were acquired, it would be essential to adopt the elective principle. [18] (http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n18)


Of course it goes on, as I didn't want to quote the entire thing, but you can read further if you like (I suspect you won't) here (http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section5).

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

Hilarious. Its the only word I can think of to capture the sheer inanity of this. A leninist of all people claiming that the Glorious Soviet Leader exercising iron discipline over the proles - to use Leninñs favourite metaphor - could somehow be be replaced at any given time by a democratic vote of the proles. Thanks mate. I havent laughed myself so hoarse for a long time. It really cheered me up no end

You have to make up your mind comrade. First you quote Lenin from 1902's WITBD to justify you views on vanguardism. Then when provided with a later quote from Lenin (you can find this perspective spelled out in Draper's and Lars Lih's books) that contradicts what you argue and shows that Lenin changed his position, your only reply is to laugh?

What exactly is funny here? The fact that you were proven incorrect as to Lenin's actual historical view? Or the fact that unable to simply admit an error, you in no way address that it was indeed Bolshevik policy that Soviet leaders could be recalled by the vote?

Whenever you are done laughing, the issue remains to be discussed seriously. Your comment suggests that the Bolshevik policy of recall was not actually actionable, and maybe if you weren't so snarky in your response you could elaborate on this. But the fact is all you have done thus far is to falsify Lenin's historical position by ingnoring everything he wrote and did after 1902 demonstrating the relationship of the workers' vanguard party to the rest of its class.

[robbo203]

You have to make up your mind comrade. First you quote Lenin from 1902's WITBD to justify you views on vanguardism. Then when provided with a later quote from Lenin (you can find this perspective spelled out in Draper's and Lars Lih's books) that contradicts what you argue and shows that Lenin changed his position, your only reply is to laugh?

What exactly is funny here? The fact that you were proven incorrect as to Lenin's actual historical view? Or the fact that unable to simply admit an error, you in no way address that it was indeed Bolshevik policy that Soviet leaders could be recalled by the vote?

Whenever you are done laughing, the issue remains to be discussed seriously. Your comment suggests that the Bolshevik policy of recall was not actually actionable, and maybe if you weren't so snarky in your response you could elaborate on this. But the fact is all you have done thus far is to falsify Lenin's historical position by ingnoring everything he wrote and did after 1902 demonstrating the relationship of the workers' vanguard party to the rest of its class.


The issue is simple. Did Lenin ever depart from the notion of vanguard party or not? Grudging lip service later on to the possibility of the working class become revolutionary without outside intervention is not enough. In fact I would manitain that if you really did believe in the principle that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself then the whole idea of a vanguard can be safely consigned to the dustbin where it properly belongs. But Im not convinced by your comments anyway. I quoted a passage from Lenin in 1918 in the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government which talks about the need for unquestioning obedience to the will of the Soviet leader,. There are many other comments one can point to of a similar vein like the one about democracy being compatible with the dictatorship by a single individual which do not suggest to me that Lenin abandoned his elitist view of the revolutionary process

And yes I dont believe the Bolshevik policy of recall was actually actionable in the slightest. Do you seriously think it was? A paper commitment is one thing. the reality is a different matter

[robbo203]

Here´s another quote from Lenin for all those naive enough to think he abandoned his elitist vanguardism later on in life. That Lenin approved of dictatorship, even that of a single person, was spelt out clearly in a speech he made (On Economic Reconstruction) on the 31 March 1920:

"Now we are repeating what was approved by the Central EC two years ago . . . Namely, that the Soviet Socialist Democracy (sic!) is in no way inconsistent with the rule and dictatorship of one person; that the will of a class is at best realised by a Dictator who sometimes will accomplish more by himself and is frequently more needed" (Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 89. First Russian Edition).

[Oneironaut]

Sorry, but could leninists and non-leninist stop arguing?

Haha that is easier said than done. But here are some different strands that you may be interested in looking at:

Leninism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

Left Communism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism

Trotskyism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

De Leonism: http://www.deleonism.org/

Stalinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

Maoism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism


Could anyone add any that I may have left out?

Of course, this will just give you a basic introduction to some of the variations in Marxist thought. I would recommend that you try to get a foundation all or as many of these theories as possible before you make to many pre-judgments. You can find pretty much all you will need for this on www.marxists.org

[Idealism]

Haha that is easier said than done. But here are some different strands that you may be interested in looking

thats what i was looking for thanks, recommence arguing

[Oneironaut]

I should clarify though that these issues that we debate about are issues of organization and not any fundamental difference in what we are trying to achieve. They are just debates on the "how".

[Yehuda Stern]

Hal Draper also completely demolished such attempts at dishonest mischaracterization in his book "The Myth of Lenin’s “Concept of The Party”/What They Did to (http://www.anonym.to/?http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/index.htm)What Is To Be Done? (http://www.anonym.to/?http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/index.htm)

He tries to, and fails ignominiously.


Im not surprised. It fits the elitist contempt that vanguardists invariably betray whenever they look down their noses at ordinary workers

Not really - that you associate workers with a low intellect is your problem, not mine.

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

The issue is simple. Did Lenin ever depart from the notion of vanguard party or not? Grudging lip service later on to the possibility of the working class become revolutionary without outside intervention is not enough. In fact I would manitain that if you really did believe in the principle that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself then the whole idea of a vanguard can be safely consigned to the dustbin where it properly belongs. But Im not convinced by your comments anyway. I quoted a passage from Lenin in 1918 in the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government which talks about the need for unquestioning obedience to the will of the Soviet leader,. There are many other comments one can point to of a similar vein like the one about democracy being compatible with the dictatorship by a single individual which do not suggest to me that Lenin abandoned his elitist view of the revolutionary process

And yes I dont believe the Bolshevik policy of recall was actually actionable in the slightest. Do you seriously think it was? A paper commitment is one thing. the reality is a different matter

Well let us take a step back. I don't think that anyone can honestly say that Lenin stuck to the concept of the Vanguard Party as he wrote of it in WITBD. If you think the concept of a vanguard believes in the dustbin, that is fine (i disagree). But to say that Lenin's understanding was never refined after 1902 is simply not true. 1905 prompted this change in Lenin. And has Hal Draper gives evidence for in his Myth of the Party document, Lenin's formulations in WITBD were hardly his own, it was borrowed from Kautsky as a battering ram against the Economists as part of Lenin's argument against spontaneiously developed revolutionary consciousness.

You are charging Lenin with is "elitism" because you disagree in whole with the concept of a vanguard. You say that a vanguard is incompatible with working class self emancipation. For me, this does not mesh with reality. The fact is that capitalism divides the working class in innumerable ways. As such various layers of the working class comes to socialist consciousness before others. What is eliteist about those workers forming an organization dedicated to winning other workers to socialism, and developing a theoretical understanding of the nature of capitalism and a program for revolution?

Now obviously not every member of self described vanguard organizations are sociologically proletarians. So it seems to me then the real question is the role of the intellectual in any political organization of the working class, vanguard or not. What are your thoughts on working class political organization?

As for the quote you provide, I dont have the first Russian edition of the LCW (do you?!) and the only source I can find for that quote online is other posts on revleft of it and from anti-Lenin article. It certainly is not on the Marxist Internet Archive. Besides, like I pointed out before if you bother to read Draper's article, which someone already posted a link to, you can see the historical origins of Lenin's position and the alterations it took on overtime. And then there is that motherfucker of a tome written by Lars Lih which expands on the subject. At least browse Draper's article and get back to me about who is "naive".

I'll end with a quote of my own:

At every step the workers come face to face with their main enemy — the capitalist class. In combat with this enemy the worker becomes a socialist, comes to realize the necessity of a complete reconstruction of the whole of society, the complete abolition of all poverty and oppression." ("The Lessons of the Revolution," Collected Works, Volume 16, page 302.)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1910/oct/30.htm

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Here´s another quote from Lenin for all those naive enough to think he abandoned his elitist vanguardism later on in life. That Lenin approved of dictatorship, even that of a single person, was spelt out clearly in a speech he made (On Economic Reconstruction) on the 31 March 1920:

"Now we are repeating what was approved by the Central EC two years ago . . . Namely, that the Soviet Socialist Democracy (sic!) is in no way inconsistent with the rule and dictatorship of one person; that the will of a class is at best realised by a Dictator who sometimes will accomplish more by himself and is frequently more needed" (Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 89. First Russian Edition).

Is the work this quote is in hosted anywhere on the web? I found one page attributing it to the tenth party congress, but instead I found stuff like:


When we hear complaints about inadequate democracy, we say: it is absolutely true. Indeed, it is not being practiced sufficiently. We need assistance and advice in this matter. We need real democracy, and not just talk.


We cannot combat the evils of bureaucracy effectively, or practise democracy consistently because we lack the strength and are weak.


We welcome every assistance in getting democracy working, but when the people are exhausted it will take more than talk to do it.


We certainly need help in combating bureaucracy, safeguarding democracy, and extending contacts with the truly working-class masses.


The Party must know that we have not taken all the necessary measures in regard to these questions because of various obstacles, but that, while ruthlessly rejecting impractical and factional pseudo-criticism, the Party will unceasingly continue—trying out new methods—to fight with all the means at its disposal against the evils of bureaucracy, for the extension of democracy and initiative, for detecting, exposing and expelling from the Party elements that have wormed their way into its ranks, etc.

etc

[KC]

I traced the quote back to this work by Martov (http://www.marxists.org/archive/martov/1919/xx/sovietism.htm) but could not find it anywhere in Lenin's Collected Works. Page 89 in Lenin's Collected Works that is posted on MIA is this article (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/feb/08.htm), which is completely unrelated to whatever it is that Martov quoted.

EDIT: This is the quote presented by Martov:


On the 29th of April, 1918 the Central Executive Committee accepted a resolution expressing full approval of the basic ideas given in this report and instructed the praesidium to draft, in the form of theses, these basic problems of the Soviet Power. Now we are repeating what was approved by the Central Executive Committee two years ago in an official resolution! Now we are drawn back to a question that was decided long ago, in a manner approved of and made clear by the Central Executive Committee – namely, that the Soviet Socialist Democracy is in no way inconsistent with the rule and dictatorship of one person; that the will of a class is at times best realized by a dictator, who sometimes will accomplish more by himself and is frequently more needcd. At any rate, the principal relation toward one person rule was not only explained a long time ago but was also decided by the Central Executive Committee ...” (Collected Works, volume 17, page 89, 1st Russian edition).

I've managed to trace the original quote back to this work (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/mar/29.htm#fw4) by Lenin. Here is the original quote:


On April 29, 1918, the All-Russia Central Executive Committee adopted a resolution fully endorsing the basic propositions set forth in this report and instructed its Presidium to recast them as theses representing the principal tasks of the Soviet government. We are thus reiterating what was approved two years ago in an official resolution of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee! And we are now being dragged back on a matter that was decided long ago, a matter which the All-Russia Central Executive Committee endorsed and explained, namely, that Soviet socialist democracy and individual management and dictatorship are in no way contradictory, and that the will of a class may sometimes be carried out by a dictator, who sometimes does more alone and is frequently more necessary. At any rate, the attitude towards the principles of corporate management and individual management was not only explained long ago, but was even endorsed by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee. In this connection our Congress is an illustration of the sad truth that instead of advancing from the explanation of questions of principle to concrete questions, we are advancing backward. Unless we get away from this mistake we shall never solve the economic problem.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I traced the quote back to this work by Martov (http://www.marxists.org/archive/martov/1919/xx/sovietism.htm) but could not find it anywhere in Lenin's Collected Works. Page 89 in Lenin's Collected Works that is posted on MIA is this article (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/feb/08.htm), which is completely unrelated to whatever it is that Martov quoted.

EDIT: This is the quote presented by Martov:



I've managed to trace the original quote back to this work (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/mar/29.htm#fw4) by Lenin. Here is the original quote:

So it's a case of taking a quote out of context. Guess that's not really surprising.

[revolution inaction]

So it's a case of taking a quote out of context. Guess that's not really surprising.


To me it looks like it says what it appears to say, what is the context that i am missing?

[Joffe]

My own personal view on the transition from capitalism to communism:

1. The proletarians gain a self consiousness as a class through the raising of basic demands (sallary, worktime, peace etc)
2. The working class gain a revolutionary conciousness when they realize that the trade unions and other representatives, including parliament, can no longer meet their demands.
3. The crushing of capitalism and the old representative organisations of the working class.
4. The conciousness of the need for a party to carry the revolutionary goals and fighting off the reaction (the logic of violence as a means to get rid of capitalism (now backed by nuclear weapons for example)
5. The disintegration of all exploitation of work and property, hence the disintegration of the party.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

To me it looks like it says what it appears to say, what is the context that i am missing?

Maybe you should take a closer look at the excerpt posted by KC...


At any rate, the attitude towards the principles of corporate management and individual management was not only explained long ago, but was even endorsed by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee.

He's just using dictator to refer to a single individual managing a workplace.

“But be that as it may, unquestioning subordination to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of processes organised on the pattern of large-scale machine industry. On the railways it is twice and three times as necessary. . . .

[revolution inaction]

He's just using dictator to refer to a single individual managing a workplace.

Thats what i thought he meant.

[LOLseph Stalin]

5. The disintegration of all exploitation of work and property, hence the disintegration of the party.

This can't happen right away. After the revolution there still needs to be a party. However, things would be controlled by worker's democracy. Everything from wages to the length of the work week would be voted on. Once we get past the Socialism stage then we can get rid of the party and have a stateless society.

[Unregistered]

This can't happen right away. After the revolution there still needs to be a party. However, things would be controlled by worker's democracy. Everything from wages to the length of the work week would be voted on. Once we get past the Socialism stage then we can get rid of the party and have a stateless society.

Yes, the step 4 in my list includes this.

On wages: One "transitional" demand that we could all start to raise here and now is the abandonment of the monetary system in favour of a system that would only value work value- not "the exchange value". This means that if I work ten hours, then I get 10 credits. If a computer takes a total sum of 20 hours to build, then it would cost 20 credits. Only work or products that would be of special interest to society would vary from this rule. All will be voted on in workers councils.

"No Dollars or Euros! Workhour Credits!"

[ZeroNowhere]

This can't happen right away. After the revolution there still needs to be a party.
Yes, a party for the abolition of the Party.


Everything from wages to the length of the work week would be voted on.
Wages? Yes, of course, let's have a workers' revolution... To keep capitalism around?


4. The conciousness of the need for a party to carry the revolutionary goals and fighting off the reaction (the logic of violence as a means to get rid of capitalism (now backed by nuclear weapons for example)
Wait, are you saying that we'd use nukes, or get nuked? Because either way, this would make us screwed. Also, need for a Party to fight off the reaction? I don't see why this is in any way necessary.

[Joffe]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Need I say more?

Offcourse we aren't going to either nuke or get nuked! What I'm saying is that we can have no illusions of the serious threat of the bourgeoisie reaction. In order to minimize human losses we need to be unified, strong, educated, concious and so forth.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Besides, like I pointed out before if you bother to read Draper's article, which someone already posted a link to, you can see the historical origins of Lenin's position and the alterations it took on overtime. And then there is that motherfucker of a tome written by Lars Lih which expands on the subject. At least browse Draper's article and get back to me about who is "naive".

Well, Chapter 1 of Lars Lih's work debunks Draper's notion of Kautsky being an elitist.

I don't think Lenin's views in 1905 were different from 1902; they were consistent, especially if one reads Kautsky correctly.

[ZeroNowhere]

Here´s another quote from Lenin for all those naive enough to think he abandoned his elitist vanguardism later on in life. That Lenin approved of dictatorship, even that of a single person, was spelt out clearly in a speech he made (On Economic Reconstruction) on the 31 March 1920:

"Now we are repeating what was approved by the Central EC two years ago . . . Namely, that the Soviet Socialist Democracy (sic!) is in no way inconsistent with the rule and dictatorship of one person; that the will of a class is at best realised by a Dictator who sometimes will accomplish more by himself and is frequently more needed" (Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 89. First Russian Edition).
In fact, this is on the Marxists internet archives (people, why not look a little before making statements that it is not?). Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/mar/29.htm#fw4).

On the other hand, Robbo was also taking it out of context. Though I suppose, to be fair, it's actually taken out of context by the person who made the document Robbo took this from. The full quote is this:


Comrade Trotsky recalled his report made in 1918 and, reading the speech he then made, pointed out that at that time not only did we argue about fundamental questions but a definite decision was taken by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee. I dug up my old pamphlet The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, which I had completely forgotten, and find that the question of individual management was not only raised but even approved in the theses of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee. We work in such a way that we forget not only what we ourselves have written but even what has been decided by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee, and subsequently dig up these decisions. Here are some passages from this pamphlet.

“Those who deliberately (although most of them probably do not realise it) promote petty-bourgeois laxity would like to see in this granting of ‘unlimited’ (i.e., dictatorial) powers to individuals a departure from the collegiate principle, from democracy and from the principles of Soviet government. Here and there, among Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, a positively hooligan agitation, i.e., agitation appealing to the base instincts and to the small proprietor’s urge to ‘grab all he can’, has been developed against the dictatorship decree. . . .[9]

“Large-scale machine industry—which is precisely the material source, the productive source, the foundation of socialism—calls for absolute and strict unity of will, which directs the joint labours of hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of people. The technical, economic and historical necessity of this is obvious, and all those who have thought about socialism have always regarded it as one of the conditions of socialism” . . . this is the only way in which “strict unity of will can be ensured. . . .

“But be that as it may, unquestioning subordination to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of processes organised on the pattern of large-scale machine industry. On the railways it is twice and three times as necessary. . . .

“And our whole task, the task of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks), which is the class-conscious vehicle of the strivings of the exploited for emancipation, is to appreciate this change, to understand that it is necessary, to stand at the head of the exhausted people who are wearily seeking a way out and lead them along the true path, along the path of labour discipline, along the path of co-ordinating the task of arguing at mass meetings about the conditions of work with the task of unquestioningly obeying the will of the Soviet leader, of the dictator, during the work. . . .

“It required precisely the October victory of the working people over the exploiters, it required a whole historical period in which the working people themselves could first of all discuss the new conditions of life and the new tasks, in order to make possible the durable transition to superior forms of labour discipline, to the conscious appreciation of the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat, to unquestioning obedience to the orders of individual representatives of the Soviet government during the work. . . .

“We must learn to combine the ‘public meeting’ democracy of the working people—turbulent, surging, overflowing its banks like a spring nood with iron discipline while at work, with unquestioning obedience to the will of a single person, the Soviet leader, while at work.”

On April 29, 1918, the All-Russia Central Executive Committee adopted a resolution fully endorsing the basic propositions set forth in this report and instructed its Presidium to recast them as theses representing the principal tasks of the Soviet government. We are thus reiterating what was approved two years ago in an official resolution of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee! And we are now being dragged back on a matter that was decided long ago, a matter which the All-Russia Central Executive Committee endorsed and explained, namely, that Soviet socialist democracy and individual management and dictatorship are in no way contradictory, and that the will of a class may sometimes be carried out by a dictator, who sometimes does more alone and is frequently more necessary. At any rate, the attitude towards the principles of corporate management and individual management was not only explained long ago, but was even endorsed by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee. In this connection our Congress is an illustration of the sad truth that instead of advancing from the explanation of questions of principle to concrete questions, we are advancing backward. Unless we get away from this mistake we shall never solve the economic problem.
So it seems that, by 'dictator', Lenin was referring, in his own twisted way, to managers in the workplace. Of course, this does seem rather authoritarian, as... Well, if a manager was subject to immediate recall, how would he be in any sense a dictator? Then again, this aspect is not mentioned in this piece, so there's as much a chance of it being badly done rhetoric, exaggeration to make a point, etc, than of being an endorsement of workplace dictatorship.

Edit: I didn't see the other link to that speech here. Anyways. Yeah, another prized misquote made all too often by fellow non-Leninists is this one: " Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people..." The full quote is actually, " Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly." He earlier in the document commented that, "If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking." Another favourite is the 'state capitalism' comments supposedly indicating that he wanted the state to form a capitalist class, as the term is generally used now, but, "It seemed to them that the term “state capitalism” could not be applied to a system under which the means of production were owned by the working-class, a working-class that held political power. They did not notice, however, that I use the term “state capitalism", firstly, to connect historically our present position with the position adopted in my controversy with the so-called Left Communists; also, I argued at the time that state capitalism would be superior to our existing economy. It was important for me to show the continuity between ordinary state capitalism and the unusual, even very unusual, state capitalism to which I referred in introducing the reader to the New Economic Policy. Secondly, the practical purpose was always important to me. And the practical purpose of our New Economic Policy was to lease out concessions. In the prevailing circumstances, concessions in our country would unquestionably have been a pure type of state capitalism. That is how I argued about state capitalism."
Really, I don't especially like arguing about whether or not Lenin was a closet authoritarian (though he was a traditionalist git when it comes to sexuality, and his writing style is second-last to none), it is irrelevant, what is more significant is that material conditions prevail. And extremely high illiteracy rates (especially for women) don't really help matters. Then again, something that I'm sure that we can all agree on is that the Bolshevik revolution was certainly progressive.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The "state-capitalist monopoly" quote indicates Lenin's failure to break away from orthodox Marxism's monetary conception of socialism. Paresh Chattopadhyay explains:

Socialism and Value Categories in Early Soviet Doctrine: Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Preobrazhensky (http://books.google.com/books?id=MvidbYEqt8gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA219,M1)

A Manifesto of Emancipation: Marx’s “Marginal Notes to the Programme of the German Workers’ Party”
after One hundred and twenty-five years (http://marxmyths.org/paresh-chattopadhyay/article.htm)

[mosfeld]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is just pretty much worker's democracy. In otherwords, "dictatorship of the majority". It's an easily misunderstood term, confusing alot of people into thinking we literally support dictatorship. Anyway, i'll compare it to the system we have now: "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". In our current system of "democracy" all decisions are controlled by the ruling class because the politicians are funded by them. Therefore in order to get funding they need to act in the interests of these people funding them. Also, it comes into effect after the revolution. The bourgeoisie are overthrown and the Proletariat controls them and everything that needs to be done in a sense hence the term "dictatorship of the proletariat". This basically sums it up.