DOP == "Slaveholding Democracy"

[trivas7]

Anarchist Gregori Maximov argues here (http://libcom.org/library/lenins-terror-bolshevik-party-maximov) that Lenin believed that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in reality is something like the "slaveholding democracy" of ancient Greece. Many others (http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Stalin-Hitler-Catastrophe-Vintage/dp/140003213X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241885139&sr=8-1) have also taken the view that Lenin had nothing but contempt for workers. Given this view of the relationship of the party to the proletariat, is it any wonder that the Party became the New Class in the Soviet Union, and that a feudal relationship of master and slave became the reality in the first "worker's state"?

What -- if anything -- does this say re the Marxist theory of the state and the prospects of the transition to socialism?

[Black Sheep]

I wont contribute much.
Slaves in ancient greece had no rights in society, it was democracy for the slave owners.

I do not have time to read the link,but claims like 'Lenin had contempt for workers' seem childish to me.

[mikelepore]

There's nothing in the writings of Marx to suggest any role whatsoever for the party after socialism is established. The purpose of the party is that the capitalist class holds a weapon by controlling the state, and only a political party can take their weapon away from them. That's why the North American branch of Marxism in the 1880s and 1890s, before anyone received any influence from Lenin, interpreted the meaning of Marxist revolution as an event in which the workers' political party takes control of the state, the workers' workplace organization takes control of the means of production, and their political party dismantles the state and dissolves itself, all at the same time, within a matter of days, or even hours. After hearing Lenin's interpretation, most people forgot that there used to be other interpretations coming straight out of what Marx had written.

[trivas7]

After hearing Lenin's interpretation, most people forgot that there used to be other interpretations coming straight out of what Marx had written.
IMO the success of the October Revolution is vindication enough for Lenin's theory of the party. What do you think would have happened if the Bolshevik party had dissolved itself after having taken state power?

For Marx the growth of working-class political consciousness rose relatively smoothly and evenly, roughly in proportion to the development of capitalism. The main tasks of the revolutionary party as he saw them were overcoming the petty bourgeois, sectarian, conspiratorial and utopian socialist traditions of revolutionary organisation inherited from the French revolution; the problem of reformism had not yet emerged. That he did not progress beyond this view is not, however, surprising, or something for which he can be blamed.

[RGacky3]

IMO the success of the October Revolution is vindication enough for Lenin's theory of the party.

No it was'nt, first of all it was'nt just the Bolsheviks revolution second of all, someone taking power does'nt validate his theory. The theory is validated if what the theory says its going to acomplish is accomplished, and that was'nt accomplished.


What do you think would have happened if the Bolshevik party had dissolved itself after having taken state power?


First of all, contrary to marxist dogma, NO party, or State in power ever dissolves itself, the norm is not for people with power to willingly give it up..

However the people could have dissolved the party (I wish they did), and what I think would have happened is that Russia could have had a chance at communism. The only problem would be the civil war, however there is no evidence that having a centralized totalitarian state makes a society able to resist invaders more efficiently.

As for the article, there are major and important differences between the tyranny in the USSR and slaveholding societies. We have to remember that the State did have a formal democracy in which everyone could vote, (even though the real power was'nt there), so there still was some popular influence on the state. There ar eother major differences, such as human rights and party beoucracy.

However that being said, the article is correct in the basic idea, lenin did not create anything close to what he promised, there was'nt any realautonomy, democracy or socialism. Lenin wanted to be the architect of socialism, which is as absurd as being the architect of democracy, both socialism and democracy require the people to be the architects.

[Hiero]

http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Stalin-Hitler-Catastrophe-Vintage/dp/140003213X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241885139&sr=8-1

That's your referece for many others? Conservative authors who write history like mythology?

What is the point in having these conversations if they are based on really fucking dumb books.

[trivas7]

What is the point in having these conversations if they are based on really fucking dumb books.
Have you read it? IMO it's a really dumb fucking idea to dismiss conservative historians as worthless.