Does the dictatorship of the proletariat ever wither away?

[heiss93]

Does the dictatorship of the proletariat ever wither away? Is the concept of proletarian dictatorship seperate from the oppressive state apparatus? Even after the socialist state withers away, wont there still be a class dictatorship in the sense that the bourgeoisie are never allowed to participate in the state? Is the proletarian dictatorship preserved under Communism?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Does the dictatorship of the proletariat ever wither away? Is the concept of proletarian dictatorship seperate from the oppressive state apparatus? Even after the socialist state withers away, wont there still be a class dictatorship in the sense that the bourgeoisie are never allowed to participate in the state? Is the proletarian dictatorship preserved under Communism?
After a certain point, certainly the first generation or so, the bourgeoisie would no longer exist. By that point, of course, the proletariat wouldn't exist in any meaningful sense either - when everyone's a worker, no-one's part of the working class. So there'd be no-one to rule or to be ruled over.

None of this explains how a socialist state is going to magically abolish itself, tho. That particular conjuring trick still doesn't really work for me.

[Q]

None of this explains how a socialist state is going to magically abolish itself, tho. That particular conjuring trick still doesn't really work for me.
Ironically, you answer your own question:


After a certain point, certainly the first generation or so, the bourgeoisie would no longer exist. By that point, of course, the proletariat wouldn't exist in any meaningful sense either - when everyone's a worker, no-one's part of the working class. So there'd be no-one to rule or to be ruled over.

The rule of the working class over the bourgeois constitutes the workers "state". If there is no class to antagonism left, there is no state to talk about either.

[jake williams]

The rule of the working class over the bourgeois constitutes the workers "state". If there is no class to antagonism left, there is no state to talk about either.
I really don't think that answers the question. You have, say, some sort of a state apparatus, doing, let's say, policing, or economic planning. Would they simply cease to exist? Would their offices just be bulldozed? Or would they no longer consist of a "state" as such, even though they still do similar things?

The point deserves elucidation.

[robbo203]

Does the dictatorship of the proletariat ever wither away? Is the concept of proletarian dictatorship seperate from the oppressive state apparatus? Even after the socialist state withers away, wont there still be a class dictatorship in the sense that the bourgeoisie are never allowed to participate in the state? Is the proletarian dictatorship preserved under Communism?

If the bourgeoisie are "never allowed to participate in the state" then why not equally say they should "never be allowed to exploit the working class" (i.e. abolish the bourgeoisie and hence also the proletariat). Afterall if the so called proletarian state was able to exclude the bourgeoisie from matters concerning the state then surely it would have the power to do the latter as well.

This is the fundamental and fatal weakness in the whole concept of the proletarian dictatorship - how does it make any sense at all to talk about a proletariat dictating what happens in society when by definition the proletariat is the exploited class in society? How can the exploited class dictate terms to the class that continues to exploit it? No one has ever provided a satisfactory answer to this question and none will ever be forthcoming.

I say ditch the whole concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat completely. It is incohent and illogical

[Old Man Diogenes]

Does the dictatorship of the proletariat ever wither away? Is the concept of proletarian dictatorship seperate from the oppressive state apparatus? Even after the socialist state withers away, wont there still be a class dictatorship in the sense that the bourgeoisie are never allowed to participate in the state? Is the proletarian dictatorship preserved under Communism?

I'm glad you started a thread about this, I'd like to learn more about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" concept. Especially the "withering away" part.

[redasheville]

read "The State and Revolution" by Lenin.

[Pogue]

whatever you do, don't read 'The State and Revolution' by Lenin.

I'll elaborate on my answer tommorow when I have more time.

[red cat]

Don't listen to Pogue. It's a great book.

[heiss93]

I understand the process of the oppressive state withering away under Communism. My main question was is the proletarian dictatorship identical in function to the socialist state? Isn't dictatorship defined by Lenin as unity of will and the exclusion of all other classes, in which case proletarian dictatorship, defined as class, not individual, party or state dictatorship, is maintained under stateless Communism.

The US Progressive Labor Party for instance claims to fight directly for stateless Communism, bypassing socialism, while at the same time calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

whatever you do, don't read 'The State and Revolution' by Lenin.

I'll elaborate on my answer tommorow when I have more time.
I'm pretty sure that re-reading "State and Revolution" by Lenin was what finally convinced TAT that Bolshevism is an intrinsically flawed, anti-working-class ideology. So there are at least some times when reading "State and Revolution" is useful. ;)

I understand the process of the oppressive state withering away under Communism. My main question was is the proletarian dictatorship identical in function to the socialist state? Isn't dictatorship defined by Lenin as unity of will and the exclusion of all other classes, in which case proletarian dictatorship, defined as class, not individual, party or state dictatorship, is maintained under stateless Communism.

How are you defining class here? I'd understand it as being defined by your relationship to the means of production. So when the capitalists no longer control any capital, I don't think they'd really still be a capitalist class in any meaningful sense. Sure, there'd be ex-capitalists who'd want to regain their former position, but I don't think they'd still exist as a coherent class, especially after "the socialist state" has "withered away" (if you believe that'd happen).

[robbo203]

How are you defining class here? I'd understand it as being defined by your relationship to the means of production. So when the capitalists no longer control any capital, I don't think they'd really still be a capitalist class in any meaningful sense. Sure, there'd be ex-capitalists who'd want to regain their former position, but I don't think they'd still exist as a coherent class, especially after "the socialist state" has "withered away" (if you believe that'd happen).


Exactly so. And since there wont be any capitalists in any meaningful sense of the word, neither can there be any proletarians in any meaningful sense of the word since the proletariat are just the mirror image of the capitalists. Like Marx said , wage labour presupposes capital and vice versa - they condition each other

That said, if there are no proletarians anymore (because there are no capitalists any more), how the hell can you meaningfully talk about a proletarian state? On the other hand, if you do still have a proletariat then that means you must also have a capitalist class and therefore a class which by definition exploits this proletariat.

A proletarian state in which the proletarians remain the exploited class is just about the most daft political concept you can conceive of

[ComradeOm]

How are you defining class here? I'd understand it as being defined by your relationship to the means of production. So when the capitalists no longer control any capital, I don't think they'd really still be a capitalist class in any meaningful senseOnly in the most vulgar economic sense

To take an example, the nobility of the French Revolution were largely stripped of their lands and forced into exile by successive Revolutionary and Napoleonic yet they remained a relatively cohesive opposition to the regime. Ultimately, despite being divorced from their lands for roughly two decades, this class succeeded in both maintaining its composition and returning to power in Restoration France. So the idea that merely removing capitalists from the factories suddenly renders them impotent is without basis

[redasheville]

whatever you do, don't read 'The State and Revolution' by Lenin.

I'll elaborate on my answer tommorow when I have more time.

Yea you wouldn't want to have your brain poluted with EVIL Bolshevik lies, lest ye become an anti-working class conspirator of bureaucratic hatred. I mean, if you like READ A BOOK you might as well already sign up to the "future aparchics of world" club. :rolleyes:

[robbo203]

Only in the most vulgar economic sense

To take an example, the nobility of the French Revolution were largely stripped of their lands and forced into exile by successive Revolutionary and Napoleonic yet they remained a relatively cohesive opposition to the regime. Ultimately, despite being divorced from their lands for roughly two decades, this class succeeded in both maintaining its composition and returning to power in Restoration France. So the idea that merely removing capitalists from the factories suddenly renders them impotent is without basis

Its one thing to remove them from the factories (many capitalists I suspect are probably are not in the habit of frequenting the factories they own on any kind of regular basis), its quite another to deprive them of the means by which their economic power is exercised - their ownerhsip of capital.

This presupposes the triumph of a communist movement and in these circumstances, yes, the capitalists will be rendered impotent

[ComradeOm]

Its one thing to remove them from the factories (many capitalists I suspect are probably are not in the habit of frequenting the factories they own on any kind of regular basis), its quite another to deprive them of the means by which their economic power is exercised - their ownerhsip of capitalAgain, a purely economic measure. The destruction of the capitalist class will only - can only - be successful when it is conducted on a number of fronts - economic, social, political, military, cultural, etc. It is nonsensical to argue that a single measure in the economic sphere will suddenly eliminate the capitalists as a class

[h9socialist]

I think it's a little premature to worry about something "withering away" when it really hasn't occurred yet. But if Marx had anything on the ball when he wrote the 1859 Intro, I think it is safe to say that if "thew state" withers away, and the capitalists are rendered unto history's dust-bin, the whole notion of "dictatorship is abolished. Only if you see "perfect democracy" as dictatorship of a sort can you argue otherwise.

[Tower of Bebel]

Bobkindless once made a thread about the state. The idea that the state "Withers away" (or "dies out"), as Engels formulated it, was actually a popularization of the way Marx used to address the question. Marx wrote about "Aufhebung" not "absterben" (to die out). What "aufheben" means is that the state, an apparatus of oppression and rule, changes into "the mere administration of things". E.g. bureaucracy (A French neologism meaning the rule of the "bureau" or [state] administration) becomes mere administration, policing changes into supervision, the army is superseded by weapons training, etc. In the end some parts of the old state still exist (services and forms of supervision), but they play a different role from that of a state apparatus. They don't need to surpress people.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a state. But it cannot mean something like bureaucracy or the mere administration of things either. It's something inbetween. It means democracy (rule by, for and of "the people"). A genuine dotp would have abolished bureaucracy ages ago. The army would have been replaced by a people's militia. I.e. the armed people. That's also something inbetween a capitalist army and the individual, voluntary training when no defence force needs to exist. All of these form a new state, but one not that much separated from the rest of society like the capitalist state.

And when there's no need for a ruling class the militia, the democracy, etc. will be abolished together with the proletariat, the peasantry and the capitalist class. We will be free and conscious producers.

The problem with the Soviet Union and China was that there was no end to class struggle. But there was also no healthy dotp either, even in 1917. There were antagonisms; most certainly when concidering the "capitalist encirclement" as a source of conflict. There was scarcity too - making it impossible to have free producers. A surplus needed to be extracted by force without consent (a bureaucracy had to take care of "state interests").

[RebelDog]

Q:

The rule of the working class over the bourgeois constitutes the workers "state". If there is no class to antagonism left, there is no state to talk about either.its not a workers state and the term is an oxymoron anyway. Nothing in history has or ever will be a 'workers state'. The whole problem with the Leninist/Trotskyist transition to communism is that it is the empowerment of another state bureaucracy over the producers. This whole ethos centres around the idea that if we abolish the economic conditions of capitalism then we have achieved some sort of workers state and that the state will abolish itself over time. This approach is patent nonsense and we have seen the same old story played out over and over again over the last century with the Soviet Union, China, Cuba et al. The end of the state is as you say when class no longer exists, but socialism is fundementally about producer self-management, the end of labour division, participatory democratic planning and community control and that is when class no longer exists. People must have control over their lives, workplaces and communities or it is not socialism but the empowerment (like in the USSR) of a bureaucracy with power held over the working-class and the dictatorship of a party elite. The USSR was a class society and the state was made even stronger in order to enforce rule over the working-class, not protect its journey to socialism. States will no more wither away anymore than socialism can be handed down by an elite, they can only be destroyed by the working-class, acting as a class, for itself, for its emancipation which lies in the self-management of the economy and society. Socialism is the working-class, it is achieved when they act to emancipate themselves.

[Q]

I really don't think that answers the question. You have, say, some sort of a state apparatus, doing, let's say, policing, or economic planning. Would they simply cease to exist? Would their offices just be bulldozed? Or would they no longer consist of a "state" as such, even though they still do similar things?

The point deserves elucidation.
Very well, I'll point you to Rakunin's post. No need to repeat that ;)

[blake 3:17]

its not a workers state and the term is an oxymoron anyway. Nothing in history has or ever will be a 'workers state'. The whole problem with the Leninist/Trotskyist transition to communism is that it is the empowerment of another state bureaucracy over the producers. This whole ethos centres around the idea that if we abolish the economic conditions of capitalism then we have achieved some sort of workers state and that the state will abolish itself over time.

This a major problem. A state is a product of different classes existing. How do we abolish the state and market in one fell swoop?


This approach is patent nonsense and we have seen the same old story played out over and over again over the last century with the Soviet Union, China, Cuba et al.

I don't think they are the same stories at all. The three have needed centralized states to maintain their existence but have gone in different directions -- USSR kaput, CCP is a market lackey, Cuban socialism still exists to a degree. Its revolution has been able to self correct, as recently it abolished the death penalty.


The end of the state is as you say when class no longer exists, but socialism is fundementally about producer self-management, the end of labour division, participatory democratic planning and community control and that is when class no longer exists. People must have control over their lives, workplaces and communities or it is not socialism but the empowerment (like in the USSR) of a bureaucracy with power held over the working-class and the dictatorship of a party elite. The USSR was a class society and the state was made even stronger in order to enforce rule over the working-class, not protect its journey to socialism. States will no more wither away anymore than socialism can be handed down by an elite, they can only be destroyed by the working-class, acting as a class, for itself, for its emancipation which lies in the self-management of the economy and society. Socialism is the working-class, it is achieved when they act to emancipate themselves.


But what about in the mean time? Any attempts at genuine workers control will be hit hard over and over again by imperialism. Within workers movements inequities -- material, intellectual, political, etc -- exist and cannot simply abolish themselves by some state or anti- or non- state directive.