Dictatorship of the proletariat...did we?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well it can be said, and is true, that we have never experienced communism.

However, can it also be stated that we have never had a true dictatorship of the proletariat?

I mean it seems that with regimes like Stalin, Lenin and Castro, the political power was concentrated, not in the hands of the proletariat....nor the bourgeoisie, but in the hands of a power hungry few..."the party". Who did what they did "in the name of" the worker.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Well of course as we all know there are people who argue that the Soviet Union was not even socialist, the same can be said for whether or not the Soviet Union, or other socialist states achieved a dictatorship of the proletariat. As long as there are Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, lefties, etc. we will likely never reach a solid consensus on this issue. If we are going by what Lenin said in the State and Revolution, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the period in which the vanguard becomes the ruling class on behalf of the proletariat, to serve their interests and needs, then I would say yes, this definitely has been achieved. Marx himself used a much broader terminology, simply that a dictatorship of the proletariat is the revolutionary transitory period in which the working class becomes the ruling class. If we use Marx's definition and Marx's definition alone, then it is really up for debate, but I would still answer yes. Basically if you accept that the Bolsheviks, or any of the ruling parties in the socialist states, were truly representative or the proletariat, then you probably also accept that the dictatorship has been reached. That's the way I see it at least.

[ellipsis]

I say no. The soviet CP did not serve the interests of the proletariat in the USSR or many other places. This is of course up to debate but I feel that these situations were really dictatorship of the party.

[Robocommie]

I'd have to agree with theredson, while I have not exactly written any dissertations on modern Russian history lately, I can't say I've seen a lot of evidence to support the idea that the party was anything but an oligarchy. I'm open to solid arguments to the contrary, though.

[New Tet]

Well it can be said, and is true, that we have never experienced communism.

However, can it also be stated that we have never had a true dictatorship of the proletariat?

The Paris Commune is an example of an attempt to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat. Unsuccessful, to be sure.


I mean it seems that with regimes like Stalin, Lenin and Castro, the political power was concentrated, not in the hands of the proletariat....nor the bourgeoisie, but in the hands of a power hungry few..."the party". Who did what they did "in the name of" the worker.

Because, they correctly reasoned, the workers couldn't do it themselves. In the Peasant Wars in Germany, Engels warned about the possibility of a disaster if a victory on the part of their leaders found them, the workers, unprepared to assume control of the economy.

There's the rub, comrade: The dictatorship of the proletariat at some point must look like the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie inverted; It must originate from the actual, physical control of the machinery of production and its (our) product.

[Robocommie]

Because, they correctly reasoned, the workers couldn't do it themselves. In the Peasant Wars in Germany, Engels warned about the possibility of a disaster if a victory on the part of their leaders found them, the workers, unprepared to assume control of the economy.

There's the rub, comrade: The dictatorship of the proletariat at some point must look like the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie inverted; It must originate from the actual, physical control of the machinery of production and its (our) product.

But, can a democratic society arise from a state initially controlled by a party vanguard?

[AK]

Direct democracy of the Proleteriat is way better than anything set up in the states of the past. Lenin's idea for the dictatorship seems like just a way to assume power to me :(.

[FSL]

However, can it also be stated that we have never had a true dictatorship of the proletariat?

I mean it seems that with regimes like Stalin, Lenin and Castro, the political power was concentrated, not in the hands of the proletariat....nor the bourgeoisie, but in the hands of a power hungry few..."the party". Who did what they did "in the name of" the worker.



As much as Obama is a power-hungry individual who has deposed the bourgeoisie and governs only for his benefit.


I mean, are we sure we live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? The capitalist class isn't the only one that has the right of voting or political participation. In fact, their relationship to politics isn't all that big. Sure, some of them might be funding some parties but how many businessmen spent their day worrying about public issues? They don't even care so much about their own businesses, what they are producing and how much of it. Instead, they pay others (dearly) to think about these things and go play golf. It's enough if every once in a while some of the shareholders meet up somewhere to have a drink, look at the rising profits and pat each other on the back.

So, what is it that does make today's society a dictatorship of the bourgeosie? They remain the owners of the means of production and of the products. This right of theirs is recognized and protected as one of the fundamental, inherent even, rights in our society.

When it comes to socialism or dictatorship of the proletariat people often go on making obsurd demands. For example, on the antithesis of manual to mental labour. An antithesis existing for centuries, reproduced in countless of societies across the earth, and so far in almost every mode of production. This is something that simply needs to be done away with. By a people's decree. It would take time and effort to teach an illiterate peasant how to write their name, but no such luxuries are allowed in things many times harder.
This isn't always innocent. People who argue that socialism never existed, or people who will be very quick in denying (assuming another effort to build socialism is at some point starting) that this is socialism, are usually very close in denying the possibility itself of socialism. Because people are "bad", "power-hungry", "selfish" etc.

The main point is this: Were everything in the Soviet Union perfect? No. Were the workers facing no challenges whatsoever? No. But it was a dictatorship of the proletariat. That a state exists, that its basic aim -opression- is needed, these things mean that of course things won't be perfect. That contradictions inside the working class or between the city and village or the worker and the peasant have not yet ceased. That people still exist who have as their target the restoration of capitalism. If everything was perfect, all problems long solved, the workers firmly in control of production and their life, that is what we would call communism.
Dictatorship of the proletariat means having problems and making errors and then working to improve things. But if the means of production and the products belong to the working class, then yes, that is a very promising start for the workers' state.

[Kayser_Soso]

I say no. The soviet CP did not serve the interests of the proletariat in the USSR or many other places. This is of course up to debate but I feel that these situations were really dictatorship of the party.

A lot of people say this and there was a time when this became true. But you have to put yourself in the shoes of a Russian worker who was either an adult in 1917 or the child of someone who was, and that changes one's perspective a lot.

[Kayser_Soso]

As much as Obama is a power-hungry individual who has deposed the bourgeoisie and governs only for his benefit.


I mean, are we sure we live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? The capitalist class isn't the only one that has the right of voting or political participation. In fact, their relationship to politics isn't all that big. Sure, some of them might be funding some parties but how many businessmen spent their day worrying about public issues? They don't even care so much about their own businesses, what they are producing and how much of it. Instead, they pay others (dearly) to think about these things and go play golf. It's enough if every once in a while some of the shareholders meet up somewhere to have a drink, look at the rising profits and pat each other on the back.

So, what is it that does make today's society a dictatorship of the bourgeosie? They remain the owners of the means of production and of the products. This right of theirs is recognized and protected as one of the fundamental, inherent even, rights in our society.

When it comes to socialism or dictatorship of the proletariat people often go on making obsurd demands. For example, on the antithesis of manual to mental labour. An antithesis existing for centuries, reproduced in countless of societies across the earth, and so far in almost every mode of production. This is something that simply needs to be done away with. By a people's decree. It would take time and effort to teach an illiterate peasant how to write their name, but no such luxuries are allowed in things many times harder.
This isn't always innocent. People who argue that socialism never existed, or people who will be very quick in denying (assuming another effort to build socialism is at some point starting) that this is socialism, are usually very close in denying the possibility itself of socialism. Because people are "bad", "power-hungry", "selfish" etc.

The main point is this: Were everything in the Soviet Union perfect? No. Were the workers facing no challenges whatsoever? No. But it was a dictatorship of the proletariat. That a state exists, that its basic aim -opression- is needed, these things mean that of course things won't be perfect. That contradictions inside the working class or between the city and village or the worker and the peasant have not yet ceased. That people still exist who have as their target the restoration of capitalism. If everything was perfect, all problems long solved, the workers firmly in control of production and their life, that is what we would call communism.
Dictatorship of the proletariat means having problems and making errors and then working to improve things. But if the means of production and the products belong to the working class, then yes, that is a very promising start for the workers' state.

A good post. People need to remember that "socialism" doesn't mean "the ideal society I want to live in". If anarchists, Trots, and Left Communists can keep saying "DO OVER" every time historical examples of socialist "failures" have been brought up, then it becomes really hard to condemn those capitalist apologists who deny every capitalist atrocity because the regime under which it occurred wasn't "truly" capitalist.

More importantly, every revolutionary should be realistic and understand that while the chances we might take part in a revolution are slim depending on our respective locations, the prospect of living in an advanced socialist or Communist society are nil. There is simply no way outside of resigning to a commune somewhere.