Can you tell the difference between the DoP and an anarchist revolution?

[el_chavista]

This is a point that emerges in http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1667852&postcount=24
I stated that "I think of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as an Anarchist Revolution -the workers directly sizing their factories with the help of the communists." How wrong am I?

[CELMX]

This is a point that emerges in http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1667852&postcount=24
I stated that "I think of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as an Anarchist Revolution -the workers directly sizing their factories with the help of the communists." How wrong am I?

well, communists believe in a socialist transition stage, while anarchists just want to abolish the state. Communists think the state would gradually "wither away" (correct me if I'm wrong, but I associate Marxism with communism), while anarchists think the state and capitalism should be abolished immediately through seizing the means of productions and factories. So, I see "dictatorship of the proletariat" contradictory to anarchism, for anarchists see that there is no "majority versus minority," after an immediate revolution, there is only the "majority." In DoP, I see it as proletarians suppressing the reactionaries, capitalists, etc. until they cooperate.
Also, I believe both communists and anarchists would agree to siezing factories, however, not to dictatorship of the proletariat.

I think your "I think of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as an Anarchist Revolution" is a contradiction in itself. Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not anarchist...

[Kléber]

Some confusion comes from the fact that during the Russian Revolution, "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "dictatorship of the party" were two different concepts, but later in the 1930's there was a deliberate attempt by the bureaucracy to revise the difference between these terms, and also revise the difference between "dictatorship of the party" and what really existed which was a dictatorship of the central committee where there was virtually no freedom for independent criticism or discussion for party members. The reason for revising the difference is obvious, to legitimize the rule of a tiny clique of rich bureaucrats, and claim that that was the best and only possible form of proletarian rule.

The USSR technically ceased to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and became a dictatorship of the party, after the Mensheviks, Left SR's, and other organized anarchists - one group at a time and for different reasons - had all been expelled from the soviets leaving the Bolsheviks as the only party in that dictatorship. It might have been possible to preserve proletarian rule through the party after that, but the ban on factions, undemocratic suppression of the various organized Oppositions, and ruthless purging of anyone who disagreed with whatever the CC line was at the time, effectively killed the party as a conscious, democratic-centralist organization of workers' power.

EDIT: Marxists and anarchists basically have a different definition of the state. Marxists believe any armed group representing one or more class interests for class combat is a state and vice versa. Most anarchists, however, only consider the repressive institutions of the exploiters to represent a state. Anarchist armies and municipal councils, representing the workers, are therefore not states. Leninists believe the Soviet Union started off as a proletarian state but eventually degenerated into a capitalist state. Anarchists generally believe that it was not initially a state, but it became one by 1919. I have also heard some anarchists say that the Catalonian government ceased to be a state during the Spanish Civil War simply because CNT officials were given some positions.

I'm not trying to mock the anarchist conception of the state, I must admit I don't properly understand it. Maybe someone can correct me and help me out.

[revolution inaction]

well, communists believe in a socialist transition stage, while anarchists just want to abolish the state. Communists think the state would gradually "wither away" (correct me if I'm wrong, but I associate Marxism with communism), while anarchists think the state and capitalism should be abolished immediately through seizing the means of productions and factories. So, I see "dictatorship of the proletariat" contradictory to anarchism, for anarchists see that there is no "majority versus minority," after an immediate revolution, there is only the "majority." In DoP, I see it as proletarians suppressing the reactionaries, capitalists, etc. until they cooperate.
Also, I believe both communists and anarchists would agree to siezing factories, however, not to dictatorship of the proletariat.

I think your "I think of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as an Anarchist Revolution" is a contradiction in itself. Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not anarchist...

can people stop refering to communists and anarchists as to opposed groups! theres nothing inherently marxist about communism, most anarchists are communists and some are marxist. there is really no reason you can't say marxists when you mean maxist and lenists if you mean lenists, theres no justification for giving them a monopoly over the word communist.

[revolution inaction]

EDIT: Marxists and anarchists basically have a different definition of the state. Marxists believe any armed group representing one or more class interests for class combat is a state and vice versa. Most anarchists, however, only consider the repressive institutions of the exploiters to represent a state. Anarchist armies and municipal councils, representing the workers, are therefore not states.

There isn't one definition of a state for anarchists but its universally agreed that a state is something that is used by a minority class to exert there power over the majority.



Leninists believe the Soviet Union started off as a proletarian state but eventually degenerated into a capitalist state. Anarchists generally believe that it was not initially a state, but it became one by 1919.

I haven't heard this before, it is my impresion that there was always a state in russia/the soviet union which the bolseviks sized control of and that the revolution failed to destroy it and replace it with workers councils and so failed.



I have also heard some anarchists say that the Catalonian government ceased to be a state during the Spanish Civil War simply because CNT officials were given some positions.

this is clearly bollix, an anarchist who joins the government ceases to be an anarchist no the other way round.



I'm not trying to mock the anarchist conception of the state, I must admit I don't properly understand it. Maybe someone can correct me and help me out.

at least you don't just state your opinion as fact like so many people here.

[el_chavista]

It is amazing how in Russia the DoP was substituted for the Party's rule and how the State became stronger (Lenin's overestimation of the possibilities of the capitalism of state), but now a days we know the clue is "direct democracy". Then, should not all revolutionaries be involved in organizing the workers as the ruling class in any revolutionary situation? That will embrace all Marxist tendencies, and that's my point: anarchism is the practice of the DoP.

[CELMX]

can people stop refering to communists and anarchists as to opposed groups! theres nothing inherently marxist about communism, most anarchists are communists and some are marxist. there is really no reason you can't say marxists when you mean maxist and lenists if you mean lenists, theres no justification for giving them a monopoly over the word communist.

I never refered to them as opposed groups, only as groups that are somewhat different. You can't just go out saying communists and anarchists are the same thing. Anarchists don't think there should be a socialist stage, communists think there should be. Not much of a difference, but a difference nevertheless. I'm sorry if I sounded that way, I understand anarchism, marxism and communism all have the same ends...just different means of achieving the same ends.


There isn't one definition of a state for anarchists but its universally agreed that a state is something that is used by a minority class to exert there power over the majority.

Yes, I agree with that definition, would you say that a state is also a "tyranny of the majority"? IMO, I see something as stateless when everyone is satisfied, not just with a minority or majority pushing them in some certain position, when individuals are free to think or do whatever they wish (of course, other than something harmful to society).

[Raúl Duke]

The issue with the DoP is that Marx never really explicitly defined how it is.

Also, the use of the word "dictatorship" is I heard rhetorical; in contrast to the actual "dictatorship of capital" which is capitalism.

While anarchists don't usually use the term (mostly because it does have bad connotations; I surely wouldn't use this term in the U.S.) in a sense an anarchist revolution can be considered to be a "DoP" due to that an anarchist revolution does consist of a process of the proletariat seizing the means of production (and thus dispossessing, by force, the capitalist class) and creating foremost a society in which workers are in control of production via worker's councils/co-ops and the people are in control via neighborhood assemblies/communal-democratic forms of political decision making. In other words, most anarchist seek to implement a form of socialism without the state (as it is usually conceived). Obviosly, anarcho-communists will after the formation of socialism be advocating (in the same neighborhood assemblies and worker's councils along side as equals to other citizens and workers) for a transition to a form of communism.

Although I for one am mostly advocating real participatory/direct democracy (although elements of consensus decision making and demarchy could be present), that might lead to "majority rule" but I'm not fearful per se of majority rule.

[syndicat]

The emphasis of Marxism has been on achieving party control over a government that would centralize in its control the economy and the means to repress the counter-revolution. In other words, Marxism tends to be partyist...it's strategy emphasizes the role of a political organization gaining control.

Now, for mass social anarchism, the main form of anarchism historically, it was necessary for the workers to seize the means of production and re-organize the economy under their direct control, direct worker management. The aim is a planned economy, but planned from below, based on the councils or assemblies at the base.

It is also necessary for the working class to consolidate its political power very quickly in a revolutionary situation, and this means dismantling the old state and creating democratic structures controlled by the mass organizations of the working class & oppressed, such as grassroots unions, worker & community councils. And also to create its own popular militia, controlled by these mass organizations of the people. For example, the revolutionary anarcho-syndicalists in the Spanish revolution (the left wing of the anarcho-syndicalist union movement) wanted to replace the Republican state with Defense Councils contolled by the unions, and accountable to worker assemblies at the base. they called this a "proletarian government".

Is this a "state"? Not as anarchists usually understand "state". A state is understood as a bureaucratic, hierarchical structure, ruling over society, not really controllable by the mass of the people. the direct popular rule of the people through popular power based on participatory democracy would not be a "state" in this sense.

"dictatorship" in Marx's 19th century sense means simply "state". Marx's view was that every state is a dictatorship of a class. The anarchist view is that states, due to their hierarchical structure, can't be wielded by the working class and can only be vehicles of dominating, exploiting classes. hence "dictatorship of the proletariat" is self-contradictory on that view. but a state is well suited to consolidate control over society by the leadership of a party. but this comes back to the question, Is it the masses that hold power or the party?

[JacobVardy]

can people stop refering to communists and anarchists as to opposed groups! theres nothing inherently marxist about communism, most anarchists are communists and some are marxist. there is really no reason you can't say marxists when you mean maxist and lenists if you mean lenists, theres no justification for giving them a monopoly over the word communist.

I'd just like to emphasise this: some are Marxist.

I don't know how it could be determined but I'd suggest that most anarchists are Marxists. That is we accept a lot of his economic theories and some of his analytical tools. Its just the idea of a disciplined party that we reject.

[LeninistKing]

El Chavizta: Do you think that the leaders of the Venezuelan Revolution are waiting for other countries to become socialists, in order for Venezuela to change its political system to 100% socialism (Workers-state)? I ask this because according to the Trotsky Thesis, for socialism to work really well most countries have to be socialists at the same time.

.



This is a point that emerges in http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1667852&postcount=24
I stated that "I think of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as an Anarchist Revolution -the workers directly sizing their factories with the help of the communists." How wrong am I?

[JacobVardy]

EDIT: Marxists and anarchists basically have a different definition of the state. Marxists believe any armed group representing one or more class interests for class combat is a state and vice versa. Most anarchists, however, only consider the repressive institutions of the exploiters to represent a state. Anarchist armies and municipal councils, representing the workers, are therefore not states.

Like others have said above, most anarchists would call states a hierarchical, bureaucratic organisation with a monopoly on violence within a set territory. As you remove criterion from this definition the entity would become less state-like. A lot of the flamewars between lefties arise from which bits of this definition are essential to an organisation for it to be a state.

So a directly democratic organisation that claimed a monopoly on violence within a set territory might, by loosing hierarchies and bureaucracies, becomes so un-state-like that it is anarchistic. Others would argue that it would have to a consensual organisation with a monopoly on violence, or even just a consensual organisation.

An other interesting argument i have heard is that an anarchist 'state' would only have authority over things, not people. So a Co-Op of Co-Ops would control the means of production but in no way regulate people behaviour.

[JacobVardy]

"I think of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as an Anarchist Revolution -the workers directly sizing their factories with the help of the communists." How wrong am I?

I think the difference between DoP and anarchy is how to two deal with dissenters. Leninists seam to believe that the cappies and their lackeys must be forced into being good little proles. As an anarchist, I'd suggest, since they no longer control the means of production we can just ignore them. Let them sulk until they get lonely, or die of old age. If anarchy is working, and we are running the farms, factories, shops and labs, then they can not compete with us. Who is going to want to take orders when the can be their own boss? Who will work for wages, when everything they need is already available?

[ChrisK]

The emphasis of Marxism has been on achieving party control over a government that would centralize in its control the economy and the means to repress the counter-revolution. In other words, Marxism tends to be partyist...it's strategy emphasizes the role of a political organization gaining control.

Thats not true. While the idea that control of a government is to repress counter-revolution is correct, the way you portray a Marxist party makes it sound as if the party is doing this for the working class. Instead, the party is comprised of the working class and the working class would control the means of production.



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, 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; 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.

Bold mine. This passage not only argues that the party is to be comprised of workers, but that political power is to be taken by workers.


Now, for mass social anarchism, the main form of anarchism historically, it was necessary for the workers to seize the means of production and re-organize the economy under their direct control, direct worker management. The aim is a planned economy, but planned from below, based on the councils or assemblies at the base.

Thats exactly what happens under the dictatorship of the proletariat. While its not the exact same structure, the similarities are far greater than the differences.



In Russia the workers are organised in industrial unions, all the workers in each industry belonging to one union. For example, in a factory making metal products, even the carpenters and painters are members of the Metal Workers’ Union. Each factory is a Local Union, and the Shop Committee elected by the workers is its Executive Committee.

The All-Russia Central Executive Committee of the federated Unions is elected by the annual Trade Union Convention. A Scale Committee elected by the Convention fixes the wages of all categories of workers, With very few exceptions, all important factories in Russia have been nationalised and are now the property of all the workers in common. The business of the Unions is therefore no longer to fight the capitalist, but to RUN INDUSTRY.

Hand in hand with the Unions works the Department of Labour of the Soviet Government, whose chief is the People’s Commissar of Labour, elected by the Soviet Congress. with the approval of the Unions.

In charge of the economic life of the country is the elected Supreme Council of People’s Economy, divided into departments, such as metal department, chemical department, etc., each one headed by experts and workers, appointed with the approval of the ‘Union. by the Supreme Council of People’s Economy.

In each factory production is carried on by a committee consisting of three members: a representative of the Shop Committee, a representative of the Central Executive Committee of the Unions, and a representative of the Supreme Council of People’s Economy.

As you see, the workers have direct self management in such a system.


It is also necessary for the working class to consolidate its political power very quickly in a revolutionary situation, and this means dismantling the old state and creating democratic structures controlled by the mass organizations of the working class & oppressed, such as grassroots unions, worker & community councils. And also to create its own popular militia, controlled by these mass organizations of the people. For example, the revolutionary anarcho-syndicalists in the Spanish revolution (the left wing of the anarcho-syndicalist union movement) wanted to replace the Republican state with Defense Councils contolled by the unions, and accountable to worker assemblies at the base. they called this a "proletarian government".

Is this a "state"? Not as anarchists usually understand "state". A state is understood as a bureaucratic, hierarchical structure, ruling over society, not really controllable by the mass of the people. the direct popular rule of the people through popular power based on participatory democracy would not be a "state" in this sense.

Well, this is the Marxist definition of a Workers State. What we have here is a semantical difference. In the end, there is no difference.


"dictatorship" in Marx's 19th century sense means simply "state". Marx's view was that every state is a dictatorship of a class. The anarchist view is that states, due to their hierarchical structure, can't be wielded by the working class and can only be vehicles of dominating, exploiting classes. hence "dictatorship of the proletariat" is self-contradictory on that view. but a state is well suited to consolidate control over society by the leadership of a party. but this comes back to the question, Is it the masses that hold power or the party?

Not true, Dictatorship in 1848 was considered a part or an accompeientment of direct democracy due to the dominance of the majority. The most proper translation of dictatorship of the proletariat is the democratic rule of the proletariat.

[ZeroNowhere]

The only difference is that anarchism is generally considered compatible with, for example, an economy of co-ops in capitalism, so that a bourgeois revolution could be 'anarchist'. Though, of course, most anarchists are socialist, and as such support the DotP, that is, the proletariat enforcing the seizure of the means of production.

[el_chavista]

El Chavizta: Do you think that the leaders of the Venezuelan Revolution are waiting for other countries to become socialists, in order for Venezuela to change its political system to 100% socialism (Workers-state)?
They are not waiting for an international socialist system. At least they are actually trying to form a regional "Bolivarian" block (ALBA) and a 5th International as a broad anti-imperialist front.

I ask this because according to the Trotsky Thesis, for socialism to work really well most countries have to be socialists at the same time.
The original Marxist stance is that the communist revolution will be the international rising of the working class in the most advanced capitalist countries. Meanwhile, Trotsky asserted that backward countries may engage in a permanent revolution stage (unlike the Stalinist 2 stages).
I suggest you to do a little "permanent" research of the communist theory.

[syndicat]

ChristoferKoch:

In Russia the workers are organised in industrial unions, all the workers in each industry belonging to one union. For example, in a factory making metal products, even the carpenters and painters are members of the Metal Workers’ Union. Each factory is a Local Union, and the Shop Committee elected by the workers is its Executive Committee.

The All-Russia Central Executive Committee of the federated Unions is elected by the annual Trade Union Convention. A Scale Committee elected by the Convention fixes the wages of all categories of workers, With very few exceptions, all important factories in Russia have been nationalised and are now the property of all the workers in common. The business of the Unions is therefore no longer to fight the capitalist, but to RUN INDUSTRY.

Hand in hand with the Unions works the Department of Labour of the Soviet Government, whose chief is the People’s Commissar of Labour, elected by the Soviet Congress. with the approval of the Unions.

In charge of the economic life of the country is the elected Supreme Council of People’s Economy, divided into departments, such as metal department, chemical department, etc., each one headed by experts and workers, appointed with the approval of the ‘Union. by the Supreme Council of People’s Economy.

In each factory production is carried on by a committee consisting of three members: a representative of the Shop Committee, a representative of the Central Executive Committee of the Unions, and a representative of the Supreme Council of People’s Economy.

I don't know who wrote this. It would be good if you gave your source. But this is NOT the way the economy was run in the Soviet Union. The Supreme Council of National Economy was all appointed from above, by the party leaders in the government, who were drawn mainly from the intelligentsia.

Second, the regional sections of this structure, the glavki, had councils that were not allowed to have more than 1/3 of the reps elected by the workers, at Lenin's insistence, in 1918.

Moreover, as of 1918 both Lenin & Trotsky were beating the drum for one-man management. There were several hundred workplaces where production was controlled by committees elected by the workers. These were NOT created by the Bolshevik regime but by direct worker takeovers.

But at the insitence of the Bolshevik leaders, these committees were to be done away with. By 1920 the committees were all replaced by managers appointed from above.

In 1919, due to pressure from the rank and file trade union members of the party, they adopted a program that PROMISED that the unions would cotnrol production. But when implementing this was pushed at the party congress in 1921, it was defeated...at the insistence of both Lenin and Trotsky.

Moreover, in 1917-18 the party NEVER advocated the unions running production. at the first All-Russian Trade Union Congress in jan 1918 a proposal for workers management of industry was put forward by the anarcho-syndicalists & maximalists...but voted down because the Bolsheviks & Mensheviks voted no.

Moreover, the Russian trade unions, which had been set up mostly by the Mensheviks originally, were highly centralized. power was concentrated in their national committees. in 1917 they had little presence on the shop floor. so saying the trade unions should run industry is not equivalent to saying workers should. in the context of Russia at the time, it would have simply empowered the Bolshevik-party controlled trade union bureaucracy, not the workers.

But let's say we take at face value...as an accurate picture...the 3 person shop committee you describe. The trade unions were highly centralized bureaucracies controlled by full time Bolshevik officials. Second, the Supreme Council of National Economy was appointed from above by party-state leaders. It was made up managers, engineers and party leaders. So this means that 2 of the 3 members of this committee are not accountable to the workers in that workplace. They are appointed from above. Moreover, the quote says nothing about assemblies of the workers or workers themselves making decisions. So it is simply naive to say this is workers self-management...even if it were an accurate picture.

See "The Bolsheviks & Workers Control" for the real story about worker control in the Russian revolution.


Not true, Dictatorship in 1848 was considered a part or an accompeientment of direct democracy due to the dominance of the majority. The most proper translation of dictatorship of the proletariat is the democratic rule of the proletariat.


Again, this is false. Marx and Engels never advocated direct democracy. In "The Civil War in France", Marx's tract on the Paris Commune, where he says the Commune indicates the character of a dictatorship of the proletariat, he's talking about an elected city council. The most he advocates is recall. But he's talking about an elected government, elected on the basis of voting for parties. This is not direct democracy. Direct democracy requires base assemblies such as neighborhood and workplace assemblies. These were not advocated by Marx or by Marxism historically as the basis of worker rule.

In "Before Stalinism," Sam Farber, an American Marxist sociologist, points out that neither Menshevism nor Bolshevism ever advocated direct participation of the rank and file in making decisions. He said they were focused on control over the government apparatus.

So, here again, you're falsifying the history of Marxism.

Also, note that, in your quote from the Communist Manifesto, they are saying it is a political party that is to rule. But the libertarian socialist view is that it is not thru a party, but thru mass organizations controlled by their members that the working class takes power. The "mass party" that you talk about was what led to the formation of the various social-democratic parties in the late 19th century. But these "mass" parties always ended up with internal hierarchies. Being aimed at eventually running a state, and implementing their program through the hierarchies of the state, this will tend to further top down organization. And "democratic centralist" organizations always end up being centralist and not much of the "democracy" survives...not once they take state power.

Also, saying that the class can be represented by a single party became, in the spring of 1918, the rationale for the Bolsheviks overthrowing local soviets by force when they were voted out of office in Russia.

From a libertarian socialist point of view, the role of the revolutionary political organization is to have an informal influence within the mass social movements and mass organizations, not seek power in its own right. That's because we're serious about the principle "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves."

[DenisDenis]

I think you can only let the dissenters alone is when the revolution is world-wide, only when there are no capitalists from the outside that can support them, will there be no trouble with them. Otherwise these sympathasisers of capital will do whatever they can to destroy what has been built up. Like sabotage of the working equipment for example. Which could lead to devastating results.

[syndicat]

I think you can only let the dissenters alone is when the revolution is world-wide, only when there are no capitalists from the outside that can support them, will there be no trouble with them. Otherwise these sympathasisers of capital will do whatever they can to destroy what has been built up. Like sabotage of the working equipment for example. Which could lead to devastating results.


Defending the revoluionary arrangement against actual efforts to attack it with violence is one thing. But "dissent" is something else again. This can easily become a rationalization for some one-party police state...and the working class who disagree with the bureaucraizing of the revolution will be "dissenters" this state can repress.

Having a democratic popular power controlled by the people, not a hierarchcal state apparatus, is sufficient for defense of the revolution. If you think not, you should provide an argument.

[DenisDenis]

No, your right, this was also what I had in mind, not the one-party state should opress anyone, lately i'm more into the anarchist way of society, with local communes leading things

[LeninistKing]

Hello, thanx a lot !! The people in USA should demand that the US government cancels the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements and join USA into ALBA, in order to save US economy.

.


They are not waiting for an international socialist system. At least they are actually trying to form a regional "Bolivarian" block (ALBA) and a 5th International as a broad anti-imperialist front.

The original Marxist stance is that the communist revolution will be the international rising of the working class in the most advanced capitalist countries. Meanwhile, Trotsky asserted that backward countries may engage in a permanent revolution stage (unlike the Stalinist 2 stages).
I suggest you to do a little "permanent" research of the communist theory.

[ZeroNowhere]

Again, this is false. Marx and Engels never advocated direct democracy. In "The Civil War in France", Marx's tract on the Paris Commune, where he says the Commune indicates the character of a dictatorship of the proletariat, he's talking about an elected city council. The most he advocates is recall. But he's talking about an elected government, elected on the basis of voting for parties.I don't see that he necessarily advocates recallable delegates coming from parties, because that would be too trivial to be worth having a position on.


Also, note that, in your quote from the Communist Manifesto, they are saying it is a political party that is to rule.No, they aren't.


Hello, thanx a lot !! The people in USA should demand that the US government cancels the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements and join USA into ALBA, in order to save US economy.Wage cuts would be far better for the economy. And they would probably not be nearly enough.