Dictator of the Proletariat

[Pretty Flaco]

Why does a socialist revolution need one, according to Marxists? I've always sort of thought that the entire thing is easily corruptible; putting all the power into the hands of one person or even an elite group of people.

And doesn't giving some people more power than others go against egalitarian ideals?


Meant vanguardism

[Terminator X]

The "dictatorship of the proletariat," according to Marx, simply "constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."

I believe you are confusing this with the concept of a "vanguard party" which is more what you are describing.

[Adil3tr]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat means the dictatorship of the workers. Its basiccly revolutionary democracy, it means the people have all the power, and the victory of the proletariat in the class war. The word "Dictatorship" in that term has been really stretched by stalinists and capitalists.

[Rusty Shackleford]

dictatorship of the proletariat is the opposite of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

DJanimosity is correct in that you might be confusing that theory with vanguardism.

basically though, all societies are dictatorships of one class over another until there is no class, communism. so, most of the world lives in bourgeois dictatorships where capitalists call the shots. the soviet union was opposite. the vanguard and the proletariat called the shots. the working class dominated the capitalists.

[Jazzhands]

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" refers to the period after the revolution when the proletariat takes control of the country. The proletariat is a class, not a man. What you're thinking of is a vanguard party.

[Kotze]

Yep, the term dictatorship of the proletariat didn't mean something like a military dictatorship in the name of the proletariat, but a system where the majority decides what is done, with the proletariat being the majority and using that power to strip the bourgeoisie of its privileges, which leads to a classless society and given that much energy of a state's bureaucracy is used for a priveleged group to oppress the rest, after equality is achieved the new society won't have much use for the bureaucratic apparatus, so it will shrink considerably. That was Karl's theory, anyway.

[Nachie]

I once had to write a position paper for RAAN about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (or DickPro, as we like to call it :D) that explained how it was actually a good thing.

Can be read here:

http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html

It's not very long, y'all may find it interesting. Cymro in particular.

[Pretty Flaco]

Thanks guys. What I was actually referring to was vanguardism. And so my new question is:
What's the justification for a vanguard party?

[Nachie]

The working class is too stupid to do it themselves.

Hey, you're the one who asked.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Thanks guys. What I was actually referring to was vanguardism. And so my new question is:
What's the justification for a vanguard party?
well the vanguard is made up of the most advanced(meaning politically and class conscious) proletariat. not necessarily the intelligentsia or anything. that croup is then the hand and sharpening stone of the revolutionary sword.

[9]

And so my new question is:
What's the justification for a vanguard party?

Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm)

[Paulappaul]

Thanks guys. What I was actually referring to was vanguardism. And so my new question is:
What's the justification for a vanguard party?

Marx never maintained that a Vanguard Party would even exist, let alone rule as the proletariat.

[Shokaract]

Here's a quote that very briefly goes into the motivation behind these two concepts:

The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

What Vacant said.

A vanguard party doesn't necessarily mean, 'An elite group of Anarchist slaughtering Napoleons.'

[Chambered Word]

The working class is too stupid to do it themselves.

Hey, you're the one who asked.

I've noticed the RAANites never actually think before they use their keyboard.

[Atlee]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat means the dictatorship of the workers. Its basiccly revolutionary democracy, it means the people have all the power, and the victory of the proletariat in the class war. The word "Dictatorship" in that term has been really stretched by stalinists and capitalists.

When capitalists are brought into the picture we must also review under the same term, "Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy#Dictatorship_of_the_Bourgeoisie)"? IMO :unsure: This is similar to what we live under today with plutocracy and oligarchy in place. This would be more a compare/contrast in terms.

[Atlee]

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" refers to the period after the revolution when the proletariat takes control of the country. The proletariat is a class, not a man. What you're thinking of is a vanguard party.

Maybe there is an historical misunderstanding from say the French Revolution; whereas, the Tennis Court Oath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Court_Oath) was taken by the gentry of its day? In 1792 that was the vanguard equivalent before Lenin.

[Atlee]

Thanks guys. What I was actually referring to was vanguardism. And so my new question is:
What's the justification for a vanguard party?

Someone or group has to take point. There needs to be future leaders and thinkers free to do the business of the revolution.

[ComradeOm]

Someone or group has to take point. There needs to be future leaders and thinkers free to do the business of the revolution.The vanguard is nothing more than "the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes". The vanguard party is merely a political vehicle for the aspirations of this revolutionary swathe. It is not a select group of "future leaders and thinkers" who are tasked with somehow shaping and directing the revolutionary forces

[Rusty Shackleford]

basically, if you are politically conscious and of the oppressed class, and you are taking action, you are acting in the manner a vanguard party does. so, anarchists, if you take action, you are inching towards being a vanguard.


(im not talking about the anarchists now, just in general)
But, to also be a vanguard, the masses must actually be a part of your organization and have faith in the party's ability to actually carry out its policies. so id like to think that a vanguard party can only really be the vanguard in a revolutionary or pre-revolutionary(basically when the masses are developing consciousness at a rapidly) period.

because the vanguard is directly tied to and of the masses, it is the vehicle which runs the state when state power is taken. heres where the fear of the "top-down party" problem comes in. Marxist-Leninist(and their deviations) parties have pretty much been the only types of organizations to have taken state power for the proletariat and oppressed classes. the way these organizations run is called democratic-centralism. so yes, they have hierarchies and they also have internal democracy. also, the sort of hate toward a vanguard may also just be from looking at history(and possibly ethnocentrism). most socialist revolutions and subsequent states were rather socially conservative. now though, most(if not all) in the west are socially liberal(but still collectivist), and economically marxian/socialist.

anyways just my thoughts and ramblings.

[fa2991]

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" should be taken as a metaphor, if anything. It is, in a sense, a dictatorship, though, because the proletarian class has absolute power and the capitalists have no power at all.

The vanguard party is supposed to be around to initiate, stabilize, and follow through on the revolution. History doesn't have a whole lot of examples of the proletariat rising up together and overthrowing capitalism by themselves. They're more likely to just unionize or something, so the vanguard is supposed to lead the revolution as the workers rarely do it by themselves and when they do their revolutions may lack stability or focus. (Theoretically.)

It's also justified by Leninists because, to paraphrase Trotsky, "what - do you have a better idea?"

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ as a metaphor? It should be taken as a direct line of Marxist thought. It's not just the "proletarian class has absolute power and the capitalists have no power at all", but the actions that are needing to be taken in order to protect this power. No matter what, each state is an oppressive force. Who controls the state is what determines how it is conditionally used. Hate him all you want, but Stalin took the necessary steps in order to protect the proletarian struggle from whatever forces came in front of them. It's no coincidence that the people he imprisoned or purged came back as bourgeoisie elements as soon as "de-stalinization" programs took effect through the Khrushchev regime.

[fa2991]

^ as a metaphor? It should be taken as a direct line of Marxist thought.

I meant the phrase itself. Any phrase with "dictator" thrown in can be misinterpreted, and I think we can all agree that taking "dictatorship" literally/at face value is generally a good way to overlook Marx's meaning.


It's not just the "proletarian class has absolute power and the capitalists have no power at all", but the actions that are needing to be taken in order to protect this power.

I didn't say that was all there was to it. I was just attempting to explain how a class dictatorship is different from what we would generally consider a dictatorship.

[Atlee]

The vanguard is nothing more than "the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes". The vanguard party is merely a political vehicle for the aspirations of this revolutionary swathe. It is not a select group of "future leaders and thinkers" who are tasked with somehow shaping and directing the revolutionary forces

I see the quote, but not the citation thereof. I know Marx never explained this term in any of his books. I also know Lenin tried to explain it which is why most persons speaking in this way are referred to as Leninist according to Wikipedia when giving an expiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_party).

[Lyev]

There is a thread pretty much identical to this, which I'll just quote from for ease:
Vanguardism is not a totally separate being, severed from the proletariat and the broader masses. Vanguardism is neither elitist, there was a thread someone started in theory a while that I remember, although it didn't get a lot of attention, that talked of the "elitist vanguard" as opposed to the truly proletarian vanguard. I'll find it, then give a link or quote it. For me, the vanguard should be totally immersed in, part of and tightly linked with the working class. It shouldn't be a Blanquist clique of intellgentsia that want to carry out a revolution on behalf of the proletariat, in some sort of authoritarian coup de état. Anyway, a vanguard, as Marx (and Engels) say in the Communist Manifesto shares exactly the same interests as the working class, but are simply the most educated and dedicated members.
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; 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.(Emphasis mine.)

EDIT: here it is - http://www.revleft.com/vb/elitist-vanguard-vs-t124183/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../elitist-vanguard-vs-t124183/index.html). The thread is closed now, so it's easier just to link to it. No one really commented apart from me, and there was THC's OP. I actually quoted the exact same passage :cool: My position then was more one of an anarchist or Left-Communist position, but I think I understand the necessity of a vanguard, simply as a tool for organisation. And as I said we need to distinguish between elitist vanguardism (a clique comprised of intelligentsia giving Blaquist socialism down to the working class) and revolutionary vanguardism.And on the dictatorship of the proletariat, let's first have a look at this (http://marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article2.htm) article by Hal Draper.

[9]

Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm)

To quote from this:



Originally Posted by Bordiga
"Communists have no codified constitutions to propose. They have a world of lies and constitutions - crystallised in the law and in the force of the dominant class - to crush. They know that only a revolutionary and totalitarian apparatus of force and power, which excludes no means, will be able to prevent the infamous relics of a barbarous epoch from rising again - only it will be able to prevent the monster of social privilege, craving for revenge and servitude, from raising its head again and hurling for the thousandth time its deceitful cry of 'Freedom!'"

[ComradeOm]

I see the quote, but not the citation thereofYou know how to use Google? The quote comes from Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? by one VI Lenin

[Chambered Word]

^ as a metaphor? It should be taken as a direct line of Marxist thought. It's not just the "proletarian class has absolute power and the capitalists have no power at all", but the actions that are needing to be taken in order to protect this power. No matter what, each state is an oppressive force. Who controls the state is what determines how it is conditionally used. Hate him all you want, but Stalin took the necessary steps in order to protect the proletarian struggle from whatever forces came in front of them. It's no coincidence that the people he imprisoned or purged came back as bourgeoisie elements as soon as "de-stalinization" programs took effect through the Khrushchev regime.

I don't agree with your statement about Stalin, but do you have any more information about prisoners becoming bourgeois elements under Kruschev?

[The Red Next Door]

Dictatorship of the proletariat is just a big word for True Democracy.

[robbo203]

The vanguard is nothing more than "the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes". The vanguard party is merely a political vehicle for the aspirations of this revolutionary swathe. It is not a select group of "future leaders and thinkers" who are tasked with somehow shaping and directing the revolutionary forces

As an empirical description of a section of the working class this is fair enough. It is simply a snapshot of the working class as it is today which recognises that some are class conscious and (many) others are not.

However as a precriptive concept, vanguardism has absolutely no place at all within a revolutionary perspetive - that is, the belief that emancipation of the majority is somehow dependent upon a determined minority in whom, the majority should place their trust. The communist revolution of its very nature is a majoritarian revolution - the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself, not some vanguard.

In this sense, not only does vanguardism have no place in revolutionary politics but the vanguard itself in the descriptive sense of a class conscious minority will and indeed must disappear as an empirical reality. This is because what was once a minority must become a majority if a communist revolution is to be effected

[ComradeOm]

However as a precriptive concept, vanguardism has absolutely no place at all within a revolutionary perspetive - that is, the belief that emancipation of the majority is somehow dependent upon a determined minority in whom, the majority should place their trust. The communist revolution of its very nature is a majoritarian revolution - the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself, not some vanguardFully agreed. Which is why I've worked so hard to combat some of the myths that have grown up around the Russian Revolution

[Rusty Shackleford]

As an empirical description of a section of the working class this is fair enough. It is simply a snapshot of the working class as it is today which recognises that some are class conscious and (many) others are not.

However as a precriptive concept, vanguardism has absolutely no place at all within a revolutionary perspetive - that is, the belief that emancipation of the majority is somehow dependent upon a determined minority in whom, the majority should place their trust. The communist revolution of its very nature is a majoritarian revolution - the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself, not some vanguard.

In this sense, not only does vanguardism have no place in revolutionary politics but the vanguard itself in the descriptive sense of a class conscious minority will and indeed must disappear as an empirical reality. This is because what was once a minority must become a majority if a communist revolution is to be effected
the bolshevik party was enormous by the time the revolution happened. and that revolution was popular. according to a spart website, 2 million men had deserted the army in 1917. 2 MILLION. not all were bolsheviks, but there all were fed up with kerensky and the tsar. next option? another revolution. the bolsheviks were pretty much already at the reigns of a revolution, and with out their organizational capabilities, would have failed in the following civil war.

without a vanguard there would probably just be a liberal russia, or a russian empire still. instead we just get liberal russia 80 years later.

[robbo203]

the bolshevik party was enormous by the time the revolution happened. and that revolution was popular. according to a spart website, 2 million men had deserted the army in 1917. 2 MILLION. not all were bolsheviks, but there all were fed up with kerensky and the tsar. next option? another revolution. the bolsheviks were pretty much already at the reigns of a revolution, and with out their organizational capabilities, would have failed in the following civil war.

without a vanguard there would probably just be a liberal russia, or a russian empire still. instead we just get liberal russia 80 years later.


True, the Bolsheviks grew by leaps and bounds after the February revolution , enjoying a huge influx of new members over which the leadership had little control at the time (it was only latter that centralised authority began to be increasingly asserted). However it would be naive in the extreme to imagine that this influx of new members was fuelled by a burning desire to establish a genuine non market stateless alternative to capitalism. There were other reasons that can be far more plausibly invoked to account for this, one of which you allude to yourself - namely war weariness. One of the popular Bolshevik slogans was after all "peace land and bread".

Secondly big as the Bolshevik did become, by comparison with a population of 160 million it was tiny and concentrated in the big cities mainly. As Lenin said in April 1917 at the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P he said "We cannot be for "introducing" socialism—this would be the height of absurdity. We must preach socialism. The majority of the population in Russia are peasants, small farmers who can have no idea of socialism". A month later he was saying that the "proletariat and semi proletariat", had "never been socialist, nor has it the slightest idea about socialism, it is only just awakening to political life (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/24c.htm).

That I think says it all

[Philzer]

Hi Cymro!

I agree with you 100% !

But to find and to realize a new system, its not so easy.

And nobody want to do this for us.


Why does a socialist revolution need one, according to Marxists? I've always sort of thought that the entire thing is easily corruptible; putting all the power into the hands of one person or even an elite group of people.

I think we need group of elite, but not conzentratet in one party!

Lenins One-Party-model ist falsificated by practize, it does note exist any more!

The bug in the early M/L is the missing of psychoanalysis and also knowledge from sociobiology.



And doesn't giving some people more power than others go against egalitarian ideals?

I dont think in an anarchistic way. I think we need an elite. But in an scientific pluralism, not in an esoteric pluralism like democracy. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250)

to separate esoteric from scientific pluralism:

-> not only one party
-> no unscientific party, means all ! religious (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1692105&postcount=125)partys,
-> to understand the last requirement you must understand the religion of the bourgeois, the pantheism

Democracy is the being of pantheism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1705854&postcount=3).

Have a nice day!

[9]

The bug in the early M/L is the missing of psychoanalysis and also knowledge from sociobiology.


what...? (not sure I really wanna know..)



However as a precriptive concept, vanguardism has absolutely no place at all within a revolutionary perspetive - that is, the belief that emancipation of the majority is somehow dependent upon a determined minority in whom, the majority should place their trust. The communist revolution of its very nature is a majoritarian revolution - the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself, not some vanguard.

In this sense, not only does vanguardism have no place in revolutionary politics but the vanguard itself in the descriptive sense of a class conscious minority will and indeed must disappear as an empirical reality. This is because what was once a minority must become a majority if a communist revolution is to be effected

Rosa Luxemburg did a good job addressing this sort of argument, btw:



Originally Posted by Rosa Luxemburg
As bred-in-the-bone disciples of parliamentary cretinism, these German Social-Democrats have sought to apply to revolutions the home-made wisdom of the parliamentary nursery: in order to carry anything, you must first have a majority. The same, they say, applies to a revolution: first let’s become a “majority.” The true dialectic of revolutions, however, stands this wisdom of parliamentary moles on its head: not through a majority, but through revolutionary tactics to a majority – that’s the way the road runs.

Only a party which knows how to lead, that is, to advance things, wins support in stormy times. The determination with which, at the decisive moment, Lenin and his comrades offered the only solution which could advance things (“all power in the hands of the proletariat and peasantry”), transformed them almost overnight from a persecuted, slandered, outlawed minority whose leader had to hid like Marat in cellars, into the absolute master of the situation.

Moreover, the Bolsheviks immediately set as the aim of this seizure of power a complete, far-reaching revolutionary program; not the safeguarding of bourgeois democracy, but a dictatorship of the proletariat for the purpose of realizing socialism. Thereby they won for themselves the imperishable historic distinction of having for the first time proclaimed the final aim of socialism as the direct program of practical politics.

Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and all the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honor and capacity which western Social-Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks.

[robbo203]

Rosa Luxemburg did a good job addressing this sort of argument, btw:

With respect I think Luxemburg's rhetoric in this instance betrays a basic confusion. The key section of the quote you gave (by the way what is the reference?) is where she refers to those German Social-Democrats who have "sought to apply to revolutions the home-made wisdom of the parliamentary nursery":

in order to carry anything, you must first have a majority. The same, they say, applies to a revolution: first let’s become a “majority.” The true dialectic of revolutions, however, stands this wisdom of parliamentary moles on its head: not through a majority, but through revolutionary tactics to a majority – that’s the way the road runs.

In point of fact Luxemburg's stance comes down to the same thing as the German Social Democrats she criticises since she too acknowleges the need for a majority. However she confuses "revolutionary tactics" with "revolution". A revolution means a fundamental change in the mode of production. It doesnt mean how you go about achieving such a change. In this instance, the German Social-Democrats she criticises were quite correct. To achieve a revolution you first have to have a majority conscioously supporting its objective. Like the Communist Manifesto said


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 (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)