Dictatorship of the proletariat

[Dimentio]

I think there could be a problem with the "dictatorship of the proletariat" theory. If we say that our goal is to install a society where the power is wielded by the group who are conducting production, then I think context is important.

Imagine if we in the future reach the technological level where the work of like 10 000 people is enough to keep all production on Earth going, including food, industry, recycling - everything. If we then should have a "proletarian dictatorship" under such conditions, it would mean a form of society where another minority is running the show.

I'm immediately thinking that such a society could easily degenerate, between a small caste of producers and an extremely large caste of "drones", people who are not a part of the productive process simply because they aren't needed and their services aren't asked for by society. I do not think it would be a good decision idea to give absolute power to the 10 000 producers in this case.

[x371322]

Well, I always thought the dotp was meant to be temporary. I don't think it would really be a problem by the time society reached such an advanced level of automation. I like to imagine we would already have achieved true communism by that point.

[JazzRemington]

I've always thought it might be a translation issue. I wonder what "dictatorship" meant back when Marx was alive.

For what it's worth, I've always interpreted "dictatorship of the proletariat" as meaning that the proletariat's interests would be promoted and defended in the same way those of bourgeoisie are. Like, you'd see more television shows, magazines, laws, arts, etc. that promote proletarian interests, because under such a "dictatorship" the wellbeing of society would be "bound up", as it were, with the wellbeing of the proletariat in the same way that the wellbeing of a capitalist society is "bound up" with the wellbeing of the bourgeoisie.

What a dictatorship of the proletariat looks like or how it would function, is a matter of debate.

[Dimentio]

I guess it depends a lot on how many people are actually active producers. During Marx's time, if we also account the farmers, it would have been the overwhelming majority. In 300 years, it might be a very small minority which actually is actively involved in maintaining both the vital functions of society and the production of the things people need.

[Dimentio]

Oh, and GracchusBabeuf is calling me anti-worker fascist imperialist because of this post, through the reputation system.

Don't understand me wrong, but this guerilla campaign starts to become endearing. Especially from a user who is deleting all his posts to prevent other users from retaliating.

[NGNM85]

Oh, and GracchusBabeuf is calling me anti-worker fascist imperialist because of this post, through the reputation system.

Don't understand me wrong, but this guerilla campaign starts to become endearing. Especially from a user who is deleting all his posts to prevent other users from retaliating.

He did the same thing to me, twice.

To the topic at hand, though, I just think the dictatorship of the proletariat is just a really horrible idea. As an Anarchist, I'm philosophically opposed to it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think there could be a problem with the "dictatorship of the proletariat" theory. If we say that our goal is to install a society where the power is wielded by the group who are conducting production, then I think context is important.

Imagine if we in the future reach the technological level where the work of like 10 000 people is enough to keep all production on Earth going, including food, industry, recycling - everything. If we then should have a "proletarian dictatorship" under such conditions, it would mean a form of society where another minority is running the show.

I'm immediately thinking that such a society could easily degenerate, between a small caste of producers and an extremely large caste of "drones", people who are not a part of the productive process simply because they aren't needed and their services aren't asked for by society. I do not think it would be a good decision idea to give absolute power to the 10 000 producers in this case.

Yeah, i think if production was that good, then there would be no need for the DoP at that point. With 10,000 people decisions can be made by conference-call rather than "government" and what power - other than a production stoppage would they be able to have anyway at that point?

In short, there would be no material interest, as far as I can tell, for people to do that. As Marx talks about, unlike any existing or previous ruling class, a working class in power would not need to oppress any other group in society to produce what it needs to maintain its rule.


Oh, and GracchusBabeuf is calling me anti-worker fascist imperialist because of this post, through the reputation system.

Don't understand me wrong, but this guerilla campaign starts to become endearing. Especially from a user who is deleting all his posts to prevent other users from retaliating.Ha! Yeah he did that to me and I was like "WTF!" and then once someone else told me he was doing it to everyone and wasn't being serious about it, I thought it was kind of funny.

[mikelepore]

the technological level where the work of like 10 000 people is enough to keep all production on Earth going

Why assume that distribution of work? It makes more sense for the whole population to work for a very short duration.

I don't see how this is related to the dictatorship of the proletariat, which means enforcement of the decision to have socialism when that decision is actively fought by supporters of the former ruling class.

[Dimentio]

Why assume that distribution of work? It makes more sense for the whole population to work for a very short duration.

I don't see how this is related to the dictatorship of the proletariat, which means enforcement of the decision to have socialism when that decision is actively fought by supporters of the former ruling class.

In a really far perspective, productivity would have risen to such levels that even such a small minority would need to do very little work to maintain the infrastructure and production. On the other hand, the level of specialisation would have increased.

[mikelepore]

I can't imagine that. I can foresee robots doing the work, but then people would also be working by constantly changing their minds about what they want the robots to do, holding discussions about what they want the robots to do, and then giving the robots new instructions. People would also have to hold meetings to discuss management of the environment: where do we want buildings to be, where do we want the gardens, etc. The people would still be working, while the type of work will have changed.

[CommunityBeliever]

The people would still be working, while the type of work will have changed.

This.

The lowest classes of society would work by offering goods and services, that is by serving the bourgeoisie, cooking for them, cleaning up their crap, etc.

And t he higher classes of society would focus on more creative works like art, programming, and science. Kind of like what you see in the U.S.A as most things in the U.S are made over seas like in China.

[Volcanicity]

This.

The lowest classes of society would work by offering goods and services, that is by serving the bourgeoisie, cooking for them, cleaning up their crap, etc.

And t he higher classes of society would focus on more creative works like art, programming, and science. Kind of like what you see in the U.S.A as most things in the U.S are made over seas like in China.
There wont be any classes,the aim is to overthrow them.

[La Comédie Noire]

Perhaps production could be made into some sort of public service like if you live in this commune you have to do 10 hours of community service a week, then you're free to pursue your main career and leisure. Some might even devote a lot of time to the community service "I don't really have that many aspirations I just want to smoke pot and make shoes for 30 hours a week."

[Zanthorus]

If we say that our goal is to install a society where the power is wielded by the group who are conducting production, then I think context is important.

But this is not the goal, the goal is the self-abolition of the proletarian condition and the collective appropriation of the conditions of production by society. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not any kind of "stage" or "society", it is simply that point during the revolutionary process when the proletariat wields power as the ruling class.


Imagine if we in the future reach the technological level where the work of like 10 000 people is enough to keep all production on Earth going, including food, industry, recycling - everything. If we then should have a "proletarian dictatorship" under such conditions, it would mean a form of society where another minority is running the show.

I think this is your main source of confusion. The proletariat is that class whose livelihood is dependent on the wage-labour fund. Not just those involved in the direct production of physical goods. A commodity is first of all any good with a use-value. The nature of these wants, "wether they spring from the stomach or from fancy", is irrelevant. A non-physical good or service can be a commodity just as much as a physical one, if it could not then the commodification of labour-power would be impossible. Even those not involved in the production of any kind of commodity, physical or non-physical, can still be engaged in some form of productive activity. Marx pointed out that capitalism expands our notion of "productive activity" insofar as it seperates intellectual labour from physical labour, while still retaining their interdependence.


I'm immediately thinking that such a society could easily degenerate, between a small caste of producers and an extremely large caste of "drones", people who are not a part of the productive process simply because they aren't needed and their services aren't asked for by society. I do not think it would be a good decision idea to give absolute power to the 10 000 producers in this case.

You are thinking of capitalism as a system which produces only for the sake of meeting human social needs. But this is false. The goal of capitalist production is exchange-value or, more precisely, surplus-value. Capital is not re-active to pre-existing needs, it constantly seeks out new markets and attempts to instill new needs within people in order to create new outlets for the realisation of surplus-value. The production of surplus-value also requires wage-labourers to perform surplus-labour time. The existence of a small class of propertied capitalists and a large class of propertyless wage-labourers is inseparable from capitalist production relations. If technology ever developed to the point where such a situation became impossible, capitalism as a system would simply collapse and give way to some new form of society. In general it is an error to see the productive forces as something analytically seperated from the relations of production. The essential interrelationship between the forces and relations of production is what has to be grasped.


I've always thought it might be a translation issue. I wonder what "dictatorship" meant back when Marx was alive.

Hal Draper examined precisely this issue:

http://www.marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article2.htm


To the topic at hand, though, I just think the dictatorship of the proletariat is just a really horrible idea. As an Anarchist, I'm philosophically opposed to it.

We know you're a liberal, thanks. It would be nice if you didn't advertise it in every thread.

[Vanguard1917]

I think there could be a problem with the "dictatorship of the proletariat" theory. If we say that our goal is to install a society where the power is wielded by the group who are conducting production, then I think context is important.

Imagine if we in the future reach the technological level where the work of like 10 000 people is enough to keep all production on Earth going, including food, industry, recycling - everything. If we then should have a "proletarian dictatorship" under such conditions, it would mean a form of society where another minority is running the show.

This hypothetical event assumes that it will be the same 10,000 people doing the work all the time. Why wouldn't there be some sort of rota system which evenly distributes work among the population so that everyone fairly chips in?

Also, Zanthorus made the point that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not an end in itself and that the goal of socialism is a classless society where even the proletariat no longer exists as a class. If society has progressed to such a stage where only a tiny fraction of the population needs to be and is working at any one time, the likelihood is that the material preconditions for a classless society have long been met. :cool:

[NGNM85]

We know you're a liberal, thanks. It would be nice if you didn't advertise it in every thread.

No, I'm not, although I don't consider it a four-letter word because I actually know what the word means, and I use it in the appropriate context. People like you rob it of all meaning simply employing it as an all-purpose slander for anyone you dislike. This issue has been a historical sticking point between authoritarian Communists, such as yourself, and Anarchists for over a century. For example, Mikhail Bakunin, in 1870;

"After the initial revolutionary victory the political revolutionaries, those advocates of brazen dictatorship, will try to squelch the popular passions. They appeal for order, for trust in, for submission to those who, in the course and in the name of the Revolution, seized and legalized their own dictatorial powers; this is how such political revolutionaries reconstitute the State...If you will play around with ...official dictatorship, then the reaction which you yourself have built will engulf you ... who are already talking yourselves into becoming the Dantons, the Robespierres, and the Saint-Justs of revolutionary socialism.."

Or Noam Chomsky in his debate with Michel Foucalt, 1971;

"..For example, if I could convince myself that attainment of power by the proletariat would lead to a terrorist police state, in which freedom and dignity and decent human relations would be destroyed, then I wouldn't want the proletariat to take power. In fact the only reason for wanting any such thing, I believe, is because one thinks, rightly or wrongly, that some fundamental human values will be achieved by that transfer of power.

..Well, I'm not at all satisfied with that theory of revolution for a lot of reasons, historical and others. But even if one were to accept it for the sake of argument, still that theory maintains that it is proper for the proletariat to take power and exercise it in a violent and bloody and unjust fashion, because it is claimed, and in my opinion falsely, that that will lead to a more just society, in which the state will wither away, in which the proletariat will be a universal class and so on and so forth. If it weren't for that future justification, the concept of a violent and bloody dictatorship of the proletariat would certainly be unjust. Now this is another issue, but I'm very sceptical about the idea of a violent and bloody dictatorship of the proletariat, especially when expressed by self-appointed representatives of a vanguard party, who, we have enough historical experience to know and might have predicted in advance, will simply be the new rulers over this society."

[Zanthorus]

No, I'm not, although I don't consider it a four-letter word because I actually know what the word means, and I use it in the appropriate context. People like you rob it of all meaning simply employing it as an all-purpose slander for anyone you dislike.

You are probably the first person on this site I've called a liberal. I think it's a perfectly appropriate term for someone whose politics are as shit as yours.


This issue has been a historical sticking point between authoritarian Communists, such as yourself, and Anarchists for over a century.

Ah yes, the old "Marx was an authoritarian conspirator while Bakunin was a pure libertarian" canard. You just know that a debates going to go well when someone pulls this out to start with.


For example, Mikhail Bakunin, in 1870;

"After the initial revolutionary victory the political revolutionaries, those advocates of brazen dictatorship, will try to squelch the popular passions. They appeal for order, for trust in, for submission to those who, in the course and in the name of the Revolution, seized and legalized their own dictatorial powers; this is how such political revolutionaries reconstitute the State...If you will play around with ...official dictatorship, then the reaction which you yourself have built will engulf you ... who are already talking yourselves into becoming the Dantons, the Robespierres, and the Saint-Justs of revolutionary socialism.."

Somewhat ironically Bakunin was very overt about the need for revolutionary dictatorship in private. The Internationalist Communist Group actually uses this to flip the whole Marx/Bakunin conflict on it's head and support Bakunin as the advocate of revolutionary dictatorship and international centralised organisation against Marx as the advocate of libertarianism, spontaneism and the repudiation of international organisation:


A more serious study of Bakunin would demonstrate that he never was the populist, the democrat or the anti-authoritarian that official "anarchism" made of him afterwards (and they even made a republican of him); a scrupulous investigating would, on the contrary show that he was a systematic partisan of internationalist organisational structures with a clearly revolutionary program. Moreover, as all genuine revolutionaries, he was induced by the very movement to admit and assume the necessity of dictatorship to put an end to capitalism;http://gci-icg.org/english/freepopstate.htm

[NGNM85]

You are probably the first person on this site I've called a liberal.

Forgive me for not congratulating you on succumbing to the epidemic abuse of language, here. However, this does not negate, but only confirms my initial statement.


I think it's a perfectly appropriate term for someone whose politics are as shit as yours.

Only if you disregard the literal definition. However, it isn’t a curse word. Liberalism was an enormous step forward, philosophically. It introduced new concepts like democracy, human rights, secularism, etc. Anarchism grew out of Liberalism, and thus, they have certain commonalities.

Suffice to say, I have a similar estimation of your politics.


Ah yes, the old "Marx was an authoritarian conspirator while Bakunin was a pure libertarian" canard. You just know that a debates going to go well when someone pulls this out to start with.

I was only using Bakunin’s statement as a representation of the Anarchist perspective, coupled with Chomsky’s to illustrate a historical pattern.


Somewhat ironically Bakunin was very overt about the need for revolutionary dictatorship in private. The Internationalist Communist Group actually uses this to flip the whole Marx/Bakunin conflict on it's head and support Bakunin as the advocate of revolutionary dictatorship and international centralised organisation against Marx as the advocate of libertarianism, spontaneism and the repudiation of international organisation:

http://gci-icg.org/english/freepopstate.htm

You’re sources are highly dubious, but nonetheless I’m very aware Bakunin was far from perfect. I know full well of his hypocrisy on this issue, and statements about an ‘invisible dictatorship’, etc., because I’ve read his work. This really is irrelevant to the point I was making, what has always been the Anarchist objection. However, there are other threads devoted specifically to that subject and the quotes I cited really cover all the bases. This dispute has been ongoing for over a century, and I don’t see any new developments on the horizon.

[Zanthorus]

Only if you disregard the literal definition. However, it isn’t a curse word. Liberalism was an enormous step forward, philosophically. It introduced new concepts like democracy, human rights, secularism, etc. Anarchism grew out of Liberalism, and thus, they have certain commonalities.

This whole paragraph is fantastic. Here you are openly praising the politics of the bourgeoisie and trumping the connections of your own ideology with it.

So-called "democracy" is nothing but a myth. It is premised on the fiction of equal, rational, sovereign individuals outside any constraints of class, and as a form of conciliation between interests necessarily gives power to the dominant classes. "Human rights" includes that magical right to private property, and all the "secularism" in the world will not do away with the social conditions which give rise to religious conceptions.

Communism as an eminently historical and historicist theory is, properly speaking, a critique of all the idealist and spiritualist theories of the bourgeoisie to do with "democracy", "human rights" and such. Any communism which reverts to these conceptions is doomed to failure.


This dispute has been ongoing for over a century, and I don’t see any new developments on the horizon.

Maybe because all your "critiques" of proletarian dictatorship have so far been terrible.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Imagine if we in the future reach the technological level where the work of like 10 000 people is enough to keep all production on Earth going, including food, industry, recycling - everything. If we then should have a "proletarian dictatorship" under such conditions, it would mean a form of society where another minority is running the show.

I'm immediately thinking that such a society could easily degenerate, between a small caste of producers and an extremely large caste of "drones", people who are not a part of the productive process simply because they aren't needed and their services aren't asked for by society. I do not think it would be a good decision idea to give absolute power to the 10 000 producers in this case.

You're focusing too much on manual workers or even a subset of them in the first place. Whatever happened to those engaged in productive services? Oh wait, comrade Zanthorus beat me to it again! ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So-called "democracy" is nothing but a myth. It is premised on the fiction of equal, rational, sovereign individuals outside any constraints of class

That's a criticism that could be leveled at any form of democracy, let alone the inevitably-corrupt forms of "representative" democracy found in countries like the UK or US.

All forms of democracy are predicated on the idea that (at the very least) people in the aggregate can behave rationally enough to look after their own interests.

If you don't subscribe to that, why are you any kind of communist?


"Human rights" includes that magical right to private property,

The right to private property isn't what's important - the notion that people have fundamental rights that should not be violated without good reason, if ever at all, is what matters. The UN may define such rights as including the one to private property, but there is no reason why a communist society couldn't define rights differently.


and all the "secularism" in the world will not do away with the social conditions which give rise to religious conceptions.

Up until the time when religion is no longer a significant social force (which may not be any time soon), we should ensure that no religion is unduly favoured by whatever political system is going on at the time, including communist ones. That's what secularism is about.


Communism as an eminently historical and historicist theory is, properly speaking, a critique of all the idealist and spiritualist theories of the bourgeoisie to do with "democracy", "human rights" and such. Any communism which reverts to these conceptions is doomed to failure.

I beg to differ. Conceptions of "communism" that don't include rights and have no time for any kind of democracy are the ones that are doomed to the failure of tyranny.

[Zanthorus]

All forms of democracy are predicated on the idea that (at the very least) people in the aggregate can behave rationally enough to look after their own interests.

Ok, this has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Democracy is a form of conciliation between competing private interests. All forms of conciliation necessarily tend to enforce the interests of the dominant party, since they are premised on a fictional equality between the exploiter and exploited. Therefore liberal commitment to democracy is a commitment to the maintaneance of capitalism.


If you don't subscribe to that, why are you any kind of communist?


"Our sole adversary on the day of the crisis and on the day after the crisis will be the whole collective reaction which will group itself around pure democracy." - Engels


the notion that people have fundamental rights that should not be violated without good reason, if ever at all, is what matters.

But so far noone has been able to tell us where these "rights" come from, apart from appeals to natural endowment by a creator-God. Further, these notions have origins in the bourgeois class, and have been trumpeted around many times as an argument against communism.


Up until the time when religion is no longer a significant social force (which may not be any time soon), we should ensure that no religion is unduly favoured by whatever political system is going on at the time, including communist ones. That's what secularism is about.

Accept that the political system you favour is one which supposedly enforces the will of the majority. But if religious conceptions remain then people will naturally have their decisions influenced by them, which means that pure "secularism" is impossible.


Conceptions of "communism" that don't include rights and have no time for any kind of democracy are the ones that are doomed to the failure of tyranny.

I don't "have no time for any kind of democracy", I have no time for democracy as an abstract principle being trumpeted around. I have a good deal for proletarian democracy.

[Vanguard1917]

I beg to differ. Conceptions of "communism" that don't include rights and have no time for any kind of democracy are the ones that are doomed to the failure of tyranny.

But couldn't we expect that a communist society would have gone beyond rights and democracy, if by democracy we mean the political (i.e. state) rule of one section of society (the majority) over another (the minority) and if by rights we mean laws which safeguard people against social problems and political repression?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ok, this has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Democracy is a form of conciliation between competing private interests. All forms of conciliation necessarily tend to enforce the interests of the dominant party, since they are premised on a fictional equality between the exploiter and exploited. Therefore liberal commitment to democracy is a commitment to the maintaneance of capitalism.

You appear to speak of democracy as some monolithic concept, when in fact there are many different formulations of it. In fact, you're making the very same mistake that bourgeois ideologues often make - the idea that there is a single discrete thing called "democracy" that is somehow essential to capitalism.


"Our sole adversary on the day of the crisis and on the day after the crisis will be the whole collective reaction which will group itself around pure democracy." - Engels

Since there is no such thing as "pure democracy", this out-of-context quote fails to address the issue.


But so far noone has been able to tell us where these "rights" come from, apart from appeals to natural endowment by a creator-God.

Isn't it obvious? Rights are a social convention that humans create for their own purposes. If our purpose is the establishment and maintenance of a classless communist society, then certain conditions must be achieved which can be characterised as "rights" - for instance, any system of communist justice must ensure any judgements made are unprejudiced, and must therefore assume innocence before finding any evidence of guilt.


Further, these notions have origins in the bourgeois class,

So what? They're "tainted"? That's an argument based on superstitious emotionalism, not any kind of reason. Or is the average working person too "stupid" to distinguish good ideas (not being arbitrarily imprisoned) from bad ones (private property)?

Or what? Euclid's Elements originated in a slave-holding society, but that does not make them any less relevant. I cannot understand how an idea can be invalid simply because it was advanced by the bourgeoisie.


and have been trumpeted around many times as an argument against communism.

Yeah, a bad argument. Saying that communism doesn't respect the right to private property is no more an argument against communism than the lack of "divine right of kings" is an argument against capitalism.


Accept that the political system you favour is one which supposedly enforces the will of the majority. But if religious conceptions remain then people will naturally have their decisions influenced by them, which means that pure "secularism" is impossible.

No system is perfect, that much is true, but I would much rather we made the effort to be secular, rather than doing nothing.


I don't "have no time for any kind of democracy", I have no time for democracy as an abstract principle being trumpeted around. I have a good deal for proletarian democracy.

"Democracy" becomes no less abstract as a principle just because you append "proletarian" to the front of it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But couldn't we expect that a communist society would have gone beyond rights and democracy, if by democracy we mean the political (i.e. state) rule of one section of society (the majority) over another (the minority)

By that definition of democracy, we have never lived under one, since representative democracy places the locus of decision-making in a handful of professional politicians who are good at convincing people to vote for them and little else.


and if by rights we mean laws which safeguard people against social problems and political repression?

What makes you think that a communist society wouldn't have social and political problems of its own?

[Vanguard1917]

By that definition of democracy, we have never lived under one, since representative democracy places the locus of decision-making in a handful of professional politicians who are good at convincing people to vote for them and little else.

My point is that democracy by definition involves political power and political rule. If a section of society is ruling, that means that another section is being ruled. Political, i.e. state, rule is the product of class societies -- as long as classes exist, so does political rule -- and it did not exist in pre-class societies. So isn't it logical to expect that it will not exist in a future classless society either?

To note, by democracy i'm not referring to the majority decision-making that will exist in a classless society, e.g. when deciding where resources should be allocated, etc. But that's administrative in nature. It will not be political, at least not in the way we have know politics to be for millennia -- the rule of one class over others.



What makes you think that a communist society wouldn't have social and political problems of its own?


Like what, for example?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My point is that democracy by definition involves political power and political rule. If a section of society is ruling, that means that another section is being ruled. Political, i.e. state, rule is the product of class societies -- as long as classes exist, so does political rule -- and it did not exist in pre-class societies. So isn't it logical to expect that it will not exist in a future classless society either?

No, because there is a difference between ruling and making decisions. A communist society would not have rulers, but would still have to make decisions as a whole, because there will always be issues that affect large numbers of people.

So what form would the decision-making process take? Some decisions, like the best way to run a transportation system, have a very tiny pool of potentially correct answers, and thus we can rely on the expertise of those involved to get the optimal solution.


To note, by democracy i'm not referring to the majority decision-making that will exist in a classless society, e.g. when deciding where resources should be allocated, etc. But that's administrative in nature. It will not be political, at least not in the way we have know politics to be for millennia -- the rule of one class over others.

Seems more likely to me that a communist society would have a new kind of politics. Just as it was once inconceivable that there could be such a thing as a political party, so in the future there could potentially be forms of political organisation and administration that we have yet to conceive.


Like what, for example?

Just because you can't think of them does not mean there won't be any. There will be many questions to resolve, among them I imagine such as the stance of the communist world towards the non-communist, whether we should expand into space and how soon, and if this forum is anything to go by, the question of rearing & slaughtering animals for produce. These are the sort of questions which affect everyone and have no "right" answer.

To blithely assume that there will be no problems is to sleepwalk into disaster.

[Vanguard1917]

No, because there is a difference between ruling and making decisions. A communist society would not have rulers, but would still have to make decisions as a whole, because there will always be issues that affect large numbers of people.

Of course -- but if there's no political rule, there's, strictly speaking, no democracy (which implies political rule by definition). There are merely admimistrative organisations which make decisions through majority voting.



So what form would the decision-making process take? Some decisions, like the best way to run a transportation system, have a very tiny pool of potentially correct answers, and thus we can rely on the expertise of those involved to get the optimal solution.

This is the technocracy, i believe. What happens when the decisions of these experts is not agreed with by the public?



Just because you can't think of them does not mean there won't be any. There will be many questions to resolve


Clearly. But social and political problems like those in class society which gave way to the state and rise of concepts like 'rights' in the first place?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course -- but if there's no political rule, there's, strictly speaking, no democracy (which implies political rule by definition). There are merely admimistrative organisations which make decisions through majority voting.

Why isn't majority voting a form of democracy?


This is the technocracy, i believe. What happens when the decisions of these experts is not agreed with by the public?

In that case then there is a disconnect between what the rest of the citizenry wants and what the working experts are capable of delivering in order to achieve that desire. In other words, somebody fucked up.

How this is resolved depends on the exact situation, but I can imagine two main ways of doing so:

A) The plan is wrong because it is predicated on incomplete or otherwise inadequate data. In which case a revised plan based on better data is needed ASAP.

B) The plan is optimal for it's intended function, but is no longer wanted or needed. In which case the plan is scrapped entirely.

As for routine administration of technical services, they should be based on user feedback to ensure efficient services that everyone wants. If Saturday is a popular time for using the mass transit systems of a particular urbanate, for example, then systems in place which monitor use will enable planners to construct timetables accordingly.


Clearly. But social and political problems like those in class society which gave way to the state and rise of concepts like 'rights' in the first place?

I'm not sure what you mean here, sorry.

[Zanthorus]

In fact, you're making the very same mistake that bourgeois ideologues often make - the idea that there is a single discrete thing called "democracy" that is somehow essential to capitalism.

The democratic state is essential to the continued existence of capitalism. Without the conciliation of the heavenly oratio of bourgeois society the competing private interests of civil society would simply destroy the fabric of the capitalist social order.


Since there is no such thing as "pure democracy", this out-of-context quote fails to address the issue.

The quote is not out of context. It's from a letter to August Bebel and it means exactly what it says. They were discussing what the role of the party of "pure democracy" would be in the future and Engels believed that on the eve of the revolution all the forces of reaction would be forced to gather themselves under the banner of the pure democrats as the most radical of the bourgeois parties. As indeed, every anti-Bolshevik force after 1917 from the monarchists to the anarchists called for "soviets without Bolsheviks".


Isn't it obvious? Rights are a social convention that humans create for their own purposes.

Then they are not inviolable are they?


So what? They're "tainted"? That's an argument based on superstitious emotionalism, not any kind of reason.

I think it's more like your argument is based on bourgeois rationalism.


Or what? Euclid's Elements originated in a slave-holding society, but that does not make them any less relevant. I cannot understand how an idea can be invalid simply because it was advanced by the bourgeoisie.

Because it's not about maths, it's about the organisation of society. Slaveowners have no interest in falsifying geometry but the bourgeoisie does have an interest in furthering things like "human rights" which in reality are the rights of the isolated individual in civil society divorced from the human community.


"Democracy" becomes no less abstract as a principle just because you append "proletarian" to the front of it.

"Proletarian democracy" would probably be more adequately termed "dictatorship of the proletariat" or maybe "revolutionary workers government". Regardless, it's not an abstract principle. It's the basic claim of communism, the emancipation of the working classes as a universal class which cannot emancipate itself without simultaneously emancipating the rest of society as a whole is the emancipation of all of humanity without distinction of sex or race, and re-establishes the human community which was lost with the fall of primitive communism.

[Vanguard1917]

Why isn't majority voting a form of democracy?

Majority voting in a purely administrative body lacks the political rule aspect which democracy implies exists. It's fine to loosely call these administrative organisations 'democratic', since that adjective tends to be used interchangeably with majority voting. But, strictly speaking, 'democratic society' implies the existence of political rule and the state.



In that case then there is a disconnect between what the rest of the citizenry wants and what the working experts are capable of delivering in order to achieve that desire. In other words, somebody fucked up.



But ultimately, who makes the decisions? The technical expert or the public? Surely the experts should be fully accountable to the people.



I'm not sure what you mean here, sorry


On the issue of rights -- they exist because of underlying political or social problems. More accurately, they express an attempt to safeguard against them. Therefore, they'll become superfluous and defunct once those problems no longer exist.

For example, why would you need the right to free speech when there's no state to enforce restrictions on free speech in the first place? Why would there be a right to a divorce when the legal obligations of marriage have been done away with? Why would you need a right not to be carpet bombed when the preconditions for international militarism no longer exist?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The democratic state is essential to the continued existence of capitalism. Without the conciliation of the heavenly oratio of bourgeois society the competing private interests of civil society would simply destroy the fabric of the capitalist social order.

They can do that without pretending to be democratic, and have done.


The quote is not out of context. It's from a letter to August Bebel and it means exactly what it says. They were discussing what the role of the party of "pure democracy" would be in the future and Engels believed that on the eve of the revolution all the forces of reaction would be forced to gather themselves under the banner of the pure democrats as the most radical of the bourgeois parties. As indeed, every anti-Bolshevik force after 1917 from the monarchists to the anarchists called for "soviets without Bolsheviks".

The Bolsheviks didn't exactly have much of a taste for democracy, so I'm not surprised that anarchists weren't chuffed about their neutering of the soviets.


Then they are not inviolable are they?

I've always understood that with regards to rights, the use of the term "inviolable" was prescriptive rather than descriptive.


I think it's more like your argument is based on bourgeois rationalism.

That still doesn't answer the question of relevancy - like I said, unless you believe that ideas can somehow be mystically "tainted" by virtue of who conceived them, you have no excuse for not accepting or rejecting ideas based on their merits alone.

Or you could just be an ideologue. It's not like the left and the world has a shortage of them.


Because it's not about maths, it's about the organisation of society. Slaveowners have no interest in falsifying geometry but the bourgeoisie does have an interest in furthering things like "human rights" which in reality are the rights of the isolated individual in civil society divorced from the human community.

I would say that the bourgeoisie isn't as in accord with the issue of human rights as you seem to think - even in the supposedly "free and fair" United Kingdom we regularly have newspaper editorials blasting the idea.


"Proletarian democracy" would probably be more adequately termed "dictatorship of the proletariat" or maybe "revolutionary workers government". Regardless, it's not an abstract principle. It's the basic claim of communism, the emancipation of the working classes as a universal class which cannot emancipate itself without simultaneously emancipating the rest of society as a whole is the emancipation of all of humanity without distinction of sex or race, and re-establishes the human community which was lost with the fall of primitive communism.

Fair enough, but what would such a proletarian democracy "look like"? Representative? Direct democracy? Demarchist? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy) Something else?


Majority voting in a purely administrative body lacks the political rule aspect which democracy implies exists. It's fine to loosely call these administrative organisations 'democratic', since that adjective tends to be used interchangeably with majority voting. But, strictly speaking, 'democratic society' implies the existence of political rule and the state.

If the society in question divides its democratic decision-making processes into separate administrative functions as you seem to be implying, then surely that society taken as a whole is some form of democracy?


But ultimately, who makes the decisions? The technical expert or the public? Surely the experts should be fully accountable to the people.

It's a reciprocal process - experts in a particular field base their decisions on the input of the rest of citizenry, and if they've got things right then all is good. If they get things wrong for whatever reason, then by all means they should be held accountable through whatever means the citizenry find most effective.


On the issue of rights -- they exist because of underlying political or social problems. More accurately, they express an attempt to safeguard against them. Therefore, they'll become superfluous and defunct once those problems no longer exist.

Obviously some rights will become superfluous in a communist society as there will be no means or motivation to violate them - but all of them? I'm doubtful. This is notwithstanding the possibility that a communist society could develop its own unique rights.


For example, why would you need the right to free speech when there's no state to enforce restrictions on free speech in the first place?

Because states are not the only entities capable of violating rights.


Why would there be a right to a divorce when the legal obligations of marriage have been done away with? Why would you need a right not to be carpet bombed when the preconditions for international militarism no longer exist?

Because divorce and carpet bombing are specific manifestations of more general phenomena - assurance that voluntary associations are truly voluntary in the first instance, and recognition of the need to ensure protection against arbitrary violence in the latter instance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Fair enough, but what would such a proletarian democracy "look like"? Representative? Direct democracy? Demarchist? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy) Something else?

He already knows about demarchy, and so do I. However, demarchy alone isn't enough for the DOTP.

Reductionism to forms is the main problem of those making a fetish for workers councils as *the* form of the DOTP - when they can't even meet regularly.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think this is your main source of confusion. The proletariat is that class whose livelihood is dependent on the wage-labour fund [...] Marx pointed out that capitalism expands our notion of "productive activity" insofar as it seperates intellectual labour from physical labour, while still retaining their interdependence.

After reading what you and Dimentio said, I've been thinking about playing with words a little bit more. ;)

The "proles" are the classes whose livelihoods are dependent on the wage-labour fund (plus non-control over MOP), to correct your citation of Mike Macnair. There are at least three "prole" classes.

The proletariat is defined, then, by its productive labour. Marx's definition vs. Paul Cockshott's vs mine - up for debate.

The proletarii (from the old Roman proletarii) are the unproductive (but socially necessary per capitalism) likes of typical housemaids, butlers, paralegals, and - going by Paul's for a moment - even factory workers working exclusively in arms production and trade.

The proper lumpenproletariat (not lumpenbourgeoisie or lumpen/lumpen-scum) derive their livelihood from informal labour, outside the legal wage labour system. Although not the case now in a number of countries, prostitutes-turned-sex-workers belonged to this class.

[Coordinators are dependent upon the wage labour fund, but they do have a control relationship over small- and medium-scale MOP.]

[Zanthorus]

Reductionism to forms is the main problem of those making a fetish for workers councils as *the* form of the DOTP - when they can't even meet regularly.

I think what you mean to say is, the revolution is not a question of forms of organisation ;)

(Although Bordiga's formulation is only half-complete. It should read - the revolution is not a question of forms of organisation, but of programmatic content)


The proletariat is defined, then, by its productive labour. Marx's definition vs. Paul Cockshott's vs mine - up for debate.

The proletarii (from the old Roman proletarii) are the unproductive (but socially necessary per capitalism) likes of typical housemaids, butlers, and - going by Paul's for a moment - even factory workers working exclusively in arms production and trade.

I'm not sure how useful the distinction between productive and unproductive labour is in terms of class analysis. In terms of examining the economy, it is a useful distinction. However in terms of class - both kinds of labourer are working class, proletarian.

[robbo203]

To the topic at hand, though, I just think the dictatorship of the proletariat is just a really horrible idea. As an Anarchist, I'm philosophically opposed to it.


I think dictatorship in Marx's day and in his hands meant something quite different to what we usually understand by the term today. In fact Marx (or was it Engels equated the DOTP) with a democratic republic. The basic idea being that interests of the proletariat would prevail in society and dictate developments so to speak.

My beef with the DOTP is not that it is "horrible" . The political repression exercised in the state capitalist Soviet Union was a dictatorship over the proletariat and not of the proletariat and this was reflected in Lenin's own liking for one-man management in industrial relations

The problem with the the DOTP is that is completely illogical and self constradictory. The proletariat is the exploited class in capitalism so how is it remotely possible to run society in the interests of the exploited as opposed to those doing the exploiting? If you wanted to operate society in the interests of the former you would surely want to abolish their exploited status and hence the very existence of the proletariat (and with it. the DOTP) itself.

Ive yet to come across a coherent counter argment that addresses this point

[Zanthorus]

In fact Marx (or was it Engels equated the DOTP) with a democratic republic.

That was Engels. And he was wrong.


The proletariat is the exploited class in capitalism so how is it remotely possible to run society in the interests of the exploited as opposed to those doing the exploiting? If you wanted to operate society in the interests of the former you would surely want to abolish their exploited status and hence the very existence of the proletariat (and with it. the DOTP) itself.

There are only two ways you could accomplish the proletariat's self-abolition without the transitional period - introducing the associated mode of production worldwide on the first day of the revolution or building up the AMP under the bourgeois state regime and then taking political power. Now unless you've got a magic wand up your sleave, the former simply ain't going to happen. The latter ignores the proletariat's status as an exploited class. In contrast to the bourgeoisie which was able to establish economic hegemony under the feudal state regime and then take power, the proletariat must accomplish the overthrow of the exploiting class state regime before it introduces it's own mode of production.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think what you mean to say is, the revolution is not a question of forms of organisation ;)

Ah, but I do stress that notion that real parties are real movements and vice versa, don't I? ;) I already favour one form above almost all the rest (with the Revolutionary Industrial Union / Sociopolitical Syndicate as the complement to the official party-movement).


I'm not sure how useful the distinction between productive and unproductive labour is in terms of class analysis. In terms of examining the economy, it is a useful distinction. However in terms of class - both kinds of labourer are working class, proletarian.

Comrade, the reason is that unproductive labour (take your pick re. Marx vs. Cockshott-Zachariah vs. myself vs. a mix of the aforementioned) isn't exploited per se.

I'm not going the Labour Aristocracy (like lawyers, cops, and judges) or Third Worldist route here. "Once more, human labour power in productive labour – be it manual or mental – and its technological, labour-saving equivalent are the only non-natural sources of value production... This socially revolutionary transformation, along with secondary yet socially revolutionary transformations aimed at abolishing non-class oppression and alienation, amounts to the emancipation not only of human labour power in productive labour, but also of humanity as a collective whole."

There can still be made a case for paralegals, housemaids and butlers, and all other unproductive labourers to, say, earn a living wage and what not, given the concentration of MOP and (in mainstream terms) wealth. After all, they too are subject to proletarian working conditions. It's just that, when it comes down to processes, they are in a different class.

Which means two things:

1) "Proletocracy" could indeed be as flexible as the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" re. demographics and the balance of class forces between the three "prole classes" above, although it's unlikely the proper lumpenproletariat will take the lead.
2) "Working class" should still be used in the singular and not the plural (insisted upon by coordinator-intellectuals like Leo Panitch), and in reference only to the proletariat.

[NGNM85]

I think dictatorship in Marx's day and in his hands meant something quite different to what we usually understand by the term today. In fact Marx (or was it Engels equated the DOTP) with a democratic republic. The basic idea being that interests of the proletariat would prevail in society and dictate developments so to speak.

Some Communists may interpret it, or conceptualize it that way, but I don’t think that was how it was intended, nor do I think that’s how most people are using it, as has been testified to.


My beef with the DOTP is not that it is "horrible" .

I probably should have worded that differently. I just meant it’s a bad idea.


The political repression exercised in the state capitalist Soviet Union was a dictatorship over the proletariat and not of the proletariat and this was reflected in Lenin's own liking for one-man management in industrial relations

The problem with the the DOTP is that is completely illogical and self constradictory. The proletariat is the exploited class in capitalism so how is it remotely possible to run society in the interests of the exploited as opposed to those doing the exploiting? If you wanted to operate society in the interests of the former you would surely want to abolish their exploited status and hence the very existence of the proletariat (and with it. the DOTP) itself.

Ive yet to come across a coherent counter argment that addresses this point

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The DOTP automatically creates a new ruling class once it is formed. As an Anarchist, I would say that concentrating all power into the hands of an elite minority (Once they assume this power they become the new elites.) exercising it’s power unilaterally is depriving people of their fundamental right to liberty, and is, in itself, by it’s very nature, an intolerable act of violence and oppression against all of society. The claim that the individuals who would be slated to comprise this political structure would have nothing but the best intentions should be viewed with utmost skepticism. This refrain has been echoed by every power structure since time immemorial. Even the most despotic regimes had entirely benevolent intentions, according to their PR spokesmen and propaganda ministries. There’s also the expectation that this monolithic structure which has assumed total dictatorial control over every aspect of society, will simply fade away once it has outlived it’s usefulness (That’s presuming it’s legitimate to start with.) it will simply ‘fade away’, a highly dubious conclusion that is, as far as I know, virtually unprecedented in human history. Of course, this is not ‘proof’, by itself. However, I think it’s abundantly clear that autocracies do not dismantle themselves, to the contrary, they are self-reinforcing.

[robbo203]

That was Engels. And he was wrong.



There are only two ways you could accomplish the proletariat's self-abolition without the transitional period - introducing the associated mode of production worldwide on the first day of the revolution or building up the AMP under the bourgeois state regime and then taking political power. Now unless you've got a magic wand up your sleave, the former simply ain't going to happen. The latter ignores the proletariat's status as an exploited class. In contrast to the bourgeoisie which was able to establish economic hegemony under the feudal state regime and then take power, the proletariat must accomplish the overthrow of the exploiting class state regime before it introduces it's own mode of production.

Sorry but I dont agree. I know Marx sort of opted for your first option (except that he was confining his comments to the developed world) when he said - Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism.(The German Ideology). However there is a third option which he - and you - have overlooked. Its what I call the domino effect option which involves a succession of revolutions breaking out in a relatively short space of time as one state after another falls to communism. The growth of the communist worldwide means that it will tend to be increasingly evenly spatially distirbuted. That means that if it it captures the state and abolishishes capitalism in one part of the world it is unlikely to be very far behind elsewhere in the world. This in turn means the prospect of military intervention is massively reduced if not completely eliminated becuase the whole climate of opinion would be then have decisvely changed. Residual capitalist governmentsd would powerless to do anything in the face of public opinion. Even the armed forces would have been influenced by communist consciousness and there are certainly plenty of historical precedents of the military siding with popular opinion against the government

I think this option is the most feasible one but I dont rule out your second option of the proletariat building up an alternative non capitalist mode of production if only to an extent (though it would and could not not be free access communism). I dont think it could happen to the extent that the need to capture state power can be disregarded but, still , I dont think we should just dogmatically reject this option; it can come to play an important supplementary role I see the growth of the communist movement as creating space for such prefigurative "communistic" relationship to take root and grow , expressing themselves through such institutional forms as intentional communities and the like

All of this however still does not get round the point about the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" being a fundamentally incoherent concept. How would you explian how an exploited class can somehow administer society and exert control over the exploiting class while holding back on ridding itself of its exploited status? It makes no sense at all.