The Concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[Pretty Flaco]

Can anyone give me a succinct and to the point explanation of the concept so I can explain to someone that it doesn't mean "put a dictator in to lead the revolution". I think one thing that discourages people from communism or labels it as idealistic is because they believe the whole "communism requires a dictator and thus would only work if the dictator was as nice as Jesus." bullshit.

So what is a good way to explain it without being lengthy?

[Savior]

The masses control the Workplace and Goverment, not a slect few with money and connections.

[syndicat]

when marx used the phrase "dictatorhship of the proletariat" he wasn't using the word "dictatorship" in its 20th century meaning. for Marx any state is built to defend a dominant class, and is thus a class dictatorship. under the present system capital rules, and we have a capitalist "dictatorship"...certainly this is the way it is in the workplaces.

but then this concept got distorted by Lenin who introduced the concept of the "dictatorship of the party". a repressive one-party dictatorship, allegedly in the name of the working class...that's the historical fact that discredits...and should discredit...those who advocate it.

an "emergency" dictatorship of a party is likely to lead to a new class system...that's the lesson from the 20th century.

[Pretty Flaco]

when marx used the phrase "dictatorhship of the proletariat" he wasn't using the word "dictatorship" in its 20th century meaning. for Marx any state is built to defend a dominant class, and is thus a class dictatorship. under the present system capital rules, and we have a capitalist "dictatorship"...certainly this is the way it is in the workplaces.

but then this concept got distorted by Lenin who introduced the concept of the "dictatorship of the party". a repressive one-party dictatorship, allegedly in the name of the working class...that's the historical fact that discredits...and should discredit...those who advocate it.

an "emergency" dictatorship of a party is likely to lead to a new class system...that's the lesson from the 20th century.

Thanks. :lol:

[mikelepore]

Every new system has to make a crime to operate under the previous system. For example, when the American repubic was established in the 1700s, what would have become of some citizens if they continued to act according to the monarchy, for example, if they refused to pay taxes to the U.S. because they still considered themselves subjects of the king of England, or if they were to intrude on the White House because the king of England didn't tell them not to? They would be handled as people who are breaking the law. It's the same thing with socialism. When socialism is politically adopted, it has to be enforcable law. The people own the factory, and, if you misdirect its use as though it were your own private factory, then you are breaking the law. Furthermore, if you are so angry about the new changes that this leads you to get violent about it, then you have to be prosecuted under the law. This is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[penguinfoot]

Marx himself used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" on only a small number of occasions, and those occasions are within a short period of each other, so there's no real reason to think that it's an important part of his thought - and this can only be a good thing, because the dictatorship of the proletariat is an inherently incoherent concept. How can the proletariat be the ruling or dominant class when the proletariat is defined in terms of its subordinate and exploited position in the wage-labour relationship? The existence of a class called the proletariat presupposes that private property has been left intact and that there is still a ruling class, given that, as Marx himself points out, capital is a social relationship, and in that context it's difficult to see how the proletariat would be able to exercise its rule whilst still remaining in existence as the proletariat - unless it can somehow rule in the political sphere or supervise the bourgeoisie at the same time as remaining exploited in a capitalist economy! Properly understood, the socialist revolution is not the raising of the proletariat to the position of the ruling class, it is the self-abolition of the proletariat.


but then this concept got distorted by Lenin who introduced the concept of the "dictatorship of the party". a repressive one-party dictatorship

I think you're going to have to do more than provide a wikipedia summary of the Russian Revolution.

[Zanthorus]

Marx himself used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" on only a small number of occasions, and those occasions are within a short period of each other, so there's no real reason to think that it's an important part of his thought

It's true that the phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was only used in two seperate periods of Marx's life, both lasting only a couple of years and the second being about twenty years after the first, but this doesn't mean that the underlying concept is not an important part of his thought. The concept of raising the proletariat to the position of ruling-class through the conquest of political power occurs in many of Marx's works spanning across his entire lifetime. Your assertion that the political rule of the proletariat is a 'fundamentally incoherent concept' a rather mind-boggling one coming from a Trotskyist, that's the kind of semi-anarchist rubbish we accept from SPGB dogmatists like robbo203. To begin with, the proletariat is not defined by the fact that it is a class which is personally subordinated to the bourgeoisie. Relationships of personal domination are precisely what characterises pre-capitalist social formations such as feudalism. What makes capitalism a unique social formation is the replacement of relations of personal dependence by relations of material dependence, the domination of things over man. This is demonstrated by Marx to be characteristic of the system of generalised commodity production, the latter being essentially what defines capitalism.

The proletariat is defined not as the class which is subordinated to the bourgeoisie, but as the class whose labour-power is a commodity which is bought and sold on the market. This buying and selling can just as easily be performed by the workers' acting as their own collective capitailst in the form of a co-operative enterprise as in the form of an individual capitalist who buys the workers' labour-power. Even if the bourgeoisie as a class of individuals were expropriated by factory councils', capitalism would still exist as long as market relations existed, and as long as these relations existed the proletariat would still exist as proletariat.

In reality anyway, there is not just the two classes which are necessary for the production and reproduction of the capital relationship, but also the peasantry, small proprietors, the self-employed and various other groups who aren't involved in producing capital. These classes do not have any direct interests in the abolition of market relations, and will have to be dealt with through the carrying out of various methods to secure their expropriation and integration within the socialised productive apparatus. This latter will involve the proletariat acting as a ruling-class with respect to the other non-exploiting strata.

[penguinfoot]

Your assertion that the political rule of the proletariat is a 'fundamentally incoherent concept' a rather mind-boggling one coming from a Trotskyist

Indeed, I'm quite a strange Trotskyist, or maybe not a Trotskyist at all in your view. I see Lenin and Trotsky's commitment to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and particularly Lenin's belief that it is the position that distinguishes Marx from those bourgeois historians who anticipated his theory of history (Guizot et al.), as a key mistake on their part.


The proletariat is defined not as the class which is subordinated to the bourgeoisie

Perhaps I should clarify: In my view, Marx's definition of the proletariat involves the proletariat being situated in a subordinate position within the workplace organization and in relation to the members of the bourgeoisie, and touches on relations of "personal" domination to that extent, because if the proletariat were defined solely in terms of it being the class that sells its labour power under conditions of generalized commodity production, which is the most well-known and intuitive definition of the proletariat in Marx's thought, it would not be possible to distinguish the proletariat from a number of other strata that, in technical terms, also sell their labour power, due to not owning the means of production, but which ultimately do not share the same class interests as the proletariat, and instead, or at least in some cases, more or less benefit from the continuation of capitalism in many respects - this is true most obviously of mid-level managers and overseers, but it is also true of other and less obvious strata as well. One example (from the nineteenth century - but apparently it's the best way to demonstrate the point...) I've heard given by one Marx scholar is the lady's companion, the idea being that a lady's companion would not be a proletarian even if they sell their labour power because they do not occupy the same position of direct subordination as a worker in a factory or other enterprise setting. I accept what you have to say about the possibility of the community acting as collective capitalist and agree that what Marx has to say about this in the 1844 Manuscripts is very interesting, if only because it points towards some of his more substantive views on what a communist society might look like as opposed to a society in which only some of the more legal or phenomenal facets of capitalism have been abolished, but, as far as empirically given capitalist societies are concerned, his concept of the proletariat is, I feel, not limited to the sale of labour power only.

I think part of the problem, apart from the inherent logical issues I outlined above, behind the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is that it involves a presumption that the concepts that we use to understand previous social revolutions, namely that these revolutions mark the transfer of power from one class to another, and that the class that becomes the ruling class has already build up its economic power within the old society to some degree, can be transferred to the socialist revolution, and yet a transfer of concepts in this way shrouds what is so unique and unprecedented about the socialist revolution - namely that it is the first and only social revolution that does not give rise to a new form of class society but results in the abolition of class antagonisms and material contradictions altogether, with the class that leads the revolution - the proletariat under capitalism - being different from the bourgeoisie insofar as it has not built up its own form of property under the previous class society, having only potential power as long as capitalism exists, rather than the actual economic power that the bourgeoisie had under feudalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

"The "Prussian" predicts the suppression of the insurrections which are sparked off by the "disasterous isolation of man from the community and of their thoughts from social principles.

[...]

"But do not all rebellions without exception have their roots in the disasterous isolation of man from the community? Does not every rebellion necessarily presuppose isolation? Would the revolution of 1789 have taken place if French citizens had not felt disasterously isolated from the community? The abolition of this isolation was its very purpose."

- Critical Notes on 'The King of Prussia'.

"It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened."

- Marginal notes on 'Statism and Anarchy'.

The proletariat can't abolish capitalism at the flick of a switch, essentially. And until they abolish capitalism, there is still no genuine general interest, but rather particular, class interests, the isolation of man from the community. The abolition of the state means the abolition of class interests, and hence the establishment of a real general interest. In order to do this, the proletariat has to impose their will as the general interest. The fact that capitalism, and hence the proletariat itself, is based on the rule of the bourgeoisie do not contradict this, but rather lend it its contradictory quality; the political rule of the producer cannot coexist with the perpetuation of his social slavery, to paraphrase Marx.

[robbo203]

It's true that the phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was only used in two seperate periods of Marx's life, both lasting only a couple of years and the second being about twenty years after the first, but this doesn't mean that the underlying concept is not an important part of his thought. The concept of raising the proletariat to the position of ruling-class through the conquest of political power occurs in many of Marx's works spanning across his entire lifetime. Your assertion that the political rule of the proletariat is a 'fundamentally incoherent concept' a rather mind-boggling one coming from a Trotskyist, that's the kind of semi-anarchist rubbish we accept from SPGB dogmatists like robbo203. To begin with, the proletariat is not defined by the fact that it is a class which is personally subordinated to the bourgeoisie. Relationships of personal domination are precisely what characterises pre-capitalist social formations such as feudalism. What makes capitalism a unique social formation is the replacement of relations of personal dependence by relations of material dependence, the domination of things over man. This is demonstrated by Marx to be characteristic of the system of generalised commodity production, the latter being essentially what defines capitalism.

The proletariat is defined not as the class which is subordinated to the bourgeoisie, but as the class whose labour-power is a commodity which is bought and sold on the market. This buying and selling can just as easily be performed by the workers' acting as their own collective capitailst in the form of a co-operative enterprise as in the form of an individual capitalist who buys the workers' labour-power. Even if the bourgeoisie as a class of individuals were expropriated by factory councils', capitalism would still exist as long as market relations existed, and as long as these relations existed the proletariat would still exist as proletariat.

In reality anyway, there is not just the two classes which are necessary for the production and reproduction of the capital relationship, but also the peasantry, small proprietors, the self-employed and various other groups who aren't involved in producing capital. These classes do not have any direct interests in the abolition of market relations, and will have to be dealt with through the carrying out of various methods to secure their expropriation and integration within the socialised productive apparatus. This latter will involve the proletariat acting as a ruling-class with respect to the other non-exploiting strata.

Well lets look at this "semi-anarchist rubbish we accept from SPGB dogmatists like robbo203" shall we? (Although I should say Zanthorus has already put a foot wrong here since Im not actually a member of the SPGB and nor am i strictly an anarchist despite my anarchist tendencies ;))

First off - what is the proletariat or working class? I think we can broadly accept Engels' definition in the 1888 preface to the Communist Manifesto as being "that class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live". Thus is a relative statement obviously since it is possible for workers to have some capital to invest but still be economically compelled to sell their labour power.

Next, lets consider this - what does it mean that workers have little or no capital to live upon and therefore must sell their labour power in order to live? Well, to begin with, who exactly do their sell their labour power to? Obviously the capitalist class. And what characterises the capitalist class is that this class possesses capital which the workers dont by and large. The workers are, in other words, separated from the means of productiuon which are monopolised by the capitalist class. Im sure even Zanthorus will agree that I am not being dogmatic in asserting this. He only has to do some research to discover for himself that the distribution of financial assets is grossly skewed in favour of a tiny minority.

So assuming he agrees with this what does that signify? It means that the working class being separated from the means of production are in a highly vulnerabable position of having to depend on the capitalists for a job. In the course of being employed by the capitalists the workers produce a greater value than the value of the wage they receive. In other words, the worker is exploited and it is condition of his employment that he be exploited. Nothing controversial about what Ive said so far. Its all elementary stuff - the ABC of Marxism. But now it starts to get interesting...

Zanthorus commences by resorting to a familiar sleight of hand. No, he says, workers are not personally subordinated by the capitalists "Relationships of personal domination" are what characterise pre-capitalist social formations. What makes capitalism unique , he asserts , is "the replacement of relations of personal dependence by relations of material dependence, the domination of things over man.". One might well wonder whether Zanthorus thinks class matters at all. This is bourgeois sociology, not Marxism.

The issue is not the personal dependence of workers on individal capitalists but rather of class dependence due to the fact that one class owns the means of production and the other does not. Of course it is quite true, and I wouldnt wanted to deny it, that there is a domination of things over man in capitalsim but to suggest that this domination is not organically linked to the domination of one class over another is utterly absurd, Capital as indeed an abstract mpersonal force operating within capitalist society but capital is also concentrated in the hands of distinct class - a point Zanthorus conveniently forgets.

Now lets look at this concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". I think we can all agree with Hal Drapers' point that, by "dictatorship", Marx meant not some kind of political tyranny in the modern sense of the word "dictatorship" but, rather, a situation in which the interests or wishes of one group or class prevails over another. In the case of the DOTP, what is being suggested is that the interests of the workers should prevail over capitalists. In other words, that interests of the exploited majority should prevail of the small minority that exploits this majority.

Clearly this is an utterly ludicrous notion. How can the interests of the exploited class prevail over those of the exploiting class? It makes no sense at all. One tends to find that if I am exploiting you that my interest must be prevailing over yours otherwise I would not be in a position to exploit you, wold I now? . My ability to exploit you is thus indicative of the fact that the situation is one in which my interests essentially prevail of yours.

So it is with the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Wage labour, which is what workers depend on, presupposes capital as any good marxist would know and therefore of course capitalism. So what Zanthorus is seriously asking us to believe is that you can have capitalism operating in the interest of the workers, the exploted majority, since this dictatorship of the proletariat implies the existence of capitalism. You would have thought that if the majority were in a position to dictate terms to the capitalists they would also be in a position to get rid of a capitalist system in which they are exploited along with the capitalist class that exploits them. But, no, not a bit of it. Zanthorus insist that we must put our hairshirts on , keep our shackles intact and go through yet another version of capitalism in the form of dictatorship of the proletariait even if logically this can only ever amount to a dictatorship over the proletariat - the proletariat being a proletariat by virtue of being dictated to

Then Zanthorus introduces another odd sleight of hand:

The proletariat is defined not as the class which is subordinated to the bourgeoisie, but as the class whose labour-power is a commodity which is bought and sold on the market. This buying and selling can just as easily be performed by the workers' acting as their own collective capitalist in the form of a co-operative enterprise

Well lets look at Zanthorus' pie-in-the-sky utopian version of capitalism from which the capitalists as a class have apparently been banished. One has to ask what the hell, in that case, is the point of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" when the capitalists no longer exist as a class to be dictated to? "We are all capitalists now" is the sentiment that seems to animate this idealistic capitalist utopia and its frankly not that far removed from Mrs Thatchers "property owning democracy" or Mr Blair's wet dream of the "Stakeholder society". Workers are asked to the postpoine implementation of a genuine communist society for the sake of what? The dubious pleasure of being able to exploit themselves as "their own collective capitalist"? Come off it!

I am reminded here of what one of the characters in Three men in a boat said: "if everybody is somebody then nobody is anybody". Zanthorous would have us believe that the capitalists as a class can disappear but the workers as a class can still remain intact. In so doing he reveals his position to be one completely opposed to Marxism on this matter. Marx in Wage Labour and Capital told it as it is: "Thus capital presupposes wage-labour and wage-labour presupposes capital. They mutually condition one another; they mutually bring each other into existence". If the capitalists disappear as a class then so too must the working class and it is incoherent and illogical to say that you can have one without the other.


Afterall, how does Zanthorus define a "capitalist" if it is not someone who possesses capital. If the capitalist is such a person then a worker can only be meaningfully defined in contradistinction to a capitalist as someone who does NOT own capital to live upon. But in Zanthorus' capitalist utopia called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, he confidently assures us it would be fully possible for workers' to act as their own collective capitailst in the form of a co-operative enterprise. In which case, they would own the capital and might just as easily be called "capitalists" as "workers".

The logical implication of that is that you could just as easily call this arrangement a dictatorship of the capitalists as a dictatorship of the proletariat. It seems completely arbitrary to call it the latter when as we have seen capital and wage labour are two sides of the same coin.


No, sorry, but the whole concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a peice of utter nonsense from start to finish. It is incoherent illogical bilge and was one of the most serious errors of judgement made by Marx in my opinion. That said, I am obviously speaking here with benefit of hindsight knowing that this simple lilttle phrase to which Marx probably did not attach that much importance, has derailed and deluded generations of Leftists like Zanthorus since it was first penned.

[sanpal]

Now lets look at this concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". I think we can all agree with Hal Drapers' point that, by "dictatorship", Marx meant not some kind of political tyranny in the modern sense of the word "dictatorship" but, rather, a situation in which the interests or wishes of one group or class prevails over another. In the case of the DOTP, what is being suggested is that the interests of the workers should prevail over capitalists. In other words, that interests of the exploited majority should prevail of the small minority that exploits this majority.



Indeed it is so. In the case where the proletariat is a collective owner and the Proletarian State is a combined capitalist, the proletariat through its means of power, through its governing fix degrees of its own exploitation in the state-capitalist sector of economy by the programme of social actions and in the traditional bourgeois sector of economy by the high progressive taxation of capitalist benefit.

But unfortunately you don't speak about that that the main task of the DOTP is to organize a communist sector of economy within the Proletarian State where emancipation of the proletariat occur and where proletariat cease to be a proletariat.
It is sharply distinct from modern bourgeois society even of social-democratic type where bourgeoisie fix degrees of exploitation of the proletariat.

[robbo203]

Indeed it is so. In the case where the proletariat is a collective owner and the Proletarian State is a combined capitalist, the proletariat through its means of power, through its governing fix degrees of its own exploitation in the state-capitalist sector of economy by the programme of social actions and in the traditional bourgeois sector of economy by the high progressive taxation of capitalist benefit. .

I dont get this at all. The proletariat (allegedly) governs but allows itself to exploited. Its power is evidenced ,according to you, by the degree to which is allows itself to be exploited You would have thought, on the contrary, that its power would be evidenced by the the degree to which it RESISTED being exploited!

The proletarian state so called does not signify rule by a proletarian class (which is really at base a contradiction in terms since it is an abuse of plain language to talk of a subject class being a ruling class). In reality what is happening is a ruling class pretending to govern in the name of the proletariat



But unfortunately you don't speak about that that the main task of the DOTP is to organize a communist sector of economy within the Proletarian State where emancipation of the proletariat occur and where proletariat cease to be a proletariat.
It is sharply distinct from modern bourgeois society even of social-democratic type where bourgeoisie fix degrees of exploitation of the proletariat.

The state bourgeoisie also fix the degree of exploitation of the proletaiat in the so called proletarian state. Under Stalin the rate of exploitation imposed on the Russian working class was horrendous, as you know. But it allowed the state capitalist regime to rapidly and ruthlessly accumulate capital and industrialise the economy.

I am not clear what you mean by the "communist sector" of the economy unless you are referring to subsidised services such as free education, health care and the like. This is not unique to state capitalist countries. Western economies have this too and these subsidised services are paid for out of general taxation on industry. In capitalism whatsever form it takes there is no such thing as a free lunch. These free services enable the capitalists to hold down real wages in the paid sector. Indeed Beveridge's proposals in the 1940s for a welfare state in Britain was enthusiastically supported by the likes of Tory millionaires such as Sam Courtauld precisely on the grounds that it was a more cost effective solution than the peacemeal and haphazard practices under a system of private welfare. That speaks volumes in itself

[sanpal]

I dont get this at all. The proletariat (allegedly) governs but allows itself to exploited. Its power is evidenced ,according to you, by the degree to which is allows itself to be exploited You would have thought, on the contrary, that its power would be evidenced by the the degree to which it RESISTED being exploited!

The DOTP is the necessary transition period, you won't be able to abolish monetary system 'by one stroke', 'from night to day'. Hence you will be forced to use the monetary system/capitalist mode of production for the transition period while the communist sector will be developed enough to force out capitalist and state-capitalist sectors from economic area and thus the Proletarian State will 'wither away'. So while monetary system will exist proletariat will exist too and the proletarian power would be that evidence of degree of resistance to exploitation.


The proletarian state so called does not signify rule by a proletarian class (which is really at base a contradiction in terms since it is an abuse of plain language to talk of a subject class being a ruling class). In reality what is happening is a ruling class pretending to govern in the name of the proletariat
This 'talk of a subject class being a ruling class' is only a product of imagination of robbo203. We have to talk about the capitalist mode of production temporarily used by the proletariat during the transition period while non-monetary system in communist sector of economy would be developed enough.




The state bourgeoisie also fix the degree of exploitation of the proletaiat in the so called proletarian state. Under Stalin the rate of exploitation imposed on the Russian working class was horrendous, as you know. But it allowed the state capitalist regime to rapidly and ruthlessly accumulate capital and industrialise the economy.
Did you live in the former USSR? Do you had talked with old people who lived in stalin era? It is not so evident answer you have. Don't forget enthusiasm soviet people had before WWII.
My opinion about nature of stalinism and the soviet period generally as a distortion of scientific marxism I posted more than once.



I am not clear what you mean by the "communist sector" of the economy unless you are referring to subsidised services such as free education, health care and the like. This is not unique to state capitalist countries. Western economies have this too and these subsidised services are paid for out of general taxation on industry. In capitalism whatsever form it takes there is no such thing as a free lunch. These free services enable the capitalists to hold down real wages in the paid sector. Indeed Beveridge's proposals in the 1940s for a welfare state in Britain was enthusiastically supported by the likes of Tory millionaires such as Sam Courtauld precisely on the grounds that it was a more cost effective solution than the peacemeal and haphazard practices under a system of private welfare. That speaks volumes in itself
Again. I posted this conception of DOTP (three-sector economy of the transition period) more than once. I think the talk would be more productive after familiarization with it.

[Paulappaul]

The DOTP is the necessary transition period, you won't be able to abolish monetary system 'by one stroke', 'from night to day'. Hence you will be forced to use the monetary system/capitalist mode of production for the transition period while the communist sector will be developed enough to force out capitalist and state-capitalist sectors from economic area and thus the Proletarian State will 'wither away'. So while monetary system will exist proletariat will exist too and the proletarian power would be that evidence of degree of resistance to exploitation.

You have a pretty backward conception of a Revolution and what it implies. Most forms of Monetary exchange stop in the midst of a revolution, both sides in a state of civil war degenerate into a survival mode by which money doesn't matter. In the Spanish Revolution for instance in most places the monetary system was done away with, or replaced with labor notes. Churches and Large estates were ransacked, and resources were taken for the revolution regardless of any monetary exchange based on the principles of the Mutual Aid.

In the very midst of the Revolution i.e. "the transitional period" the monetary system is done away with out of the necessity of revolution and paralleled by this is the rise of the Communist mode of production present in the liberated zones, as in Spain and in Russia.

But furthermore, the proletariat exists so long as its relation to Capital exists. Do away with Capital and private property and there goes the Proletariat. The Monetary system insomuch becomes a means of exchange and does not continue the hierarchy of Capitalist production.


Do you had talked with old people who lived in stalin era? It is not so evident answer you have. Don't forget enthusiasm soviet people had before WWII.

There is was alot of enthusiasm where I lived for a new soccer field a couple months ago. Turned out to be a real piece of shit and alot of wasted tax dollars.

[robbo203]

The DOTP is the necessary transition period, you won't be able to abolish monetary system 'by one stroke', 'from night to day'. Hence you will be forced to use the monetary system/capitalist mode of production for the transition period while the communist sector will be developed enough to force out capitalist and state-capitalist sectors from economic area and thus the Proletarian State will 'wither away'. So while monetary system will exist proletariat will exist too and the proletarian power would be that evidence of degree of resistance to exploitation..

I have no problems with the idea of a transtion period within capitalism and before the capture of political power by a revolutionary socialist working class. I have an enormous problem with the ridiculous idea of a transition period after a revolutionary socialist working class has captured power only to allow capitalism to continue. Why the hell should the proletariat continue merely to resist the degree to which they are exploited? Why not end exploitation there and then and with it, themselves as the exploited class, and capitalism altogether.

You say you can't abolish money at a stroke but what do you propose to do? Abolish it dollar by dollar or touble by rouble? That is absurd. You havent thought this through. By its very nature money has to be abolished as a stroke




This 'talk of a subject class being a ruling class' is only a product of imagination of robbo203. We have to talk about the capitalist mode of production temporarily used by the proletariat during the transition period while non-monetary system in communist sector of economy would be developed enough...

I agree with the idea of developing non-monetary grassroot alternatives to commodity production before the capture of political by a revolutionary socialist working class class but after that, to talk using the capitalist mode of production while developing the communist sector is just plain ridiculous. Capitalism means the workers remain an exploited subject class and its is hardly fanciful to say it is absurd that they can be both a subject class and a ruling class




Did you live in the former USSR? Do you had talked with old people who lived in stalin era? It is not so evident answer you have. Don't forget enthusiasm soviet people had before WWII.
My opinion about nature of stalinism and the soviet period generally as a distortion of scientific marxism I posted more than once.

...

I have been to the former USSR several times My girlfiend at the the time lived in Moscow teaching English. Ordinary muscovites I found to be very friendly and incredibly generous despite their poverty. The conditions in which they lived were terrible. Crumbling decaying tenement buildings and the like. If Moscow was meant to be the jewel in the Soviet crown I shudder to think what the rest of the country was like. St Petersbrug was interesting but again the same picture of neglect and decay for most people

[Jalapeno Enema]

Short and sweet:

Dictatorship of the Proletariat
This is a transitional between capitalism and communism where the state is run with absolute power by the working class.