History Teaches That No Oppressed Class Ever Achieved Power Without A Dictatorhip

[Rakhmetov]

"History teaches us that no oppressed class ever did, or could, achieve power without going through a period of dictatorship."--Lenin


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/comintern.htm#s2

[Hexen]

I guess it also means that Capitalism will inevitably devolve into a dictatorship eventually...

[Princess Luna]

Lenin is not comparable to any revolutionary figure in history. Revolutionaries have had ideals. Lenin has none - Kropotkin

[Obs]

Lenin is not comparable to any revolutionary figure in history. Revolutionaries have had ideals. Lenin has none - Kropotkin
Revolutions successfully instigated by Lenin: 1
Revolutions successfully instigated by Kropotkin: 0

Who's the revolutionary here?

Also, Mengistu, this habit you're developing of making threads that are nothing but a quote and a link to a text by Lenin is a bit silly.

[Pretty Flaco]

And how many dictatorships have ever achieved socialism?

[Savage]

I guess it also means that Capitalism will inevitably devolve into a dictatorship eventually...
Every state is a dictatorship.

[Mr.Awesome]

But some states are more of a dictatorship than others :)

[Rakhmetov]

Every state is a dictatorship.


USA = A dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

USSR = A dictatorship of the proletariat

[Apoi_Viitor]

USA = A dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

USSR = A dictatorship of the proletariat

Meh, did Marx actually believe that in a bourgeios democracy, power was efficiently centralized like a dictatorship? Or was that just a revision of Marx's theory that Lenin added?

Also, could someone explain this concept to me the concept of a "dictatorship of the bourgeios"? I've asked this question before, but have yet to find a satisfactory answer...

[Jose Gracchus]

How many of these one-quote, no-commentary grenade-spam-threads are you going to start?

Do we really need another argument on the linguistic and semantic distinctions between dictatorship in the liberal or literal sense or in the Marxian sense?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Revolutions successfully instigated by Lenin: 1
Revolutions successfully instigated by Kropotkin: 0

Who's the revolutionary here?

I'm probably a bigger critic of Kropotkin than you are, but this is a fucking stupid line of argument.

Think about shit before you post it.

Nic.

[Zanthorus]

What exactly is the point of this thread supposed to be?

[Princess Luna]

Revolutions successfully instigated by Lenin: 1
Revolutions successfully instigated by Kropotkin: 0

Who's the revolutionary here?

Also, Mengistu, this habit you're developing of making threads that are nothing but a quote and a link to a text by Lenin is a bit silly.
seeing how the history of the U.S.S.R. went , the fact Russia is capitalist now days , and the fact communism=bloody dictatorship in the minds of a lot people thanks to Lenin and his cohorts .........i am going with Kropotkin

[Tablo]

This thread is awful, just awful.

[Obs]

I'm probably a bigger critic of Kropotkin than you are, but this is a fucking stupid line of argument.
Yes.


Think about shit before you post it.
No.

[blake 3:17]

Also, Mengistu, this habit you're developing of making threads that are nothing but a quote and a link to a text by Lenin is a bit silly.

I'm quite often sympathetic to MHM, but yes please do write a little more. Just a bit of motivation would go a long way.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

What exactly is the point of this thread supposed to be?

flame bait.

[the last donut of the night]

Lenin is not comparable to any revolutionary figure in history. Revolutionaries have had ideals. Lenin has none - Kropotkin

sigh

[RedSonRising]

Well if you're going to use the word dictatorship to reference proletarians as a class taking power from the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie well...yea. No oppressed class has ever become empowered without being empowered.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Grrr....stop complaining about this thread and answer my damn question! :D


Meh, did Marx actually believe that in a bourgeios democracy, power was efficiently centralized like a dictatorship? Or was that just a revision of Marx's theory that Lenin added?

Also, could someone explain this concept to me the concept of a "dictatorship of the bourgeios"? I've asked this question before, but have yet to find a satisfactory answer...

[Thirsty Crow]

The political rule of the bourgeoisie, effective "macro-management" of capital and social struggles with the aim of preserving capitalism.
In liberal discourse, "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" could also be made to refer to Fascism, I guess.

[DuracellBunny97]

Lenin, a dictator

[Imposter Marxist]

Lenin, a dictator

DuracellBunny97, a moron.

[Pretty Flaco]

This guys a dictator, those people are idealists, they never made revolution, let's live in the past, yadda yadda yadda

[Paulappaul]

Meh, did Marx actually believe that in a bourgeios democracy, power was efficiently centralized like a dictatorship? Or was that just a revision of Marx's theory that Lenin added?

Also, could someone explain this concept to me the concept of a "dictatorship of the bourgeios"? I've asked this question before, but have yet to find a satisfactory answer...

Marx does well to describe Bourgeois Democracy in his 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Basically a Republic is the general interests of the Bougeosis Class (see Rousseau's "General will"). Its organized as a Dictatorship in that it exercises it will through the State. Lenin is probably saying that, not literally Dictatorship.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What is the seizure of power by "an oppressed class"? Can a "class" run a state? I think the obvious answer is no - certainly, a state can serve a certain set of interests, but state machinery has a necessary form and function that precludes its being an organ of an entire class (hence nations, hence conflict among the bourgeoisie, hence the liberal-democratic form, etc.). You could maybe argue that a state could serve the interests of the proletariat, but, on the other hand, I think historical evidence speaks strongly against this perspective. The most inspiring moments of working class self-organization have always been outside and against the state - and statist leftists have consistently been a force for their co-optation or outright destruction.

There - I took the trollbait. You want to go, you sad historical re-enactor? Let's do it.
It's 2011 and, in modern (post-)industrial capitalist society, the party of insurrection outnumbers any sad ML grouplet. Right or wrong, we're going to be putting our ideas in to practice while you're hawking newspapers and trying to break 100 members.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

This is a perfect example of experienced and effective trolling.

[Tomhet]

Indeed, this is a rather horrible thread.. :sleep:

[Pavlov's House Party]

Marx does well to describe Bourgeois Democracy in his 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Basically a Republic is the general interests of the Bougeosis Class (see Rousseau's "General will"). Its organized as a Dictatorship in that it exercises it will through the State. Lenin is probably saying that, not literally Dictatorship.

The sense of the word "dictatorship" used by Marx is not the same as the way it is used today; dictatorship means that a certain class dictates the policy & organization of a country, not some authoritarian state with a sole leader. In this sense, a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" is any state in which the bourgeoisie are the dominant class, whereas a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a state ruled by the workers.

[Paulappaul]

The sense of the word "dictatorship" used by Marx is not the same as the way it is used today; dictatorship means that a certain class dictates the policy & organization of a country, not some authoritarian state with a sole leader. In this sense, a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" is any state in which the bourgeoisie are the dominant class, whereas a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a state ruled by the workers.

What I said. The term dictatorship normally refers to the Classical Roman Dictatura concept. More literally meaning Rulership. Marx extending it to class rule. Bougeosis Rulership is different from previous rulerships though. It presents itself as a united class, but is in reality, there is a division in the class. Which is why the Republic is great for Bourgeois and which is why the Monarchies and Emperors fail. In that the later represents one layer of the entire class, whereas a republic represents the general interests.

The Rulership of the Proletariat is a pointless term and much to stress is laid on it by Marxists. Infact its really annoying to see how many times these topics come up and to how much people care about defending the concept. I really prefer Communism to the whole idea. Generally because Anarchists can agree with the term.

[syndicat]

"History teaches us that no oppressed class ever did, or could, achieve power without going through a period of dictatorship."--Lenin

pathetic that people still put forward this poppycock.

history also teaches that no oppressed class of immediate producers has ever achieved power. full stop. Certainly the various "Communist" dictatorships were not situations where the workers were collectively exercizing power over their own lives on and off the job and their socities. they were repressive class societies where the working class continued to be dominated and exploited.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Has the OP not thought that perhaps the reason that Socialism, or any revolutionary change of political rule, has always crumbled and failed is because of this 'Dictatorship'. It's a most unfortunate phrase that is used on the left. No dictatorship should be celebrated.

I don't say this from a liberal point of view. When people talk about dictatorship of the proletariat, I agree with the sentiment that some express, but dictatorship is not the right word, since the overwhelming majority of the world is proletarian. Once you factor in the petit-bourgeois people who may side with us in any revolution, you end up having something that, if implemented correctly, is more akin to the phrase 'proletarian democracy', not 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. It's just a god-damn awful phrase in whose name some unspeakable acts have been committed. Killing anyone who even slightly opposes the rigid dogma of teh party-state may seem like a good idea in the short term, but it won't, ultimately, create the socialist society in the long-term that, as Socialists, we desire.

[Savage]

Has the OP not thought that perhaps the reason that Socialism, or any revolutionary change of political rule, has always crumbled and failed is because of this 'Dictatorship'. It's a most unfortunate phrase that is used on the left. No dictatorship should be celebrated.

I don't say this from a liberal point of view. When people talk about dictatorship of the proletariat, I agree with the sentiment that some express, but dictatorship is not the right word, since the overwhelming majority of the world is proletarian. Once you factor in the petit-bourgeois people who may side with us in any revolution, you end up having something that, if implemented correctly, is more akin to the phrase 'proletarian democracy', not 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. It's just a god-damn awful phrase in whose name some unspeakable acts have been committed. Killing anyone who even slightly opposes the rigid dogma of teh party-state may seem like a good idea in the short term, but it won't, ultimately, create the socialist society in the long-term that, as Socialists, we desire.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Proletarian Democracy are the same thing, theres no reason to change our terminology. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the rule of the entire proletarian class, not the authoritarian legislation of a party commanding a state that still retains the bourgeois apparatus.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Proletarian Democracy are the same thing, theres no reason to change our terminology. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the rule of the entire proletarian class, not the authoritarian legislation of a party commanding a state that still retains the bourgeois apparatus.

The problem is that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as we saw in the USSR, tended in the 20th century M-L revolutions to subordinate itself to the Dictatorship of the Party, and this to the Dictatorship of an ever-narrowing hierarchy within the Party.

A better strategy would be true Proletarian democracy, which does not involve such dictatorship, whereby the party, after the revolution, disbands itself as the ruling force in society (a principle that is inherently un-democratic) and the working class organise themselves, as an already united, conscious force, to oppose the threat of counter-revolution and advance Socialism.

[Soviet dude]

Lenin is not comparable to any revolutionary figure in history. Revolutionaries have had ideals. Lenin has none - Kropotkin

Kropotkin is the biggest fraud in the whole anarchist movement, spat upon by the overwhelming majority of anarchists in his own day, for his absolutely treacherous positions on WW1, and his support for the Kerensky government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Sixteen

History revealed who has principles and who doesn't, and Kropotkin didn't.

[Savage]

The problem is that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as we saw in the USSR, tended in the 20th century M-L revolutions to subordinate itself to the Dictatorship of the Party, and this to the Dictatorship of an ever-narrowing hierarchy within the Party.

A better strategy would be true Proletarian democracy, which does not involve such dictatorship, whereby the party, after the revolution, disbands itself as the ruling force in society (a principle that is inherently un-democratic) and the working class organise themselves, as an already united, conscious force, to oppose the threat of counter-revolution and advance Socialism.
That's why I'm a left communist, not a Marxist-Leninist. The only revolutions that exercised the Dictatorship of the Proletariat were the Paris Commune, Russia in 1905 and in the early years of the 1917 revolution and the German revolution. I understand if you want to call the Proletarian Dictatorship 'Proletarian Democracy' in stead, but the fact is its the exact same thing both practically and theoretically.

[Reznov]

Revolutions successfully instigated by Lenin: 1
Revolutions successfully instigated by Kropotkin: 0

Who's the revolutionary here?

Also, Mengistu, this habit you're developing of making threads that are nothing but a quote and a link to a text by Lenin is a bit silly.

What is this, a contest?

I'd rather have Kropotkins teachings be heard more than hearing about Lenin's revolution.

[pranabjyoti]

This thread is actually an example how much even "leftist" lack the basic knowledge of history. After the establishment of class, all the history of the mankind is class dictatorship and conflict. Even the worst dictators also represent some class. And if the class nature of the ruling class isn't changed, the both "dictatorship" and "democracy" are the same.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This thread is actually an example how much even "leftist" lack the basic knowledge of history. After the establishment of class, all the history of the mankind is class dictatorship and conflict. Even the worst dictators also represent some class. And if the class nature of the ruling class isn't changed, the both "dictatorship" and "democracy" are the same.

That's a ridiculous notion. By the very fact that you consider dictatorship and democracy to be one and the same, in the context of class analysis, you forfeit any right to represent Proletarian Democracy.

[Savage]

That's a ridiculous notion. By the very fact that you consider dictatorship and democracy to be one and the same, in the context of class analysis, you forfeit any right to represent Proletarian Democracy.
You need to understand the historical context of words. The Dictatorship was seen as the most democratic thing possible, it is a dictatorship because it allows the Proletarian class to insert democracy without repression from the Bourgeoisie, If it were not a dictatorship it would not be proletarian democracy.

[PhoenixAsh]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Proletarian Democracy are the same thing, theres no reason to change our terminology. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the rule of the entire proletarian class, not the authoritarian legislation of a party commanding a state that still retains the bourgeois apparatus.

The only problem is that in reality the terminology tends to be very effective in putting people off of communism and in the meantime handing the opposition some very effective ammunition against the whole concept of communism ("see...they even say themselves it is going to be a dictatorship....and you can not even own a teddybear" {and YES...this has been featured in the Childrens News some years back (probably 93-94 or so) in Holland}) .

This may not be very, very obvious to well educated, well read and informed communists and a concept that seems to be very hard to grasp for communist parties....but you tend to want to have popular support for any revolution and that is why you need lingo people who have not read the encyclopedia of communism from A-Z can understand and relate to without having to read 10 pages of explanation.

Terminology such as "dictatorship" tend to not have a very motivating effect on people. I do not know why...but it might have something to do with the political ideology being associated with 54 milj. murders.

Communism lost the propaganda war...what it basically comes down to is that you need to change the wrapping of the message.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The problem with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is that it creates potentially unnecessary enemies. Not every member of the bourgeoisie is a raving Capitalist, and certainly not every member of the petty-bourgeoisie. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat creates a state of siege which, to me, seemingly increases the number of people who move over to counter-revolutionary circles.

There are obviously certain people - CEOs and high level managers, monarchy, the extremely wealthy and also right-wing ideologues - who will never come over to our side, but there are a great many that will, if we are capable of providing a proper proletarian democracy, rather than simply a dictatorship of our class.

[Savage]

The problem with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is that it creates potentially unnecessary enemies. Not every member of the bourgeoisie is a raving Capitalist, and certainly not every member of the petty-bourgeoisie. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat creates a state of siege which, to me, seemingly increases the number of people who move over to counter-revolutionary circles.

There are obviously certain people - CEOs and high level managers, monarchy, the extremely wealthy and also right-wing ideologues - who will never come over to our side, but there are a great many that will, if we are capable of providing a proper proletarian democracy, rather than simply a dictatorship of our class.
If the Proletariat is to Revolutionize/socialize the means of production then the bourgeoisie simply must be excluded. This does not mean they are to be repressed beyond the exclusion of economic organization, as Rosa Luxemburg said
Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege. The revolutionary Dictatorship must not repress the rights of the bourgeoisie (unless you believe in the right wing fallacy of 'economic freedom').