Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[Tommy4ever]

Terrible choice of words that phrase was. You rarely come across a single person who can grasp the idea of ''class dictatorship'' without thinking this just means a normal dictatorship with either a working class dictator or a dictator claiming to represent that class.

*sigh*

Even on revleft (you know, that place where all us out of touch commies who tend to read alot of texts that mention this concept hang out) a significant number of people seem to mistake the idea of class dictatorship with the conventional idea of a dictator.

Damn words! Always ruining good ideas!

[GPDP]

I would say the choice of words was perfectly fine at the time. It wasn't until recently that dictatorship came to mean authoritarian rule by one or a few people exclusively, and pro-bourgeois anti-communist opportunists of course used that to their advantage.

Honestly, if it wasn't "dictatorship of the proletariat," it would've been something else. The ruling class and its shills will always find ways to discredit us and label us enemies of freedom and all that is good in the world.

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

One must remember the period 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' was written in, late 19th Century. The monstrous individual and group dictatorships of Stalinism, and Fascism I may add, was not on the cards. These were 20th Century phenomenon. A better way of putting it is 'workers democracy' within the framework of the socialist transformation of society.

[Rusty Shackleford]

dictatorship is basically boiled down to one individual or group having its way politically.

in this context, all class societies are dictatorships.

[Threetune]

One must remember the period 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' was written in, late 19th Century. The monstrous individual and group dictatorships of Stalinism, and Fascism I may add, was not on the cards. These were 20th Century phenomenon. A better way of putting it is 'workers democracy' within the framework of the socialist transformation of society.

Yuk,
There’s nothing wrong with ‘dictatorship’. You understand it, so why shouldn’t other workers understand it? It is meant to do ‘what is says on the tin’, defeat the 'dictatorship' of the capitalist class. Or do you want to revise that and everything else as well?

[Sun at Eight]

It is archaic and every introductory political text that uses the term should take heed to carefully explain it. I'm not going to accidentally open any tendency or sectarian wars by listing organizations whose material has done this. It is not the fault of any reader who speaks 21st (or indeed most of the 20th) century English, even though the change occurred in the last 150 years.

Another annoying trend on Revleft is to very smugly reply to people who use the term "dictator" in discussing "actually existing socialism" to avoid discussing the actual question, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

[ZeroNowhere]

It is just about the best possible phrasing.

[SacRedMan]

Democracy is the dictatorship of the majority
Communism is the dictatorship of the working class(=majority)

For bringing communism and democracy together, I suggest the party system of the Bolshewiks before 1921, when they could had free voting, debates etc.

[Savage]

People not liking the word 'Dictatorship' ultimately matters little. Communists don't seek to install bourgeois party dictatorships over capitalist states whilst slapping on a 'socialist' label, we support communism as the workers' struggle against capital which can be propelled by no minority of intellectuals and is beyond the control of any single person; revolution is the product of capital. The successful result of class struggle is the political power of the proletariat which transforms the social relations of capital, whether we consider this process of communization to be the product of a class dictatorship or not does not matter as long as ultimately, we have the same program, which is not necessarily strangled by semantics.

[robbo203]

Terrible choice of words that phrase was. You rarely come across a single person who can grasp the idea of ''class dictatorship'' without thinking this just means a normal dictatorship with either a working class dictator or a dictator claiming to represent that class.

*sigh*

Even on revleft (you know, that place where all us out of touch commies who tend to read alot of texts that mention this concept hang out) a significant number of people seem to mistake the idea of class dictatorship with the conventional idea of a dictator.

Damn words! Always ruining good ideas!

Its not just the words themselves that are the problem - though Hal Draper has conclusively demonstrated that, by "dictatorship", Marx did not mean what we commonly associate with that term today - its the underlying conception: the notion that an exploited class can somehow rule over the class that exploits it . Its like saying the slaves in chattel slavery should be able to tell the slave owners what to do while remaining slaves. That notion is incoherent. If workers are in a position to rule or dictate terms, politically speaking, then it follows they are in a position to end their exploited status and hence do away with themselves as a proletariat as well as the need for a so called dictatorship of the proletariat

The whole concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is something that needs to be binned. It is a pointless and potentially delusional construction

[Savage]

If workers are in a position to rule or dictate terms, politically speaking, then it follows they are in a position to end their exploited status and hence do away with themselves as a proletariat as well as the need for a so called dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, this is the point of the theory. The perpetuation of the proletariat's existence as a class is not the point.

[robbo203]

Yes, this is the point of the theory. The perpetuation of the proletariat's existence as a class is not the point.

That would be true if it was case that the DOTP did not entail some unspecified period of time during which the proletariat asserts its "rule" and thereby perpetuated its existence, if by the DOTP was simply meant that straightforward capture of state power in order to immediately abolish capitalism and classes.

Unfortunately this is not generally how the concept of the DOTP is seen. It is clearly seen by its advocates as a transitional period during which the proletariat exists as a class and whose existence is thus perpetuated with all the illogicalities that entails as I pointed out in my previous post

[Savage]

That would be true if it was case that the DOTP did not entail some unspecified period of time during which the proletariat asserts its "rule" and thereby perpetuated its existence, if by the DOTP was simply meant that straightforward capture of state power in order to immediately abolish capitalism and classes.

If this immediate abolition was possible then of course it would be undertaken, but as communization is not an instant process, the proletarian still exists as a class as long the task of communism has not yet been for filled, their class nature remains as long as the task does, the interest of the bourgeoisie remains as they wish to re-instate capital. The period of transition is not a third mode of production between capitalism and communism, and of course the time taken in the process of communization cannot be specified unless we wish to abandon materialism. For those that advocate a communist understanding of the DOTP, the proletariat must seize political power, and revolutionize social relations to the point that a dictatorship is no longer even possible; they abolish their own nature as a class.

As I said before, we can agree on the program of the proletariat seizing political power and changing the social relations from there; whether we use the same terminology or not does not matter as long as we realize that we are united.

[robbo203]

If this immediate abolition was possible then of course it would be undertaken, but as communization is not an instant process, the proletarian still exists as a class as long the task of communism has not yet been for filled, their class nature remains as long as the task does, the interest of the bourgeoisie remains as they wish to re-instate capital. The period of transition is not a third mode of production between capitalism and communism, and of course the time taken in the process of communization cannot be specified unless we wish to abandon materialism. For those that advocate a communist understanding of the DOTP, the proletariat must seize political power, and revolutionize social relations to the point that a dictatorship is no longer even possible; they abolish their own nature as a class.

As I said before, we can agree on the program of the proletariat seizing political power and changing the social relations from there; whether we use the same terminology or not does not matter as long as we realize that we are united.


Here's a suggestion to get round this problem ...

You seem to recognise the inherent illogicality of proposing a period of time - a transition - during which the proletariat exercises political power but remains itself an exploited class despite this. Yet you argue that "communisation is not an instant process" and therefore a proletariat having seized power, will need time to effect this process of communisation

I disagree with your contention that communisation is not an instant process. In fact I would argue it cannot but be anything other than an "instant process". You cannot have something in between private or sectional ownership of the means of production and common ownership of those means - anymore than you can be "a little bit pregnant". You are either one or the other . Pregnant or not. With common ownership or not. This is why the Communist Manifesto talked of communism being the most radical rupture with existing property relationships...

What you are really referring to are the condictions required in order to effect this communisation process, which process I would contend is necessarily intantaneous. Creating a suitable envrionment in which this instantaneous process of "communisation" is, however, another matter. You can perhaps talk about a transtion in that sense.

But here I would suggest that instead of talking about a dictatorship of the proletariat in terms of a proletariat that has seised political power, the transition could relate instead to the period preceding this event when the communist movement is gaining ground and influence and communist ideas are more or less rapidly transforming the social outlook

Rethinking the whole idea of the transition in these terms - as something that happens before and not after the capture of political power - gets round the obvious absurdity contained in the idea of the DOTP of an exploited class riuling over its exploiters for some unspecified period of time

[Savage]

Here's a suggestion to get round this problem ...

You seem to recognise the inherent illogicality of proposing a period of time - a transition - during which the proletariat exercises political power but remains itself an exploited class despite this. Yet you argue that "communisation is not an instant process" and therefore a proletariat having seized power, will need time to effect this process of communisation

I disagree with your contention that communisation is not an instant process. In fact I would argue it cannot but be anything other than an "instant process". You cannot have something in between private or sectional ownership of the means of production and common ownership of those means - anymore than you can be "a little bit pregnant". You are either one or the other . Pregnant or not. With common ownership or not. This is why the Communist Manifesto talked of communism being the most radical rupture with existing property relationships...

What you are really referring to are the condictions required in order to effect this communisation process, which process I would contend is necessarily intantaneous. Creating a suitable envrionment in which this instantaneous process of "communisation" is, however, another matter. You can perhaps talk about a transtion in that sense.

But here I would suggest that instead of talking about a dictatorship of the proletariat in terms of a proletariat that has seised political power, the transition could relate instead to the period preceding this event when the communist movement is gaining ground and influence and communist ideas are more or less rapidly transforming the social outlook

Rethinking the whole idea of the transition in these terms - as something that happens before and not after the capture of political power - gets round the obvious absurdity contained in the idea of the DOTP of an exploited class riuling over its exploiters for some unspecified period of time

I'm going to have to quote Troploins' 'communisation' article on this because I think they are spot on, and can elaborate on this subject much better than I can,

''We are not talking about a plan to be fulfilled one day, a project adequate to the needs of the proletarians (and ultimately of humankind), but one that would be exterior to them, like blueprints on the architect's drawing-board before the house is built. Communisation depends on what the proletarian is and does. The major difference between Marx and utopian socialists is to be found in Marx's main concern : the labour-capital exploitation relation. Because the proletarian is the heart and body of capital, he or she carries communist potentials within himself or herself. When capital stops buying labour power, labour is nothing. So every deep social crisis opens the possibility for the proletarians to try and invent "something else". Most of the time, nearly all the time in fact, their reaction is far from communism, but the possibility of a breakthrough does exist, as has been proved by a succession of endeavours throughout modern times, from the English Luddites in 1811 to the Greek insurgents in 2008.
This is why it would be pointless to imagine an utterly different society if we fail to understand the present society and how we could move from one to the other. We must consider what communism is, how it could come about, and who would be in the best position to implement the historical change.''


''We would have nothing to object to the concept of transition if it simply stated the obvious: communism will not be achieved in a flash. Yet the concept implies a lot more, and something totally different: not simply a transitory moment, but a full-fledged transitory society. However debatable Marx's labour vouchers are, at least his Critique of the Gotha programme (1875) was trying to describe a society without money, therefore without wage-labour. His scheme of a time-based currency was supposed to be a provisional way of rewarding everyone according to his or her contribution to the creation of common wealth. Afterwards, when social-democrats and Leninists came to embrace the notion of transition, they forgot that objective, and their sole concern was the running of a planned economy. (Although anarchists usually reject a transitory period, they lay the emphasis on management, via worker unions or via a confederation of communes: in the best of cases, when the suppression of wage-labour remains on the agenda, it is only as an effect of the socialisation of production, not as one of its causes.)
It is obvious that such a deep and all-encompassing transformation as communism will span decades, perhaps several generations before it takes over the world. Until then, it will be straddling two eras, and remain vulnerable to internal decay and/or destruction from outside, all the more so as various countries and continents will not be developing new relationships at the same pace. Some areas may lag behind for a long time. Others may go through temporary chaos. But the main point is that the communising process has to start as soon as possible. The closer to Day One the transformation begins and the deeper it goes from the beginning, the greater the likelihood of its success.
So there will a "transition" in the sense that communism will not be achieved overnight. But there will not be a "transition period" in what has become the traditional Marxist sense: a period that is no longer capitalist but not yet communist, a period in which the working class would still work, but not for profit or for the boss any more, only for themselves: they would go on developing the "productive forces" (factories, consumer goods, etc.) before being able to enjoy the then fully-matured fruit of industrialization. This is not the programme of a communist revolution. It was not in the past and it is not now. There is no need to go on developing industry, especially industry as it is now. And we are not stating this because of the ecology movement and the anti-industry trend in the radical milieu. As someone said forty years ago, half of the factories will have to be closed.
Some areas will lag behind and others may plunge into temporary chaos. The abolition of money will result in fraternal, non-profit, cooperative relations, but sometimes barter or the black market are likely to surface. Nobody knows how we will evolve from false capitalist abundance to new ways of life, but let us not expect the move to be smooth and peaceful everywhere and all the time.
We will only modify our food habits, for example, as we modify our tastes: changing circumstances go along with changing minds, as was written in the third Thesis on Feuerbach in 1845. Our intention is not to create a new man, virtuous, reasonable, always able and willing to master his desires, always respectful of sound dietary rules. About a century ago, chestnuts were the staple food of some rural areas of the French Central Massif. Such a "poor" diet does not compare favourably with the variety we have been accustomed to in "rich" countries. But the future is written nowhere. We might well enjoy a more limited range of dishes than the abundance currently sold in the supermarket.''


As for the pregnancy metaphor, as long as the process of communization exists, we are still in a capitalist society, albeit continuously moving towards communism. As this society is in continuous movement, the proletariat is still the proletariat as they are struggling to achieve their communist goal; workers' councils are not ends in themselves.

I fail to see how the process of communization can possibly be instantaneous, I'm interested as to your thoughts on this, but I'm afraid I see it as fairly ludicrous that the international defeat of capital is, even after the political victory of the proletariat, a one step process.

[Kadir Ateş]

I have to agree with Savage, with the caveat that it depends on the structural conditions of capital throughout the world, especially in the underdeveloped countries. For them, the question which has to be considered is: how can communised workers in what was the "First World" be able to provide help, particularly materiel, for those in places like Sub-Saharan Africa, parts of East and Southeast Asia, etc.?

Communisation doesn't necessarily negate a "transition program" but certainly not one as conducted by the Bolsheviks, particularly in the Russian countryside where they forcefully extracted wheat surpluses in order to feed the proles in the urban areas like Petrograd.

I am partial to the more abstract schema as laid out by Troploin and Theorie Communiste, but we shouldn't be afraid of attempting to think about doing this through a plan.

[robbo203]

I'm going to have to quote Troploins' 'communisation' article on this because I think they are spot on, and can elaborate on this subject much better than I can,

''We are not talking about a plan to be fulfilled one day, a project adequate to the needs of the proletarians (and ultimately of humankind), but one that would be exterior to them, like blueprints on the architect's drawing-board before the house is built. Communisation depends on what the proletarian is and does. The major difference between Marx and utopian socialists is to be found in Marx's main concern : the labour-capital exploitation relation. Because the proletarian is the heart and body of capital, he or she carries communist potentials within himself or herself. When capital stops buying labour power, labour is nothing. So every deep social crisis opens the possibility for the proletarians to try and invent "something else". Most of the time, nearly all the time in fact, their reaction is far from communism, but the possibility of a breakthrough does exist, as has been proved by a succession of endeavours throughout modern times, from the English Luddites in 1811 to the Greek insurgents in 2008.
This is why it would be pointless to imagine an utterly different society if we fail to understand the present society and how we could move from one to the other. We must consider what communism is, how it could come about, and who would be in the best position to implement the historical change.''


''We would have nothing to object to the concept of transition if it simply stated the obvious: communism will not be achieved in a flash. Yet the concept implies a lot more, and something totally different: not simply a transitory moment, but a full-fledged transitory society. However debatable Marx's labour vouchers are, at least his Critique of the Gotha programme (1875) was trying to describe a society without money, therefore without wage-labour. His scheme of a time-based currency was supposed to be a provisional way of rewarding everyone according to his or her contribution to the creation of common wealth. Afterwards, when social-democrats and Leninists came to embrace the notion of transition, they forgot that objective, and their sole concern was the running of a planned economy. (Although anarchists usually reject a transitory period, they lay the emphasis on management, via worker unions or via a confederation of communes: in the best of cases, when the suppression of wage-labour remains on the agenda, it is only as an effect of the socialisation of production, not as one of its causes.)
It is obvious that such a deep and all-encompassing transformation as communism will span decades, perhaps several generations before it takes over the world. Until then, it will be straddling two eras, and remain vulnerable to internal decay and/or destruction from outside, all the more so as various countries and continents will not be developing new relationships at the same pace. Some areas may lag behind for a long time. Others may go through temporary chaos. But the main point is that the communising process has to start as soon as possible. The closer to Day One the transformation begins and the deeper it goes from the beginning, the greater the likelihood of its success.
So there will a "transition" in the sense that communism will not be achieved overnight. But there will not be a "transition period" in what has become the traditional Marxist sense: a period that is no longer capitalist but not yet communist, a period in which the working class would still work, but not for profit or for the boss any more, only for themselves: they would go on developing the "productive forces" (factories, consumer goods, etc.) before being able to enjoy the then fully-matured fruit of industrialization. This is not the programme of a communist revolution. It was not in the past and it is not now. There is no need to go on developing industry, especially industry as it is now. And we are not stating this because of the ecology movement and the anti-industry trend in the radical milieu. As someone said forty years ago, half of the factories will have to be closed.
Some areas will lag behind and others may plunge into temporary chaos. The abolition of money will result in fraternal, non-profit, cooperative relations, but sometimes barter or the black market are likely to surface. Nobody knows how we will evolve from false capitalist abundance to new ways of life, but let us not expect the move to be smooth and peaceful everywhere and all the time.
We will only modify our food habits, for example, as we modify our tastes: changing circumstances go along with changing minds, as was written in the third Thesis on Feuerbach in 1845. Our intention is not to create a new man, virtuous, reasonable, always able and willing to master his desires, always respectful of sound dietary rules. About a century ago, chestnuts were the staple food of some rural areas of the French Central Massif. Such a "poor" diet does not compare favourably with the variety we have been accustomed to in "rich" countries. But the future is written nowhere. We might well enjoy a more limited range of dishes than the abundance currently sold in the supermarket.''


As for the pregnancy metaphor, as long as the process of communization exists, we are still in a capitalist society, albeit continuously moving towards communism. As this society is in continuous movement, the proletariat is still the proletariat as they are struggling to achieve their communist goal; workers' councils are not ends in themselves.

I fail to see how the process of communization can possibly be instantaneous, I'm interested as to your thoughts on this, but I'm afraid I see it as fairly ludicrous that the international defeat of capital is, even after the political victory of the proletariat, a one step process.



The first thing to note is that I am not decrying the idea of a "transitional period" as such. What I am specifically against is that such a transition should commence directly after the capture of political power. Insofar as the wage labour-capital relation is retained - and this is impled in the notion of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - this means you still have capitalism essentially and a supposed proletarian government charged with administering this capitalism. You can see the obvious danger here, can't you? Capital can only be operated in the interests of the capitalists and so those who seek to administer capitalism - whatever their intentions to the contrary - will be drawn to side with the interests of the capital against those of wage labour. This was the case with the various Labour and Social Democratic parties, the Bolsheviks and numerous others. Without exception they all ended up administering capitalism - or some version of capitalism - and instead of transforming capitalism in the interests of workers were themselves transformed by capitalism


Secondly I think it is important to keep clearly in mind what the transition period relates to. You cannot have a transition between capitalism and communism. You can have a transition within capitalism or within communism but not between them. This is a logical deduction that follows from an understanding of the nature of both systems. You either have one or the other. You cannot have a little bit of one and a little bit of the other anymore, as I said, than you can be a little bit pregnant

THe DOTP is clearly not a transition between capitalism and communismn despite what Marx said. It is still clearly a part of capitalism since the essential categories of capitalism - like generalised wage labour - are retained. The lower stage of communism - "labour voucher communism" - is likewise not a transtion between capitalism and communism but is already communism and is a transitional period within communism

You say "as long as the process of communization exists, we are still in a capitalist society, albeit continuously moving towards communism. As this society is in continuous movement, the proletariat is still the proletariat as they are struggling to achieve their communist goal". With respect, this is a bit vague and all turns on what you mean by "communization".

I have no objection to the idea you put forward here if by it you mean a kind of cultural transformation of society towards a communistic outlook and a communistric set of values as against the prevailing capitalist outlook.

However if you mean by communization the gradual conversion of the means of production within capitalism into the common property of everyone then, Im afraid, this is a non starter and for the reasons indicated. Those charged with administering capitalism are going to have to admnister the system in the interests of capital rather than seeks its gradual abolition. This is not to rule out the bottom up emergence of institutiions that mirror or prefigure a future communist society in their internal set up - such as intentional commnities, mutual aid projects and so on. I myself favour this approach but this is radicaly different from the top down idea of first capturing political power and then gradually making the means of production the common property of all.

In my view the democratic capture of state power should not even be remotely attempted unless and until we workers are pretty clear that we have the majority of fellow workers on our side wanting and understanding a communist alternative to capitalism. When that happens there will simply be no need for a so called transition period. The transition period within capitalism will have come to end and we will be able to dispense with capitalism completely and immediately

[Savage]

Secondly I think it is important to keep clearly in mind what the transition period relates to. You cannot have a transition between capitalism and communism. You can have a transition within capitalism or within communism but not between them. This is a logical deduction that follows from an understanding of the nature of both systems. You either have one or the other. You cannot have a little bit of one and a little bit of the other anymore, as I said, than you can be a little bit pregnant.
THe DOTP is clearly not a transition between capitalism and communismn despite what Marx said. It is still clearly a part of capitalism since the essential categories of capitalism - like generalised wage labour - are retained. The lower stage of communism - "labour voucher communism" - is likewise not a transtion between capitalism and communism but is already communism and is a transitional period within communismWe are not saying that between capitalism and communism the transition stage is a third mode of production, indeed, as long as class exists, so to does capital, but the point is that, in the process of changing the social relation of capital, the proletariat is in a position of political power, and must change these social relations, in the process of their self abolition as a class. My question to you is, how is the proletariat to negate capital in one step? Be it one week or a year, there will be time between the political assumption of power by the proletariat and the overthrow of capital, this time constituting the class dictatorship of the proletariat whilst they conduct their program, during the culmination of class struggle.



The transition period within capitalism will have come to end and we will be able to dispense with capitalism completely and immediatelyBut how is this possible? How can social relations be revolutionized instantaneously? Workers can seize power without changing the social relation of capital; they will remain subject to the market. If capital is to be overcome, political power must be captured, but this does not instantly abolish class, the expropriated bourgeoisie do not loose their class interest and neither does the proletariat, as their communist task is not complete.

[robbo203]

We are not saying that between capitalism and communism the transition stage is a third mode of production, indeed, as long as class exists, so to does capital, but the point is that, in the process of changing the social relation of capital, the proletariat is in a position of political power, and must change these social relations, in the process of their self abolition as a class. My question to you is, how is the proletariat to negate capital in one step? .

But in a way you have already answered your own question. If there is nothing in between capitalism and communism, if there is no third mode of production then logically that must mean the the shidt from capitalism to communism is accomplished in one step




Be it one week or a year, there will be time between the political assumption of power by the proletariat and the overthrow of capital, this time constituting the class dictatorship of the proletariat whilst they conduct their program, during the culmination of class struggle.


But how is this possible? How can social relations be revolutionized instantaneously? Workers can seize power without changing the social relation of capital; they will remain subject to the market. If capital is to be overcome, political power must be captured, but this does not instantly abolish class, the expropriated bourgeoisie do not loose their class interest and neither does the proletariat, as their communist task is not complete.


I think you are confusing two things here. The revolutionary capture of state power is not in itself a program; it is a socially explicit signal to coordinate the necessarily instantaneous (see above) changeover from capitalism to communism and vest this process with the social authority or legitimacy it needs


The program that you talk of would be conceived well before this event and implemented within the framework of the new socially legitimised relationships of production of communism; you do not need such program of converting previously private owned property to common property to establish such a framework in the first place. The implementation of such a framework and the democratic capture of state power amount to the same thing

[Savage]

But in a way you have already answered your own question. If there is nothing in between capitalism and communism, if there is no third mode of production then logically that must mean the the shidt from capitalism to communism is accomplished in one step


I think you are confusing two things here. The revolutionary capture of state power is not in itself a program; it is a socially explicit signal to coordinate the necessarily instantaneous (see above) changeover from capitalism to communism and vest this process with the social authority or legitimacy it needsIn the process of communisation, capitalism is continuously moving towards communism, but it is still capitalist, even in decay. To give you are fairly lame metaphor, a dying person is still alive. We are sort of going in circles here, I think this discussion would be best diverted to the Communisation Theory group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=747) where we could probably get something more substantial, here you could perhaps go into further detail of how capital, the global social relation, could possibly be overcome instantaneously.

[robbo203]

In the process of communisation, capitalism is continuously moving towards communism, but it is still capitalist, even in decay. To give you are fairly lame metaphor, a dying person is still alive. We are sort of going in circles here, I think this discussion would be best diverted to the Communisation Theory group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=747) where we could probably get something more substantial, here you could perhaps go into further detail of how capital, the global social relation, could possibly be overcome instantaneously.


To go with your metaphor, I think it needs to be noted that the death of the person happens at a point in time. At one moment you are still alive; the next, dead. Dying is a process, yes, but the state of being alive and the state of being dead are qualitatively different

Its the same with the communisation process you mention. Like I said, I am not averse at all to talking about the idea of communistic type relationships, embodied in institutions, such as intentional communities or mutual aid projects, prefiguring in some sense a future communist society and developing within the shell of capitalist society. But you have to make a distinction between these prefigurative communistic type relationships and communism as a global society to replace capitalism as a global society. There is, as yourself agree, no third mode of production between capitalism and communism. In that sense the changeoveer from capitalism to communism at a systems level has to be - logically speaking - an instantaneous process. It cant be anything else. That doesnt mean you cannot have communistic type relationships taking hold within a still existing capitalist society - anymore than a person cannot be said to be dying while he/she is still alive.


This all ties in with the the idea of the proletarian dictatorship which, to me, is an absurd construction and a dangerous one too from the point of view of the communist movement. Such an idea presupposes the continuation of capitalism and therefore of a proletarian government that will necessarily have to administer capitalism in the interests of capital and not wage labour since there is no other way to administer capitalism. Betrayal is thus structurally built into the very concept of the DOTP from the start.

The rationale that is often advanced for the DOTP is that it "takes time" to implement a communist programme. But this as I said is based on a complete misunderstanding of what a communist revolution is really about. It is not about implementing some programme though, of course, there will be programmes to be implemented to technically adapt and modifiy existing capitalist institutions along communist lines. But that is something that happens inside a communist society, inside a society that has already undergone a communism revolution. It is not what the revolutiuon as such is about. Here we see the problem with drawing upon examples of capitalist revolutions to serve as a kind of template for a future communist revolution - where bourgeois revolutiuonaries would sollicit support on the basis of a set of promised reforms.

The communist revolution via the democratic caputure of state power is predicated on something entirely different. It is not at all about electing a government to do something for and behalf of the workers. Rather it is a symbolic event signifying the readiness to switch over to a communist society . It is about how to coodirnate this switch in a way which is expliitly recognised by society as a whole and is thus vested with social legitimacy. And, as I say, by the very nature of things, this switch has logically to be an instantaneous one becuase there is nothing in betweeen capitalism and communism

A proletarian government will not have signified a communust revolutiuon has taken place, such a revolutuion will still have to take place if a future communist society is to be instituted. That is why it absoluely essential that state power should not be captured before a majority of workers understad and want communism - because, short of this, those who capture power allegedlly on behalf of the workers will betray and turn against those workers. This is a copper bottomed guarantee. History provides abundant examples where this happened. The point is that once youve got a majority who clearly want and understand communism there is simply no need to dither around with some so called transition period; you will have met the precondition required for the immediate introduction of a communist society

Thanks for your invitation to join the Communisation Theory Group which I will take up. Whatever our differences I think is important to discuss these ideas...

[Savage]

I'm going to begin a thread in the Communisation Theory group for this discussion to continue, I hope you don't mind.