Why is the dictatorship of the proletariat necessary? [Archive]

Aurora

29th July 2011, 12:26

Marxists view the state as an institution of organised violence by which one class suppresses the others. Within capitalist society the state (police, military, courts, government etc) is necessary to protect the interests of the capitalists and to guarantee their supremacy. This state is built to the needs of capitalism and capitalists and cannot by definition be used for the interests of the working class.
Marxists believe that when the working class seize power what they are seizing is power over the capitalists they need a state not in the interests of freedom but in order to smash the capitalists and develop the way forward to a socialist society. These institutions will of course have a different more democratic and socialist form from the capitalist ones but their character will be the same, dictatorship.
Revolutions don't happen world wide simultaneously they happen at the weakest links of capitalism and must spread to survive. If we take the example of Russia the military(part of the state) was needed to win the revolutionary war against the capitalists and afterwards was needed to protect from invasion by the capitalist powers.
When the world working class seizes hold of power and uses it to destroy the last vestiges of capitalism in doing so it will destroy itself as working class and the state will no longer be a necessity and will whither away.

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 16:41

A socialist revolution without a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat is not a socialist revolution.

As Lenin said in "The State and the Revolution"

"The dictatorship of the oppressed class is temporarily necessary for the abolition of classes."

"The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will, for the first time, create democracy for the people, for the majority, in addition to the necessary suppression of the minority- the exploiters. Communism alone is capable of giving really complete democracy, and the more complete it is the more quickly will it become unnecessary and wither away of itself."

Pretty Flaco

29th July 2011, 16:49

I think he might have confused the dictatorship of the proletariat.

"In Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) state in which the proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat), or industrial working class, have control of political power. Such an idea was purported by the founders of Marxism, Karl Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) and Friedrich Engels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels), in the 19th century. The use of the term "dictatorship" is controversial, and does not refer to the Classical Roman concept of the dictatura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator) (the governance of a state by a small group with no democratic process), but instead to the Marxist concept of dictatorship (that an entire societal class holds political and economic control, within a democratic system)." -Wikipedia

The dictatorship of the proletariat is just a state which functions to fulfill working class interests.

Arilou Lalee'lay

29th July 2011, 16:55

Some Marxists think just having a real democracy is plenty of assurance that the proletariat will have all the power. They still call it the dictatorship of the proletariat. Without the proletariat doing all of the dictating you don't have socialism, you have capitalism or a bureaucracy. Unless, of course, no one is dictating at all, which would make things quite difficult as long as scarcity is prevalent imho.

freya4

29th July 2011, 17:53

The proletariat must seize state power after the revolution or they will ultimately be defeated by the former ruling classes. The state functions as a tool to suppress any resistance by the bourgeoisie and create the material conditions necessary for communism. It is impossible for classless, stateless society to emerge directly from a class-based capitalist society. Classes will not disappear the morning after the revolution. Only once the proletariat gains power, abolishes private property and socializes the means of production will class society start to wither away, and along with it, the state, which simply an appendage of the ruling class.

Ele'ill

29th July 2011, 18:00

And what do the anarchists think of this?

AnonymousOne

29th July 2011, 18:12

And what do the anarchists think of this?

Lol, all people should be involved in the decision making process of a new socialist state. If we start banning people from decision making, it becomes easier to progressively increase the number of people banned.

"We'll only ban factory owners."

"Well, small buisness owners are bourgeoise as well."

"Farmers owned the land as a commodity and thus the means of production, so we'll kick them out too."

Etc. until a large chunk of the population is disenfranchised.

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 18:19

Lol, all people should be involved in the decision making process of a new socialist state. If we start banning people from decision making, it becomes easier to progressively increase the number of people banned.

"We'll only ban factory owners."

"Well, small buisness owners are bourgeoise as well."

"Farmers owned the land as a commodity and thus the means of production, so we'll kick them out too."

Etc. until a large chunk of the population is disenfranchised.

So.. you want to include the bourgeoise? Now you sound more like a uhm, I was going to say Maoist but they at least kick those guys out, so really you just sound like a Capitalist.

I think something important to contrast is the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the bourgeoise which we already have. We could be democratic within ourselves much like the bourgeoise are. It's in the material interests of the proletariat (and if they're claiming state power, they know it) to abolish all classes and Capitalism, so it's not like this State is going to really last that long.

AnonymousOne

29th July 2011, 18:24

So.. you want to include the bourgeoise? Now you sound more like a uhm, I was going to say Maoist but they at least kick those guys out, so really you just sound like a Capitalist.

I think something important to contrast is the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the bourgeoise which we already have. We could be democratic within ourselves much like the bourgeoise are. It's in the material interests of the proletariat (and if they're claiming state power, they know it) to abolish all classes and Capitalism, so it's not like this State is going to really last that long.

Errr, no. There wouldn't be a bourgeoise because they would cease to exist after the revolution, they would no longer control the means of production. They would be ex-Bourgeoise, but they wouldn't have any remaining privlege.

Every person deserves a say in the way society is structured and built.

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 18:26

ArrowLance

29th July 2011, 18:34

Why do almost all Marxists consider the dictatorship of the proletariat a necessary precursor to pure communism? Historically, it seems that socialist revolutions without the dictatorship of the proletariat phase were much more successful.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the only alternative to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Fopeos

29th July 2011, 18:38

I think people are conditioned to dislike the word "dictatorship." The dictatorship of the proletariat simply means that the working-class holds state power. Once workers have state power, we can appropriate the means of production from the capitalists. For a while, capitalists will continue to control some of the means of production but they won't have state power. They will no longer have the military or police to protect their property or prerogatives. Of course they'll be disenfranchised, that's the whole point. I f they want a say in the new system, they can get jobs.

Comrade Trotsky

29th July 2011, 18:41

The dictatorship of the proletariat is used to refer to a transition between Capitalism and Socialism.

I don't think anyone has a problem with allowing everyone to participate once we GET to Socialism, at that point there are no more classes as you pointed out.

How do you suppose that socialism could even come about if people didn't have a voice in it's construction? Since it is a system by and for the people, keeping anyones voice from being heard would be.. well.. not to socialist :mellow:

Aurora

29th July 2011, 18:41

And what do the anarchists think of this?
I'm not going to speak for the anarchists here but as far as i'm aware the anarchists were very supportive of the Paris Commune at the time, even as Engels proclaimed "Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat!"

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 19:13

How do you suppose that socialism could even come about if people didn't have a voice in it's construction? Since it is a system by and for the people, keeping anyones voice from being heard would be.. well.. not to socialist :mellow:

Socialism is not a system "by and for the people." We are Marxists because we hold no pretension to support anything greater than working class interests. It is in the interests of the working class to abolish the working class and classes in general. The only way this can happen is if the working class comes in control of society and is allowed to act on its own interests. The bourgeoise cannot do this, the petty-bourgeoise cannot do this, the lumpen-proletariat cannot do this, and the peasantry cannot do this.

Anarchists hold to a moral, and therefor sectarian doctrine of "anti-authoritarianism," which is morally incoherent in the same way pacifism is morally incoherent (yea shut-up ZeroNowhere, I may as well have copy-pasted it but whatever). Pacifism posits that violence is a bad thing, and that a peaceful world is a good to be desired, but pacifists would not engage in violence even to realise this good in the same way Anarchists would not engage in "authoritarianism" to achieve their "anti-authoritarian" aims. You refuse to use the tools that would allow you to achieve what you want just because the tools are different than what you want to use.

Capitalism does not give you the tools you would like to use, what we have is the State, that is how political power is concentrated and where the site of class-struggle is resolved. Once we have a dictatorship of the proletariat, the State and class-war will be winning on the side of the proletariat, bringing us closer to the end of all classes and States.

CHE with an AK

29th July 2011, 19:17

Capitalism likes the ease with which it can pervert democracy.

It is fairly easy to buy off and trick 51 % of the people.

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 19:23

Errr, no. There wouldn't be a bourgeoise because they would cease to exist after the revolution, they would no longer control the means of production. They would be ex-Bourgeoise, but they wouldn't have any remaining privlege.

Every person deserves a say in the way society is structured and built.

How exactly do you think the ex-bourgeoise become just that? Socialism has to be built, it is not something that comes into fruition without the revolutionary efforts of the proletariat. For the former members of the bourgeoisie to become functioning members of a socialist society, we must first expropriate their class entirely. This means their complete isolation from the political, economic, and social institutions of a society led by the proletariat state. It is necessary to dismantle the status quo of capitalism before the former capitalists are allowed to reenter into society.

If this step is forsaken, then you will simply see naturally the former members of the bourgeoisie act in a counter revolutionary fashion and act as a hindrance to the revolutionary progress of the working class.

AnonymousOne

29th July 2011, 19:35

Comrade Trotsky

29th July 2011, 19:45

Socialism is not a system "by and for the people." We are Marxists because we hold no pretension to support anything greater than working class interests. It is in the interests of the working class to abolish the working class and classes in general. The only way this can happen is if the working class comes in control of society and is allowed to act on its own interests. The bourgeoise cannot do this, the petty-bourgeoise cannot do this, the lumpen-proletariat cannot do this, and the peasantry cannot do this.

Anarchists hold to a moral, and therefor sectarian doctrine of "anti-authoritarianism," which is morally incoherent in the same way pacifism is morally incoherent (yea shut-up ZeroNowhere, I may as well have copy-pasted it but whatever). Pacifism posits that violence is a bad thing, and that a peaceful world is a good to be desired, but pacifists would not engage in violence even to realise this good in the same way Anarchists would not engage in "authoritarianism" to achieve their "anti-authoritarian" aims. You refuse to use the tools that would allow you to achieve what you want just because the tools are different than what you want to use.

Capitalism does not give you the tools you would like to use, what we have is the State, that is how political power is concentrated and where the site of class-struggle is resolved. Once we have a dictatorship of the proletariat, the State and class-war will be winning on the side of the proletariat, bringing us closer to the end of all classes and States.

I would hardly say that being anti-authoritarian is sectarian in the slightest. The Pacifist does not partake in violence because he is not a violent man. For a pacifist to partake in violence or an anarchist to partake in authoritarian action, even to realize their goals, would be completely opportunistic and hypocritical. For when the pacfist commits a violent act in order to achieve peace, he has turned his back on the idea that peace should be means to achieve his goal. When an anarchist builds an authoritarian structure to realize a stateless, classless society, he has turned his back on the idea that such a society can be achieved through non-authoritarian, non-hierarchical ways.

Wouldn't the pacifist partaking in violence make this person cease to be a pacifist? The Anarchists partaking in authoritarianism cease to be an anarchist? When one starts to look deeply into the abyss, ect.

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 19:46

What the hell could the ex-bourgeoise do? Do they own the means of production still? Do they still have capital?

I'm not saying they should be appointed bureaucrats, no one should be, but to deny them the ability to vote in councils for running a community?

That's insane.

It's the theory behind it, allowing the former agents of bourgeoisie class rule and the systematic exploitation which it represented to participate in the course of the workers state is just absolute philistinism.

And they still do pose a considerable threat in the immediate aftermath of a revolution, as they can fuel dissent and subvert the foundations of the proletariat state. They are elements hostile to the progress of the working class, it makes no sense to maintain their political privileges when they could so easy abuse them.

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 19:51

AnonymousOne

29th July 2011, 20:03

It's the theory behind it, allowing the former agents of bourgeoisie class rule and the systematic exploitation which it represented to participate in the course of the workers state is just absolute philistinism.

And they still do pose a considerable threat in the immediate aftermath of a revolution, as they can fuel dissent and subvert the foundations of the proletariat state. They are elements hostile to the progress of the working class, it makes no sense to maintain their political privileges when they could so easy abuse them at the expense of the proletariat.

I draw the line at disenfranchisment and a violation of free speech. We need to make sure that all voices are heard within democratic socialism. All forms of criticism and critique should be freely and openly discussed.

They aren't ex-bourgeoise until AFTER we take control of the means of production/political power/etc.

Until that time, the DotP is needed

I'm fairly positive that this would be the first thing done, or else we're not talking about socialism anymore.

Comrade Trotsky

29th July 2011, 20:03

Socialism is not a system "by and for the people." We are Marxists because we hold no pretension to support anything greater than working class interests. It is in the interests of the working class to abolish the working class and classes in general. The only way this can happen is if the working class comes in control of society and is allowed to act on its own interests. The bourgeoise cannot do this, the petty-bourgeoise cannot do this, the lumpen-proletariat cannot do this, and the peasantry cannot do this.

Anarchists hold to a moral, and therefor sectarian doctrine of "anti-authoritarianism," which is morally incoherent in the same way pacifism is morally incoherent (yea shut-up ZeroNowhere, I may as well have copy-pasted it but whatever). Pacifism posits that violence is a bad thing, and that a peaceful world is a good to be desired, but pacifists would not engage in violence even to realise this good in the same way Anarchists would not engage in "authoritarianism" to achieve their "anti-authoritarian" aims. You refuse to use the tools that would allow you to achieve what you want just because the tools are different than what you want to use.

Capitalism does not give you the tools you would like to use, what we have is the State, that is how political power is concentrated and where the site of class-struggle is resolved. Once we have a dictatorship of the proletariat, the State and class-war will be winning on the side of the proletariat, bringing us closer to the end of all classes and States.

I also find it interesting that you would exclude peasants from being part of your DotP. Do Peasants not work for their keep, just the same as the proletariat? Are they not oppressed by the ruiling class just the same as well? Why would you choose to exculde them?

CHE with an AK

29th July 2011, 20:11

a violation of free speech.
"Free speech" is an imaginary concept pulled from thin air. It isn't sacrosanct and I would contend ends, when you begin to advocate for the restoration of capitalism or overturning the class revolution.

Why defend the right to verbally advocate for slavery?

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 20:18

I draw the line at disenfranchisment and a violation of free speech. We need to make sure that all voices are heard within democratic socialism. All forms of criticism and critique should be freely and openly discussed.

I'm fairly positive that this would be the first thing done, or else we're not talking about socialism anymore.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is by its very nature democratic, as it liberates the proletariat from the ineffectual and oppressive confines of bourgeois democracy. It is reactionary to presume all political views and criticisms should be heard, as such a view holds that there is equality in their validity, something which is quite far from the truth. Not all forms of political thought deserve to be heard.

AnonymousOne

29th July 2011, 20:25

"Free speech" is an imaginary concept pulled from thin air. It isn't sacrosanct and I would contend ends, when you begin to advocate for the restoration of capitalism or overturning the class revolution.

Why defend the right to verbally advocate for slavery?

I don't buy into natural rights theory, or the social contract.

The reason I support Free Speech is because I'd rather live in a world where everyone could speak freely and advocate and express themselves opposed to a world where the opposite was the case.

I believe that information should flow freely, that ideas, concepts, and values should be freely shared and open to all. The best way to combat hate speech and offensive speech, is not to restrict speech but to have more of it.

That is why I would be willing to die to allow someone to use hate speech, or advocate slavery, or argue for fascism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is by its very nature democratic, as it liberates the proletariat from the ineffectual and oppressive confines of bourgeois democracy. It is reactionary to presume all political views and criticisms should be heard, as such a view holds that there is equality in their validity, something which is quite far from the truth. Not all forms of political thought deserve to be heard.

Yes, I understand but democracy is the rule of the people. Not just some of the people, but all of the people. People need to be liberated from capitalism. I also think it's an insane jump to go from, "People should be able to advocate their ideas and thoughts." to "All ideas and thoughts are equally valid."

Not all forms of political thought deserve to be listened to, but all deserve to be spoken.

Thirsty Crow

29th July 2011, 20:26

Why do almost all Marxists consider the dictatorship of the proletariat a necessary precursor to pure communism? Historically, it seems that socialist revolutions without the dictatorship of the proletariat phase were much more successful.
It's not that only Marxists think DOTP is necessary, but every revolutionary socialist, including anarchists, since the establishment of global communism is enabled by the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, meaning first abolishing individual private property (expropriating the capitalists), and the radical transformation of relations of production, meaning abolishing class private property, resulting in socialism/communism, a mode of production lacking wage labour, capital and the state.
Now, the period of transition, including the enactment of all the measures necessary to achieve both individual private property and class property abolition is what will undoubtedly occur, though this period by no means constitutes a different mode of production, distinguished from both capitalism and communism.

There can be no social revolution without DOTP or whatever you wish to call that process of transition ('cause your notion of DOTP is flawed).

I don't buy into natural rights theory, or the social contract.

The reason I support Free Speech is because I'd rather live in a world where everyone could speak freely and advocate and express themselves opposed to a world where the opposite was the case.

I believe that information should flow freely, that ideas, concepts, and values should be freely shared and open to all. The best way to combat hate speech and offensive speech, is not to restrict speech but to have more of it.

That is why I would be willing to die to allow someone to use hate speech, or advocate slavery, or argue for fascism.

It's not talking about fascism and advocating it that matters when it comes to repression, it's organizational capacity and effective organizing. This is what needs to be ensured in a society where the organized working class has conquered political power, not issuing blanket bans enforced by the repressive apparatus on kinds of speech and advocacy of ideas, which can result in something as despicable as kids snitching on "unacceptable views" of their parents.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is by its very nature democratic, as it liberates the proletariat from the ineffectual and oppressive confines of bourgeois democracy. It is reactionary to presume all political views and criticisms should be heard, as such a view holds that there is equality in their validity, something which is quite far from the truth. Not all forms of political thought deserve to be heard.
I find it ironic that this insistence on discourse borders on what could be amusingly called "reverse idealism".

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 20:35

I'm fairly positive that this would be the first thing done, or else we're not talking about socialism anymore.

So you think it'll just happen over night with no resistance frmo the bourgeoise? Be realistic, it'll probably take a couple years for the transition. In the mean time the proletariat (the side I'm fighting on) is going to organise itself and exclude the enemy class from any positions of leadership in its own organisation.

I also find it interesting that you would exclude peasants from being part of your DotP. Do Peasants not work for their keep, just the same as the proletariat? Are they not oppressed by the ruiling class just the same as well? Why would you choose to exculde them?

Peasants can be on the side of the proletariat, but have no positions of leadership, the interests of the peasants and proletariats are not the same.

Being oppressed is not the same thing as having revolutionary potential. In feudalism the serfs were oppressed, but it was the burghers (soon to be the bourgeoise) who were revolutionary and brought about the next step of development in human society.

Arilou Lalee'lay

29th July 2011, 20:39

The dictatorship of the proletariat is by its very nature democratic, as it liberates the proletariat from the ineffectual and oppressive confines of bourgeois democracy. It is reactionary to presume all political views and criticisms should be heard, as such a view holds that there is equality in their validity, something which is quite far from the truth. Not all forms of political thought deserve to be heard.

Sheltering people from bad logic is just opening them up to the idiocy of our era all over again. There are a million dead ideologies whose shells liter our libraries quite harmlessly. The instruction manuals of capitalism will join them as soon as people learn to think for themselves.

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 20:43

Yes, I understand but democracy is the rule of the people. Not just some of the people, but all of the people. People need to be liberated from capitalism. I also think it's an insane jump to go from, "People should be able to advocate their ideas and thoughts." to "All ideas and thoughts are equally valid."

Not all forms of political thought deserve to be listened to, but all deserve to be spoken.

A revolution is “made” directly by a minority.

The process of revolution does not have room for the opinions of the people which represent the interests of the minority. The false consciousness bred by years of capitalistic hegemony takes time to eliminate, and thus some methods which are democratic in the sense that they only serve the proletariat and their immediate objectives become necessary.

I do have to apologize for that straw man though, I did indeed get carried away on that point. I still hold that people should not be able to advocate for ideas which run contrary to the aims of the proletariat though, as any proper revolutionary should.

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 20:47

Sheltering people from bad logic is just opening them up to the idiocy of our era all over again. There are a million dead ideologies whose shells liter our libraries quite harmlessly. The instruction manuals of capitalism will join them as soon as people learn to think for themselves.

It is not that we should shield the people from ideologies which are opposed to the aims held by the dialectical progression of the revolution, but rather that they should be prevented from taking on a positive light. It is obviously necessary to understand ideology opposed to the intents of communism so as to better combat them, but they should not be allowed to be advocated for.

There is a difference between understanding the failings of fascism in order to protect against it and actually defending or advocating for it, obviously.

AnonymousOne

29th July 2011, 20:48

I still hold that people should not be able to advocate for ideas which run contrary to the aims of the proletariat though, as any proper revolutionary should.

I don't think it's very revolutionary to deny people access to differing thoughts, opinions, criticisms, values and concepts. It puts a select group of persons above the people. Censorship is the best way to kill a democracy.

If not, the people truly aren't free.

Arilou Lalee'lay

29th July 2011, 20:50

So you think it'll just happen over night with no resistance frmo the bourgeoise? Be realistic, it'll probably take a couple years for the transition. In the mean time the proletariat (the side I'm fighting on) is going to organise itself and exclude the enemy class from any positions of leadership in its own organisation.

You're telling an anarchist (or at least anon implied s/he is an anarchist) not to let the bourgeois members of their group take leadership roles?

But a lot of this argument depends on the conditions of the revolution. In 1917 Russia counter-revolutionary forces obviously still held power. So much that they had to either be bribed (the provisional government) or totally wiped out (the Bolsheviks taking power and the civil war). Maybe that's not a logically flawless conclusion but you get the point.

But in Catalonia it would have been idiotic to say "hey, you owned a deli! You can't be a delegate now"!

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 20:55

You're telling an anarchist (or at least anon implied s/he is an anarchist) not to let the bourgeois members of their group take leadership roles?

But a lot of this argument depends on the conditions of the revolution. In 1917 Russia counter-revolutionary forces obviously still held power. So much that they had to either be bribed (the provisional government) or totally wiped out (the Bolsheviks taking power and the civil war). Maybe that's not a logically flawless conclusion but you get the point.

But in Catalonia it would have been idiotic to say "hey, you owned a deli! You can't be a delegate now"!

We are referring to those who sympathize with the interests of the class and not the literal class background of individuals.

I would direct your attention to Althrusser on this matter for a moment if you wish supplementary material to this point. In this excerpt, he speaks to the question of supporting the revolutionary aims of the proletariat while still holding a profession which is does not place one in that actual class. Essentially, he talks about how you don't need to be a worker to support the workers.

To be a Communist in philosophy is to become a partisan and artisan of Marxist-Leninist philosophy: of dialectical materialism.

It is not easy to become a Marxist-Leninist philosopher. Like every ‘intellectual’, a philosophy teacher is a petty bourgeois. When he opens his mouth, it is petty-bourgeois ideology that speaks: its resources and ruses are infinite.

You know what Lenin says about ‘intellectuals’. Individually certain of them may (politically) be declared revolutionaries, and courageous ones. But as a mass, they remain ‘incorrigibly’ petty-bourgeois in ideology. Gorky himself was, for Lenin, who admired his talents, a petty-bourgeois revolutionary. To become ‘ideologists of the working class’ (Lenin), ‘organic intellectuals’ of the proletariat (Gramsci), intellectuals have to carry out a radical revolution in their ideas: a long, painful and difficult re-education. An endless external and internal struggle.

Proletarians have a ‘class instinct’ which helps them on the way to proletarian ‘class positions’. Intellectuals, on the contrary, have a petty-bourgeois class instinct which fiercely resists this transition.

A proletarian class position is more than a mere proletarian ‘class instinct’. It is the consciousness and practice which conform with the objective reality of the proletarian class struggle. Class instinct is subjective and spontaneous. Class position is objective and rational. To arrive at proletarian class positions, the class instinct of proletarians only needs to be educated ; the class instinct of the petty bourgeoisie, and hence of intellectuals, has, on the contrary, to be revolutionized. This education and this revolution are, in the last analysis, determined by proletarian class struggle conducted on the basis of the principles of Marxist-Leninist theory.

As the Communist Manifesto says, knowledge of this theory can help certain intellectuals to go over to working class positions.

Marxist-Leninist theory includes a science (historical materialism) and a philosophy (dialectical materialism).

Marxist-Leninist philosophy is therefore one of the two theoretical weapons indispensable to the class struggle of the proletariat. Communist militants must assimilate and use the principles of the theory: science and philosophy. The proletarian revolution needs militants who are both scientists (historical materialism) and philosophers (dialectical materialism) to assist in the defence and development of theory.

The formation of these philosophers runs up against two great difficulties.

A first – political – difficulty. A professional philosopher who joins the Party remains, ideologically, a petty bourgeois. He must revolutionize his thought in order to occupy a proletarian class position in philosophy.

This political difficulty is ‘determinant in the last instance’.

A second – theoretical – difficulty. We know in what direction and with what principles we must work in order to define this class position in philosophy. But we must develop Marxist philosophy: it is theoretically and politically urgent to do so. Now, this work is vast and difficult. For in Marxist theory, philosophy has lagged behind the science of history.

Today, in our countries, this is the ‘dominant’ difficulty.

Source: "Philosophy as a Revolutionary Weapon"

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1968/philosophy-as-weapon.htm

Weezer

29th July 2011, 20:56

I really wished Marx and Lenin didn't use the word dictatorship to describe this theory. It's hard to explain this to people without them getting the mental image of a dictatorship.:unsure:

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 20:59

I don't think it's very revolutionary to deny people access to differing thoughts, opinions, criticisms, values and concepts. It puts a select group of persons above the people. Censorship is the best way to kill a democracy.

If not, the people truly aren't free.

It is counter revolutionary to allow people to engage in open battle with the philosophy of the revolution and the ideas wielded by the working class against the ruling class. We are not speaking of bourgeois ethics but of revolution, something which involves class conflict on multiple different fronts of struggle. The field of political speech and philosophy is one such area in which the proletariat must smash the thought of the bourgeois, and thus it only makes sense to support this struggle in every material fashion which is made available.

'Censorship' of those opposed to the will of the masses is in this case but another weapon in the arsenal of proletariat democracy. I don't care if the people are truly free, I care if the proletariat is truly free.

Comrade Trotsky

29th July 2011, 21:06

Peasants can be on the side of the proletariat, but have no positions of leadership, the interests of the peasants and proletariats are not the same.

Being oppressed is not the same thing as having revolutionary potential. In feudalism the serfs were oppressed, but it was the burghers (soon to be the bourgeoise) who were revolutionary and brought about the next step of development in human society.

This is what I am asking. How are their interests not the same? Is overthrowing the bourgeoisie not in the interest to the peasant? Is having control over his own labour also not in his interest? Where comes this "unrevolutionary potential?" Im not sure if I understand the logic used here.

Why do they not have positions of leadership? What is keeping them from having such a position? What about a country where the peasantry far outnumbers that of the proles?

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 21:07

You're telling an anarchist (or at least anon implied s/he is an anarchist) not to let the bourgeois members of their group take leadership roles?

Well uhm, yea, do you think any war has been won by letting the opposing side into your leadership roles?

But in Catalonia it would have been idiotic to say "hey, you owned a deli! You can't be a delegate now"!
No shit, but that's AFTER they've been expropriated.

Arilou Lalee'lay

29th July 2011, 21:22

We are referring to those who sympathize with the interests of the class and not the literal class background of individuals.

It is not that we should shield the people from ideologies which are opposed to the aims held by the dialectical progression of the revolution, but rather that they should be prevented from taking on a positive light. It is obviously necessary to understand ideology opposed to the intents of communism so as to better combat them, but they should not be allowed to be advocated for.

There is a difference between understanding the failings of fascism in order to protect against it and actually defending or advocating for it, obviously.

My point stands. Go ahead and make sedition against the DotP illegal, but making advocacy and propaganda illigal is keeping information out of the hands of your decision makers, the voters. There must be no higher decision making body than the voters to decide what the proletariat gets to see, or it's not a democracy.

Besides, after the revolution the (potentially still rich and powerful) former owners aren't going to take power back with propaganda. They maintain power through a much broader culture and world view. False consciousness isn't created by moronic philosophers and economists who support capitalism, moronic philosophers and economists who support capitalism are created by false consciousness.

As soon as they are removed from their position in relation to the means of production and power, their world view is shattered. From financial exile they can't recreate the spectacle. The challenge for us isn't to keep from sliding backwards but to find out next foothold: the synthesis of a new society to replace any vacuum that the white army might seek to piss into.

Arilou Lalee'lay

29th July 2011, 21:26

Well uhm, yea, do you think any war has been won by letting the opposing side into your leadership roles?
My point is that anarchists don't have leadership roles, before or after the revolution. 'Cept for those damn Bordigist anarchists that are so common.

No shit, but that's AFTER they've been expropriated.

Right. If that hasn't happened then the revolution hasn't succeeded. We're talking about the transition after the revolution but before a more permanent socialism, right?

Thirsty Crow

29th July 2011, 21:28

I really wished Marx and Lenin didn't use the word dictatorship to describe this theory. It's hard to explain this to people without them getting the mental image of a dictatorship.:unsure:
Revolutionary government of the working class, for the interests of the working class and allied classes. Simple, isn't it?

Zanthorus

29th July 2011, 21:29

That is why I would be willing to die to allow someone to use hate speech, or advocate slavery, or argue for fascism.

You have some fairly odd priorities then.

the people

Newsflash, the French revolution ended more than two hundred years ago.

Cept for those damn Bordigist anarchists that are so common.

Wait what?

CHE with an AK

29th July 2011, 21:30

I'd rather live in a world where everyone could speak freely and advocate and express themselves
... Bourgeoisie sentimentalism

I would be willing to die to allow someone to use hate speech, or advocate slavery, or argue for fascism.

... Liberal Voltaireian naiveté

Censorship is the best way to kill a democracy ... If not, the people truly aren't free.
... Self-defeating classical Libertarian nonsense

Thirsty Crow

29th July 2011, 21:32

... Libertarian nonsense
Yeah, 'cause the party-state censorship agency is conducive to the self-emancipation of the proletariat.
You people simplify things too much.

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 21:34

My point stands. Go ahead and make sedition against the DotP illegal, but making advocacy and propaganda illigal is keeping information out of the hands of your decision makers, the voters. There must be no higher decision making body than the voters to decide what the proletariat gets to see, or it's not a democracy.

Besides, after the revolution the (potentially still rich and powerful) former owners aren't going to take power back with propaganda. They maintain power through a much broader culture and world view. False consciousness isn't created by moronic philosophers and economists who support capitalism, moronic philosophers and economists who support capitalism are created by false consciousness.

As soon as they are removed from their position in relation to the means of production and power, their world view is shattered. From financial exile they can't recreate the spectacle. The challenge for us isn't to keep from sliding backwards but to find out next foothold: the synthesis of a new society to replace any vacuum that the white army might seek to piss into.

No, your point does not still stand as your changed it. At least be reasonable enough to admit as much.

But in Catalonia it would have been idiotic to say "hey, you owned a deli! You can't be a delegate now!

Do you not remember that? I clearly outlined how that is not representative of the stance which you are arguing against, that your point was a straw man of sorts. You seem to of abandoned this image of our position entirely, meaning that your point no longer stands.

As for the actual brunt of your post, the literal concept of voting does not necessarily have a place in the immediate process of revolution as it is possible that it will not be democratically representative of the aims held by the revolution, due to the reality that the holdouts of bourgeoisie influence still hang over society. The dismantlement of the bourgeois hegemony over culture is a task demanding of time and effort; it will not be possible for this vacuum of culture and thought to be replaced and filled over night.

The process of expropriating the bourgeoisie is what we refer to, and it is one which is demanding of these measures. You must accept the necessity of these for at least some amount of time, otherwise your theory is incapable of being applied to practice.

Even if we discuss the period beyond this occurrence, no purpose is served by allowing reactionary thought to persist in a communistic society.

AnonymousOne

29th July 2011, 21:36

... Bourgeoisie sentimentalism

... Liberal Voltaireian naiveté

... Self-defeating classical Libertarian nonsense

Thanks! I just won Leftist Buzzword Bingo!

Arilou Lalee'lay

29th July 2011, 21:36

Wait what?

I was being sarcastic. You don't know of any, do you? That would make my day.

Madslatter

29th July 2011, 21:37

A government apparatus should not be in the role of suppressing speech, but it also should not limit others ability to to suppress reactionary speech. If a government can suppress reactionary speech, that suppression can extend to revolutionary speech. It is up to the proletariat to limit that speech, challenge it, and never let it take control.

It also is not a bad thing for people reactionary material after and during the revolution. This is better than a ban on such crap because it encourages thought - something that is not encouraged under capitalism. Allowing people to know why such views are bad will create a far stronger society than one where people are unaware of the ideas and have not built up defensive thought.

Zanthorus

29th July 2011, 21:40

You don't know of any, do you?

Nachie from RAAN claimed that one of the planks of their 'Principles and Direction' was written by a 'Bordigist' who was also a member of NEFAC.

Rooster

29th July 2011, 21:44

Why is the DotP necessary? Well..... it's really just the conquest of power by the proletariat so that the proletariat can dissolve itself and end all class contradictions. The proletariat is the only class that has this in it's interest. I think the conception of the DotP has been confused from time to time with party dictatorships and such. I think that in this day and age, it wouldn't need to be as oppressive, relatively speaking, as say the Russian Revolution. Trotsky mentions something like this in the Lessons of October where he's talking about how in a more developed country, the struggle for power would be harder but maintaining it would be easier because of a larger proportion of the working class. Lenin also makes some hints to this when he said (I forget where) that the oppressing of the bourgeoisie would be like a crowd stopping two people fighting in the street.

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 21:47

My point is that anarchists don't have leadership roles, before or after the revolution.

lol

Right. If that hasn't happened then the revolution hasn't succeeded. We're talking about the transition after the revolution but before a more permanent socialism, right?

I was talking more like, if Greece and stuff went Socialist tomorrow, and the US had a genuine Communist Party, are you going to admit the Koche brothers as members?

Bardo

29th July 2011, 21:48

And what do the anarchists think of this?

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"

A socialist revolution should be the liberation of the proletariat from exploitation and coercion, eliminating class structure. Not a revolution that simply places one class in control of another, continuing the cycle of exploitation and coercion of one class over another.

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 21:52

AnonymousOne

29th July 2011, 21:55

I was talking more like, if Greece and stuff went Socialist tomorrow, and the US had a genuine Communist Party, are you going to admit the Koche brothers as members?

wtf?

Of course not, but that's not what the dictatorship of the proleteriat refers to.

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 21:57

wtf?

Of course not, but that's not what the dictatorship of the proleteriat refers to.
No it doesn't, but that same CP will struggle with the bourgeoise state to come into control as being the DotP, at which point the bourgeoise state becomes basically what the CP used to be in terms of power.

CHE with an AK

29th July 2011, 21:58

are you going to admit the Koche brothers as members?
Those Octupus Koch suckers should have been strung up already. :)

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 22:00

Those Octupus Koch suckers should have been strung up already. :)

But that would be violating their natural rights!

I do think this article is a pretty good read.

http://www.ucpanews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8.html

Arilou Lalee'lay

29th July 2011, 22:00

I was talking more like, if Greece and stuff went Socialist tomorrow, and the US had a genuine Communist Party, are you going to admit the Koche brothers as members?Certainly not, I agree with you there.

Do you not remember that? I clearly outlined how that is not representative of the stance which you are arguing against, that your point was a straw man of sorts. You seem to of abandoned this image of our position entirely, meaning that your point no longer stands.I wasn't specifically talking to you in that post. But I also didn't read this entire thread before posting, so guilty as charged I guess.

As for the actual brunt of your post, the literal concept of voting does not necessarily have a place in the immediate process of revolution as it is possible that it will not be democratically representative of the aims held by the revolution, due to the reality that the holdouts of bourgeoisie influence still hang over society. The dismantlement of the bourgeois hegemony over culture is a task demanding of time and effort; it will not be possible for this vacuum of culture and thought to be replaced and filled over night.

The process of expropriating the bourgeoisie is what we refer to, and it is one which is demanding of these measures. You must accept the necessity of these for at least some amount of time, otherwise your theory is incapable of being applied to practice. Says you! I'm more of an optimist. I think general strikes are more likely than Lenin-style revolutions to succeed. That's a digression I don't want to go into.

Edit: I should say strikes motivated by the filling of said ideological vacuum, rather than being lead by a vanguard. The October revolution still had plenty of mass action but it was inspired and lead by the Bolsheviks.

Comrade Trotsky

29th July 2011, 22:04

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"

A socialist revolution should be the liberation of the proletariat from exploitation and coercion, eliminating class structure. Not a revolution that simply places one class in control of another, continuing the cycle of exploitation and coercion of one class over another.

Bardo hit the nail on the head here. As communists, we want to overthrow the ruiling class, not replace it with another.

It deeply saddens me to see people saying things like "I don't care about peoples rights, just the rights of the proles."

The revolution should be by the working class and for the people. That is, for the benefit of everyone, even the ex-bourgeoisie (kind of a useless term, but it seems to be the "it" word in this thread so I will run with it).

To replace one oppressive, overbearing system with another is reactionary garbage.

Bardo

29th July 2011, 22:04

"The only freedom for the proletariat lies in its dictatorship."

Once the proletariat is in control of society, it is in their interests to abolish all classes.

How does the proletariat abolish class once it's in power, and how would abolition of property not achieve the same results? Isn't the power held by the bourgeoisie derived from the property that they own?

I understand the merits in theory, but in practice DotP would have to involve single party control, censorship and oppression unless I'm misunderstanding the concept entirely.

Thirsty Crow

29th July 2011, 22:09

How does the proletariat abolish class once it's in power, and how would abolition of property not achieve the same results? Isn't the power held by the bourgeoisie derived from the property that they own?

I understand the merits in theory, but in practice DotP would have to involve single party control, censorship and oppression unless I'm misunderstanding the concept entirely.

Once again, you people recycle misconceptions.

First, the power exercised by the capitalist class is derived from their position within the relations of production.
Second, the concept of the DOTP does not function as a normative political theory as in prescribing what kind of a political structure should be established in order that the working class be organized as the ruling class.
And it is precisely the working class organized as the ruling class, enacting concrete measures to eliminate first individual private property, and class private property, that is the core content of the term, signifying a period/process of transition from capitalism to socialism/communism.

As such, it is by no means clear that this would have to involve a party-state, or "single party control".

Another thing is that specific political doctrines tend to present DOTP within the overall normative context of their positions on proletarian organization as the ruling class.

Comrade Trotsky

29th July 2011, 22:30

Once again, you people recycle misconceptions.

[QUOTE=Menocchio;2189193]First, the power exercised by the capitalist class is derived from their position within the relations of production.

Which is derived from their ownership over the means of production. i.e. private property. Which is what he said.

Second, the concept of the DOTP does not function as a normative political theory as in prescribing what kind of a political structure should be established in order that the working class be organized as the ruling class.

Yet, you go on to talk about how it places the working class as the new ruiling class. Which sounds, you know, kind of like a political structure. Im not too sure what you mean here. Hoe DOES it function then, if not as a "normative political theory as in prescribing what kind of a political structure should be established in order that the working class be organized as the ruling class"?

And it is precisely the working class organized as the ruling class, enacting concrete measures to eliminate first individual private property, and class private property, that is the core content of the term, signifying a period/process of transition from capitalism to socialism/communism.

But how do they enact such measures if they're not, as you earlier said, "function as a normative political theory"? Also, you talk about "individual private property" and "class private property". Never have I heard these terms before. What do each of them mean? I do hope you're not actually advocating taking away peoples personal property.

As such, it is by no means clear that this would have to involve a party-state, or "single party control".

To form the working class into the new ruiling class, using them to censor out opposition and the like, how could the DotP NOT involve single-party control?

eric922

29th July 2011, 22:38

But that would be violating their natural rights!

I do think this article is a pretty good read.

http://www.ucpanews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8.html

I read your article and post over at DU a lot, anyway I'm don't completely agree with it. First of all most people who call themselves middle-class are really working class. Secondly I don't think people who are management are the ones we should be angry at, they are often just as exploited as the people the manage and a lot of times come from the ranks of the former people they manage.

Lyev

29th July 2011, 22:43

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 22:43

I read your article and post over at DU a lot, anyway I'm don't completely agree with it. First of all most people who call themselves middle-class are really working class. Secondly I don't think people who are management are the ones we should be angry at, they are often just as exploited as the people the manage and a lot of times come from the ranks of the former people they manage.

The entire point of the article was it does not fucking matter who you think we should be angry at. The working class, when revolution comes, is going to be rightfully pissed and nothing liberal notions of "human rights" can stop. You CANNOT hope to control the rage of the working class, it has been pent up for centuries now. When the dam holding back the hatred of the working class breaks, the torrent will flow whether or not you want it to.

eric922

29th July 2011, 22:49

The entire point of the article was it does not fucking matter who you think we should be angry at. The working class, when revolution comes, is going to be rightfully pissed and nothing liberal notions of "human rights" can stop. You CANNOT hope to control the rage of the working class, it has been pent up for centuries now. When the dam holding back the hatred of the working class breaks, the torrent will flow whether or not you want it to.
I understand that, but I think that's why there has to be something to direct that anger at the right target otherwise any revolution is likely to devolve into chaos and could ultimately harm the working class.

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 23:06

I understand that, but I think that's why there has to be something to direct that anger at the right target otherwise any revolution is likely to devolve into chaos and could ultimately harm the working class.

I don't see anything mentioned as being a "wrong target," nor do I see you controlling billions of people.

eric922

29th July 2011, 23:12

I don't see anything mentioned as being a "wrong target," nor do I see you controlling billions of people.
I think focusing on management and the like would be the wrong target. The right target would be focusing on CEOs,hedegfund managers,senior shareholders, etc. The people who actually are controlling billions of people and exploiting them.

Broletariat

29th July 2011, 23:18

I think focusing on management and the like would be the wrong target. The right target would be focusing on CEOs,hedegfund managers,senior shareholders, etc. The people who actually are controlling billions of people and exploiting them.

Well I doubt they'll go unnoticed.

eric922

29th July 2011, 23:27

Well I doubt they'll go unnoticed.
They better not. I completely agree with your point on the Koch brothers, they've hurt a lot of people.
However the article did mention groups like management and shop owners, and I'm sorry the vast majority of them are exploited by the CEOs, etc as well. I think that really serves to divide the working class against itself. Perhaps I'm completely wrong on this issue, though.

ComradePonov

30th July 2011, 01:45

How about we think for our self’s instead of quoting individuals who passed away 90 years ago?

@ OP, It's not necessary. Dictatorship of the proletariat, by definition, means a strong centralised party ruling over the masses. A true socialist revolution would be carried out by the masses, not by a specific person / party / group of people. As such, "the dictatorship of the proletariat", as it is defined by the people you're talking about, is unnecessary and in fact shows that the people were not ready for socialism, and as such socialism will fail in said location.

Broletariat

30th July 2011, 03:09

How about we think for our self’s instead of quoting individuals who passed away 90 years ago?

How about we realise the significance of learning from other people instead of bullshit middle-class ideas of independence?

@ OP, It's not necessary. Dictatorship of the proletariat, by definition, means a strong centralised party ruling over the masses. A true socialist revolution would be carried out by the masses, not by a specific person / party / group of people. As such, "the dictatorship of the proletariat", as it is defined by the people you're talking about, is unnecessary and in fact shows that the people were not ready for socialism, and as such socialism will fail in said location.

Well there goes all the science out of scientific socialism, Hell I guess the CEOs will be the ones leading the revolution, are you honestly fucking stupid enough to think that the revolution won't be carried out by a specific group of people? You think just anyone anytime can bring about socialism?

Newsflash, it's only the working class who have communism in their interests, and it is only them who can carry revolution out.

ellipsis

30th July 2011, 03:12

Those Octupus Koch suckers should have been strung up already. :)

Verbal warning for homophobic language.

28350

30th July 2011, 03:34

if the DotP exists within the capitalist mode of production, doesn't that make marx a "nascent proudhonian," in that he suggests political rule determines the economical/production?
if the DotP exists within the socialist mode of production, how can there be a proletariat?

Broletariat

30th July 2011, 03:37

if the DotP exists within the capitalist mode of production, doesn't that make marx a "nascent proudhonian," in that he suggests political rule determines the economical/production?

The DotP is a political expression of economic struggle.

28350

30th July 2011, 03:45

right, political rule is only part of the DotP.
the DotP is not synonymous with the state
perhaps the state will be one element of the DotP
perhaps the state will be a mediating agent between the remaining classes, playing its traditional role

Which is the ruling class in the DotP, since it is not classless?
if the DotP exists within capitalism, wouldn't the economic form make agents of capital the ruling class?

Broletariat

30th July 2011, 03:47

right, political rule is only part of the DotP.

No, the DotP is the political expression of economic struggle.

Which is the ruling class in the DotP, since it is not classless?

The P stands for proletariat.

if the DotP exists within capitalism, wouldn't the economic form make agents of capital the ruling class?

Not necessarily.

28350

30th July 2011, 03:54

No, the DotP is the political expression of economic struggle.

if the DotP exists within capitalism, wouldn't the economic form make agents of capital the ruling class? Not necessarily.

So the DotP is capitalism with a proletarian state?
sounds pretty proudhonian to me

Broletariat

30th July 2011, 04:03

So the DotP is capitalism with a proletarian state?
sounds pretty proudhonian to me

We've already established it isn't "proudhonian" and you keep redefining what that means.

Aspiring Humanist

30th July 2011, 04:12

It's not

28350

30th July 2011, 04:37

We've already established it isn't "proudhonian" and you keep redefining what that means.

i understand it to mean believing the political determines the economic

Broletariat

30th July 2011, 04:46

i understand it to mean believing the political determines the economic

We've already established the DotP is a political outgrowth of economic struggle though.

Comrade Trotsky

30th July 2011, 04:48

How about we realise the significance of learning from other people instead of bullshit middle-class ideas of independence?

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

Well there goes all the science out of scientific socialism, Hell I guess the CEOs will be the ones leading the revolution, are you honestly fucking stupid enough to think that the revolution won't be carried out by a specific group of people? You think just anyone anytime can bring about socialism?

Newsflash, it's only the working class who have communism in their interests, and it is only them who can carry revolution out.

So everyone else is just fucked? No one else gets a say in what the future will hold for us after the revolution? Not the "ex-bourgeoisie"? No one but the working class? They will have a monopoly over everything and are given the power to supress free speech, ect?

That doesn't sound to democratic.

I think it's pretty obvious that he wasn't trying to say that CEO's would lead the revolution. What he s saying is that it is wrong to advocate turning the working class into a new, oppressive, authoritarian ruiling class. The revolution IS about the working class ceasing the means of production, but to say that they should exclude anyone else who wants to partake and help lead the revolution isn't really a healthy line of thought.

Someone earlier mentioned something about "individual private property" and "class private property", referring to expropriation. I have never heard these terms used before. Surely you are not advocating taking peoples personal property.

And what is this talk of bullshit middle-class ideas of independence? Independence is now bullshit? Freedom is bullshit?

What "middle-class" you speak of? You mean the illusionary social construct made to appease the proles? :lol:

28350

30th July 2011, 04:49

okay, i'll think this over more

Broletariat

30th July 2011, 04:57

So everyone else is just fucked? No one else gets a say in what the future will hold for us after the revolution? Not the "ex-bourgeoisie"? No one but the working class? They will have a monopoly over everything and are given the power to supress free speech, ect?

Tons of loaded questions here with answers all throughout the topic, but I'll reiterate because I really don't want to read chapter 15 of Das Kapital (seriously, fuck constant capital and machinery).

I was EXPLICITLY talking about the TRANSITION between Capitalism and Socialism. Once we GET to Socialism sure whatever, everyone can vote on.. I don't know what the fuck they'll actually vote on to be honest, for the most part it seems like science will solve everything, maybe voting on what to apply that science to but you know.

But yea in the transition you damn well better BELIEVE they will be suppressing fascist speech, you know why? Because people who talk that shit during revolution are going to fucking kill you.

That doesn't sound to democratic.

Fuck democracy.

I think it's pretty obvious that he wasn't trying to say that CEO's would lead the revolution. What he s saying is that it is wrong to advocate turning the working class into a new, oppressive, authoritarian ruiling class. The revolution IS about the working class ceasing the means of production, but to say that they should exclude anyone else who wants to partake and help lead the revolution isn't really a healthy line of thought.

Two things here.

1. You're saying that, forcefully taking the means of production from the bourgeoise isn't authoritarian? lol

2. You're saying that if the Koche brothers want to participate and help lead the revolution, we should let them? You don't think that type of person (bourgeoise) has some sort of alterior motive here?

The below sentence doesn't mean shit, I'm just using it to demonstrate a point.

Shit bro, I usually don't recommend leftists going into the military but I might make an exception for you, you'd prolly let the enemy help you plan your attack on their base.

Someone earlier mentioned something about "individual private property" and "class private property", referring to expropriation. I have never heard these terms used before. Surely you are not advocating taking peoples personal property.

I've never heard of those terms either tbh, and nah no need to take personal property. Why bother when we control the factories?

And what is this talk of bullshit middle-class ideas of independence? Independence is now bullshit?

"Independence? That's middle class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth."

Freedom is bullshit?

I'm not concerned with freedom, but solely with working class interests. To expect ANYONE to uphold "ideals" against their material interests is straight idealism.

What "middle-class" you speak of? You mean the illusionary social construct made to appease the proles? :lol:

That's exactly what I'm referring to actually.

Psy

30th July 2011, 05:15

So everyone else is just fucked? No one else gets a say in what the future will hold for us after the revolution? Not the "ex-bourgeoisie"? No one but the working class? They will have a monopoly over everything and are given the power to supress free speech, ect?

That doesn't sound to democratic.

I think it's pretty obvious that he wasn't trying to say that CEO's would lead the revolution. What he s saying is that it is wrong to advocate turning the working class into a new, oppressive, authoritarian ruiling class. The revolution IS about the working class ceasing the means of production, but to say that they should exclude anyone else who wants to partake and help lead the revolution isn't really a healthy line of thought.

Someone earlier mentioned something about "individual private property" and "class private property", referring to expropriation. I have never heard these terms used before. Surely you are not advocating taking peoples personal property.

And what is this talk of bullshit middle-class ideas of independence? Independence is now bullshit? Freedom is bullshit?

What "middle-class" you speak of? You mean the illusionary social construct made to appease the proles? :lol:

The problem is conflicting class interests acting as a break to the revolution. We know that capitalists will vote against the revolution if given a vote so there is no point giving the capitalist class a vote and just have the democracy limited to the proletariat till class divisions breakdown through the proletariat and capitalist class withering away due to material relationship no longer there. Also even if we gave the capitalist class the vote we would simply overrule them through a numbers you are talking 6 billion workers voting against the interests of a few thousands capitalists so thinking capitalists will have any rights in a workers state is just lying to ourselves as it is mathematically impossible for a workers state to not be a dictatorship to capitalist class, as it would be impossible for capitalists even united to ever have the votes to vote for their class interests in a workers state where million workers will just have so many votes to drown out the capitalists voice in the government.

CHE with an AK

30th July 2011, 08:00

Verbal warning for homophobic language.
Really? "Octupus Koch suckers" is a common sexual pun and play on words since octopi have "suckers" on their tentacles (plus its actually pronounced "Coke"). It's also used for irony because they are conservatives who fight against gay rights.
I think you are overly sensitive, but I will still heed my warning and not use it again.

Aurora

30th July 2011, 11:24

Perhaps slightly tangential, but it is worth noting that in Marx's conception, the dictatorship of the proletariat--lower-stage "socialsim" for Lenin--was never a separate mode of production distinctly sitting between bourgeois society and communism. I think there is some confusion with Lenin that the DOTP is, indeed, a separate lower stage before communist society in The State and Revolution as regards the terms "transition period" (Marx's actual phrase), and "transitional society". Anyway, I think this idea of socialism as separate and distinct connotes something of a more permanent foundation; a social formation that will stay for a while, in quite a drawn-out period of transition between two societies. However, if we remain consistent with Marx's proposal of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a simply transition period, and not another society in itself between other two modes of production, then this clarifies a few confusions surrounding the issue. "Socialism" as a transitional society would seem to fit more in line with firstly the Stalinists who uphold the former Soviet Union as properly socialist at one stage or another, and secondly the anarchists who would critique this mode of social organisation (as in the eastern bloc etc.) as authoritarian and as merely proving their ideas about Marxism's inherent despotism correct.
I disagree that Lenin refers to the DOTP and Socialism as the same thing, in The State and Revolution Lenin separates the DOTP, the lower phase and the higher phase into different sections in chapter 5, Lenin starts referring to the lower phase of communism as socialism which i think was needlessly confusing, but he doesn't refer to the DOTP as socialism.
Your right though that thinking of the DOTP and socialism as the same thing is a Stalinist idea, it's part of Socialism in One Country, Stalins regime announced the "Complete Triumph of Socialism" and the " Reinforcement of the Dictatorship" at the same time, a completely contradictory and un-marxist idea.
As long as there is a dictatorship there is a state and as long as there is a state there can be no socialism.

As communists, we want to overthrow the ruiling class, not replace it with another.
Marx writes ".... the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."

Yes we want to overthrow the ruling class but the only way this can be done is by the proletariat making itself into the ruling class by seizing state power and using this against the capitalists. It's impossible to abolish the state as the anarchists argue, the state will always exist when there is a class society and if we don't use a state the capitalists have no qualms using one against us.

if the DotP exists within the capitalist mode of production, doesn't that make marx a "nascent proudhonian," in that he suggests political rule determines the economical/production?
if the DotP exists within the socialist mode of production, how can there be a proletariat?
The DOTP exists between both the capitalist and socialist modes of production, it is by it's nature transitional consisting of the overcoming of capitalist relations and the development of socialist ones.
Marx writes "the majority of the [Paris] Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be."
If the majority of the Commune was in no way socialist then the majority must have been capitalist, what made the Commune revolutionary was that the proletariat held state power for the first time and by necessity used it to dismantle capitalism and attempt to introduce socialist relations.
The reasons it couldn't have been socialist are the same as the Soviet Union, isolation, low level of productivity etc etc Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and the cultural level conditioned therein.

Thirsty Crow

30th July 2011, 11:33

S
Someone earlier mentioned something about "individual private property" and "class private property", referring to expropriation. I have never heard these terms used before. Surely you are not advocating taking peoples personal property.

Individual private property refers to individual, particular capitals, in mutual competition. Three factories, one owned by X, the other by Y, the last one by Z, represent individual private property, which has to be abolished by expropriation and "socialization" of the means of production.
But, there still exists the issue of total social capital, which is the content of the term "class private property". One cannot expect to transcend the capitalist mode of production by simply changing legal ownership relations and distribution of the produce. We must go after capital itself.

This is the crux of the distinction, and not private possession/private property dichotomy.

Zanthorus

30th July 2011, 17:58

doesn't that make marx a "nascent proudhonian," in that he suggests political rule determines the economical/production?

You're highly confused. In the first place, the fact that Marx would suggest that the existence of capitalism continued in the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat means that, far from believing that the political nature of the state determines the social relations of production, he believed the opposite. In addition, the application of the label of 'resurrected and tenacious proudhonism' to the Stalinists was made by Bordiga not because of any belief about the relation between political and economic spheres but because they asserted that the law of value would continue to assert itself in socialism, which he compared to Proudhon's belief that socialism involved a more consistent application of the law of value than occured under capitalism, rather than the abolition of value relations altogether:

"In Proudhon's system we find individual exchange, the market, and the free will of the buyer and seller exalted above all else. It is asserted that in order to eliminate social injustice, all that is required is to relate every commodity's exchange value to the value of the labour contained within it. Marx shows – and will show later, pitting himself against Bakunin, against Lassalle, against Duhring, against Sorel and against all the latter-day pygmies mentioned above – that what lies beneath all this is nothing other than the apologia, and the preservation, of bourgeois economy; incidentally, there is nothing different in the Stalinist claim that in a Socialist society, which Russia claims to be, the law of exchange of equivalent values will continue to exist." (Bordiga, Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism, italics added)

ComradePonov

30th July 2011, 18:31

Tons of loaded questions here with answers all throughout the topic, but I'll reiterate because I really don't want to read chapter 15 of Das Kapital (seriously, fuck constant capital and machinery).

I was EXPLICITLY talking about the TRANSITION between Capitalism and Socialism. Once we GET to Socialism sure whatever, everyone can vote on.. I don't know what the fuck they'll actually vote on to be honest, for the most part it seems like science will solve everything, maybe voting on what to apply that science to but you know.

But yea in the transition you damn well better BELIEVE they will be suppressing fascist speech, you know why? Because people who talk that shit during revolution are going to fucking kill you.

Fuck democracy.

Two things here.

1. You're saying that, forcefully taking the means of production from the bourgeoise isn't authoritarian? lol

2. You're saying that if the Koche brothers want to participate and help lead the revolution, we should let them? You don't think that type of person (bourgeoise) has some sort of alterior motive here?

The below sentence doesn't mean shit, I'm just using it to demonstrate a point.

Shit bro, I usually don't recommend leftists going into the military but I might make an exception for you, you'd prolly let the enemy help you plan your attack on their base.

I've never heard of those terms either tbh, and nah no need to take personal property. Why bother when we control the factories?

"Independence? That's middle class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth."

I'm not concerned with freedom, but solely with working class interests. To expect ANYONE to uphold "ideals" against their material interests is straight idealism.

That's exactly what I'm referring to actually.

You’re full of a repressive substance which is quite vulgar to mention in this response. I suggest you further study the principles of socialism and how it is to be implemented. In order for socialism to be established the masses must be in favour of it. If they are, it means the capitalist class has already been over ruled.

It is not the job of a single party to establish socialism. Socialism must be desired, established, and upheld by the people. If it is not, it means it is socialism gone wrong (Vanguard party, Cultural revolution, Killing fields, etc...)

noble brown

30th July 2011, 19:20

Illegitimate authority is the problem. It will always cause problems no matter what u call urself. Authoritarianism implies illegitimate authority. Its always goin to fail. Dictatorship of the proletariat is not about illegitimate authority though it could be easily corrupted to such.

Ele'ill

31st July 2011, 00:13

My comment/question on the first page was a polite way of introducing anarchists on this forum to this discussion as I'm sure some would question the continued existence of 'the state'.

Broletariat

31st July 2011, 03:10

You’re full of a repressive substance which is quite vulgar to mention in this response. I suggest you further study the principles of socialism and how it is to be implemented. In order for socialism to be established the masses must be in favour of it. If they are, it means the capitalist class has already been over ruled.

It is not the job of a single party to establish socialism. Socialism must be desired, established, and upheld by the people. If it is not, it means it is socialism gone wrong (Vanguard party, Cultural revolution, Killing fields, etc...)

I think you simply fail to understand what I mean when I say "Party." I don't mean anything like what masquerades as Communist Parties these days, I mean a real genuine mass worker's party.

ComradePonov

31st July 2011, 03:31

I think you simply fail to understand what I mean when I say "Party." I don't mean anything like what masquerades as Communist Parties these days, I mean a real genuine mass worker's party.

That might be a possibility.

But where did you read that a legitimate socialist revolution requires a "real genuine mass worker's party" (the kind of which is near to impossible to implement)

The entire concept of a "party" is against the interests of the people. How is being ruled by "the party" any better than being ruled by the capitalist class? Why do the people need a "party"?

I am of the opinion that socialism can be maintained and organized by the people. There is absolutely no reason why a single "party" is required in order for socialism to work.

Broletariat

31st July 2011, 03:40

That might be a possibility.

It's definite fact, as per the rest of your post.

But where did you read that a legitimate socialist revolution requires a "real genuine mass worker's party" (the kind of which is near to impossible to implement)

The entire concept of a "party" is against the interests of the people. How is being ruled by "the party" any better than being ruled by the capitalist class? Why do the people need a "party"?

I am of the opinion that socialism can be maintained and organized by the people. There is absolutely no reason why a single "party" is required in order for socialism to work.

The Party/DotP is merely the political expression of the economic struggle. To rely completely on economic struggle is, well, economism, and abstaining from uniting the worker's in any meaningful way leaves them divided ready to be re-conquered.

agnixie

31st July 2011, 03:46

You're highly confused. In the first place, the fact that Marx would suggest that the existence of capitalism continued in the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat means that, far from believing that the political nature of the state determines the social relations of production, he believed the opposite. In addition, the application of the label of 'resurrected and tenacious proudhonism' to the Stalinists was made by Bordiga not because of any belief about the relation between political and economic spheres but because they asserted that the law of value would continue to assert itself in socialism, which he compared to Proudhon's belief that socialism involved a more consistent application of the law of value than occured under capitalism, rather than the abolition of value relations altogether:

"In Proudhon's system we find individual exchange, the market, and the free will of the buyer and seller exalted above all else. It is asserted that in order to eliminate social injustice, all that is required is to relate every commodity's exchange value to the value of the labour contained within it. Marx shows – and will show later, pitting himself against Bakunin, against Lassalle, against Duhring, against Sorel and against all the latter-day pygmies mentioned above – that what lies beneath all this is nothing other than the apologia, and the preservation, of bourgeois economy; incidentally, there is nothing different in the Stalinist claim that in a Socialist society, which Russia claims to be, the law of exchange of equivalent values will continue to exist." (Bordiga, Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism, italics added)

Was Bordiga's understanding of Proudhon limited to a 4th cover blurb or something?

ZeroNowhere

31st July 2011, 04:33

Was Bordiga's understanding of Proudhon limited to a 4th cover blurb or something?
No.

PolskiLenin

31st July 2011, 04:35

Well, as soon as I saw this post, I was excited to give an elaborate explanation. It looks like EVERYONE beat me to it. :glare:

agnixie

31st July 2011, 05:33

No.

Then he was even less intellectually edifying than I remembered from what little I could be arsed to read of him, probably a leading to b.

ComradePonov

31st July 2011, 06:21

It's definite fact, as per the rest of your post.

The Party/DotP is merely the political expression of the economic struggle. To rely completely on economic struggle is, well, economism, and abstaining from uniting the worker's in any meaningful way leaves them divided ready to be re-conquered.

We agree to disagree then...

I don't agree with the concept of the party being the only way to unite the people. I've actually debated against this stance before. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now.

Those who advocate this line of thought almost always seem to be of the type who have no respect for civil liberties and basic democratic rights. Socialism can not be achieved through trickery and dictatorship, but rather only through democracy and the support of the masses.

Broletariat

31st July 2011, 06:22

We agree to disagree then...

I don't agree with the concept of the party being the only way to unite the people. I've actually heard this argument before. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now.
Man, the Party is the NAME for the united workers.

ComradePonov

31st July 2011, 06:26

Man, the Party is the NAME for the united workers.

Irrelevant. It is still a centralised organization. is it not?

Broletariat

31st July 2011, 06:29

Irrelevant. It is still a centralised organization. is it not?

centralised, united, same thing.

ComradePonov

31st July 2011, 06:39

centralised, united, same thing.

No.. They're... not...

Therefore, since you've now admitted that the party is, essentially, centralised, every thing I said still applies. I'm not going to re-state everything I just said above. My position remains the same.

Broletariat

31st July 2011, 06:41

No.. They're... not...

Therefore, since you've now admitted that the party is, essentially, centralised, every thing I said still applies. I'm not going to re-state everything I just said above. My position remains the same.

u·nite/yo͞oˈnīt/Verb

1. Come or bring together for a common purpose or action: "he called on the party to unite"; "they are united by their love of cars".
2. Come or bring together to form a unit or whole, esp. in a political context: "the two Germanys officially united".

cen·tral·ize/ˈsentrəˌlīz/Verb

1. Concentrate (control of an activity or organization) under a single authority: "a vast superstructure of centralized control".
2. Bring (activities) together in one place: "the ultimate goal is to centralize boxing under one umbrella".

noble brown

31st July 2011, 07:49

Illegitamate authority is the problem. U can tell me how to build a boat as long as u know wat ur talking about. All illegitimate authority is about control and power. Illegitimate authority must always be opposed. Authoritarianism is about illegitimate authority. Thus I am an anti_authoritarian, l think we all should be.

ComradePonov

1st August 2011, 17:24

u·nite/yo͞oˈnīt/Verb

1. Come or bring together for a common purpose or action: "he called on the party to unite"; "they are united by their love of cars".
2. Come or bring together to form a unit or whole, esp. in a political context: "the two Germanys officially united".

cen·tral·ize/ˈsentrəˌlīz/Verb

1. Concentrate (control of an activity or organization) under a single authority: "a vast superstructure of centralized control".
2. Bring (activities) together in one place: "the ultimate goal is to centralize boxing under one umbrella".

I don’t think we understand each other;

When looking at Russia early on in the revolution, I think it is easy to understand why some kind of dictatorial government was inevitable in the atrocious conditions of the early Soviet-Union. Marx himself never imagined that Socialism could be achieved in impoverished conditions. Nor did any Marxist until Stalin imagine that this was possible, including Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest of the Bolshevik leadership. You cannot reorganize wealth for the benefit of all if there is little wealth to reorganize. You cannot abolish social classes in conditions of scarcity, since conflicts over a material surplus will simply revive again. As Marx commented in The German Ideology, the result of a revolution in such conditions is that “the old filthy business” will simply reappear. If you need to accumulate capital from scratch, then the most effective way of doing so is through the profit motive. Self-interest will pile up wealth with remarkable speed, though it will also amass poverty at the same time.

Building up an economy from very low levels is a back breaking task. It is unlikely that men and women will freely submit to the hardships it involves. So unless the project is executed gradually, under democratic control and in accordance with socialist values, an authoritarian state will step in and force its citizens to do what they are reluctant to do undertake voluntarily. The militarization of labour in Bolshevik Russia, ironically, undermined the political superstructure of socialism in the very attempt to build up its economic base (Popular democracy and genuine self government.)

Ideally, socialism requires a skilled, educated, politically sophisticated populace, thriving civic institutions, democratic rights, and civil liberties. Most importantly, Socialism requires a well-evolved technological base, enlightened liberal traditions, and the habit of democracy. None of this is likely to be on hand if you cannot even afford to fix the few highways you have, or have no insurance policy against sickness or starvation beyond a big in the back shed. Nations with a history of colonial rule are especially likely to not have these requirements, since colonial powers have not been remarkable for their zeal to implant civil liberties or democratic institutions.

So, it is my hope that I have explained why I feel that in order for Socialism to be implemented, it must succeed a capitalist state and be organized, carried out, and upheld by the people in a true democratic institution. Socialism can not be maintained by a centralised organization, this is truly against socialist values. Socialism must be acheived through a popular uprising. Similarly, it must be maintained by the people, not by a centralised organization. I can not say this any clearer; socialism is a movement of the people, not a centralised institution. Socialism requires genuine self-government, not "the party" or a centralised institution telling the people what to do (wheter or not the party is a genuine workers party is irrelevant, it is still centralised.)

Broletariat

2nd August 2011, 02:42

I don’t think we understand each other;

When looking at Russia early on in the revolution, I think it is easy to understand why some kind of dictatorial government was inevitable in the atrocious conditions of the early Soviet-Union. Marx himself never imagined that Socialism could be achieved in impoverished conditions. Nor did any Marxist until Stalin imagine that this was possible, including Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest of the Bolshevik leadership. You cannot reorganize wealth for the benefit of all if there is little wealth to reorganize. You cannot abolish social classes in conditions of scarcity, since conflicts over a material surplus will simply revive again. As Marx commented in The German Ideology, the result of a revolution in such conditions is that “the old filthy business” will simply reappear. If you need to accumulate capital from scratch, then the most effective way of doing so is through the profit motive. Self-interest will pile up wealth with remarkable speed, though it will also amass poverty at the same time.

Building up an economy from very low levels is a back breaking task. It is unlikely that men and women will freely submit to the hardships it involves. So unless the project is executed gradually, under democratic control and in accordance with socialist values, an authoritarian state will step in and force its citizens to do what they are reluctant to do undertake voluntarily. The militarization of labour in Bolshevik Russia, ironically, undermined the political superstructure of socialism in the very attempt to build up its economic base (Popular democracy and genuine self government.)

Ideally, socialism requires a skilled, educated, politically sophisticated populace, thriving civic institutions, democratic rights, and civil liberties. Most importantly, Socialism requires a well-evolved technological base, enlightened liberal traditions, and the habit of democracy. None of this is likely to be on hand if you cannot even afford to fix the few highways you have, or have no insurance policy against sickness or starvation beyond a big in the back shed. Nations with a history of colonial rule are especially likely to not have these requirements, since colonial powers have not been remarkable for their zeal to implant civil liberties or democratic institutions.

So, it is my hope that I have explained why I feel that in order for Socialism to be implemented, it must succeed a capitalist state and be organized, carried out, and upheld by the people in a true democratic institution. Socialism can not be maintained by a centralised organization, this is truly against socialist values. Socialism must be acheived through a popular uprising. Similarly, it must be maintained by the people, not by a centralised organization. I can not say this any clearer; socialism is a movement of the people, not a centralised institution. Socialism requires genuine self-government, not "the party" or a centralised institution telling the people what to do (wheter or not the party is a genuine workers party is irrelevant, it is still centralised.)

The fuck does any of this have to do with anything yet said, and no you haven't explained why it has to be "democratic."

Fuck the people, I'm interested in the workers.

syndicat

2nd August 2011, 02:52

Capitalism does not give you the tools you would like to use, what we have is the State, that is how political power is concentrated and where the site of class-struggle is resolved. Once we have a dictatorship of the proletariat, the State and class-war will be winning on the side of the proletariat, bringing us closer to the end of all classes and States.

keep repeating that mindless mantra, comrade. it's a way to avoid thinking straight. there are questions you might ask:

why have all "dictatorships of the proletariat" not been organizations of workers power but of a bureaucratic elite over the working class?

if the working class is to exercise power, shouldn't this be based on the place that determines what class is, namely the workplaces? so workers must hold collective power over the workplaces. not be subject to some top-down party elite.

given that as a base, why not then think of workers power in society as a whole being built up through associations of all the workplaces? of delegate congresses accountable to the mass of workers in their various workplaces?

where, then, is there a role for the "party-state"?

Broletariat

2nd August 2011, 02:58

why have all "dictatorships of the proletariat" not been organizations of workers power but of a bureaucratic elite over the working class?

I assume you're referring to the USSR, in which case we can point out that the revolution failed to spread (read as, failed entirely) so the DotP collapsed pretty early on.

if the working class is to exercise power, shouldn't this be based on the place that determines what class is, namely the workplaces? so workers must hold collective power over the workplaces. not be subject to some top-down party elite.

Yes precisely, like Marx outlines in the manifesto, you've got worker's councils/collective whatever that run the individual factories and such, but these bros are fragmented from each other, how do you unite them to focus their collective struggle energies in one direction? The Party. The Party being composed of those workers in the "liberated" factories.

given that as a base, why not then think of workers power in society as a whole being built up through associations of all the workplaces? of delegate congresses accountable to the mass of workers in their various workplaces?

That sounds fairly agreeable.

where, then, is there a role for the "party-state"?
When workers unite and start fighting for socialism on a large collective scale, I call it The Party, simple as that.

syndicat

2nd August 2011, 05:44

When workers unite and start fighting for socialism on a large collective scale, I call it The Party, simple as that. yeah, but that's not been the actual history of socalled "workers parties".

when workers take over production and run it, they have called their organizations various things...councils, assemblies, cordones industriales, collectives. but never "parties".

parties are based on ideology and tend to divide the working class, not unite it. mass organizations are what unite the working class.

Broletariat

2nd August 2011, 05:49

yeah, but that's not been the actual history of socalled "workers parties".

Usually I wouldn't call those "worker's parties" actual "parties."

when workers take over production and run it, they have called their organizations various things...councils, assemblies, cordones industriales, collectives. but never "parties".

parties are based on ideology and tend to divide the working class, not unite it. mass organizations are what unite the working class.

Ehh, I tend to see it as, you've got economic struggle with your councils/collectives/whatever. But when the various fragmented councils unite to collectively and politically fight capitalism, THAT'S the Party.

Pretty Flaco

2nd August 2011, 05:52

I would hardly say that being anti-authoritarian is sectarian in the slightest. The Pacifist does not partake in violence because he is not a violent man. For a pacifist to partake in violence or an anarchist to partake in authoritarian action, even to realize their goals, would be completely opportunistic and hypocritical. For when the pacfist commits a violent act in order to achieve peace, he has turned his back on the idea that peace should be means to achieve his goal. When an anarchist builds an authoritarian structure to realize a stateless, classless society, he has turned his back on the idea that such a society can be achieved through non-authoritarian, non-hierarchical ways.

Wouldn't the pacifist partaking in violence make this person cease to be a pacifist? The Anarchists partaking in authoritarianism cease to be an anarchist? When one starts to look deeply into the abyss, ect.

When the socialist denies the working class the right to control the state, the economy, and their livelihood then they cease to be a socialist.

Broletariat

2nd August 2011, 06:03

When the socialist denies the working class the right to control the state, the economy, and their livelihood then they cease to be a socialist.

A focus on class, much better.

but

Wtf bro you stole my naming idea.

Pretty Flaco

2nd August 2011, 06:07

A focus on class, much better.

but

Wtf bro you stole my naming idea.

your naming idea? lol
dude people are always putting bro in the front of shit. brohammad. brohandas gandhi. brosef stallin. van bro. bromar. bro chi minh. etc etc etc

robbo203

2nd August 2011, 07:17

The DOTP is a contradiction in terms.

A (wage) slave class is no position to "dictate" terms to the slave owning class - in this context , the capitalists - and if it was, it would certainly have no reason to perpetuate its own enslavement which is implied by its very existence as a class. If workers are in a position to dictate terms to the capitalist class then they are in a position to abolish class ownership, themselves and the capitalists altogether.

Lingering around this futile and incoherent idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is just a recipe for shoring up capitalism. Maybe a kind of (old) Labour Party or Social Democratic-run capitalism (pretending to run the system in the interests of workers) but capitalism all the same. This is reactionary and conservative

And there is one other point you need to bear in mind...

Marx outlined 3 post-capitalism stages

1) the DOTP - a political stage
2) Lower communism - labour vouchers etc
3) Higher communism - Free access and voluntary labour

!) and 2) were both rationalised on the grounds that the productive forces were insufficiently developed yet to permit 3). But then why have both 1) and 2)? You can have 1) or 2) conceivably but there is no point in having one duplicating what the other is intended to do.

Personally, I think the whole idea of a transition between capitalism and communism is a load of tosh. Its akin to saying one can be a little bit pregnant. You are pregnant or you are not. You have common ownership of the means of production (and therefore no more economic exchange) or you have not. Its one or the other.

If we can talk about a transition stage at all then the only sensible way of talking about it is that it happens within capitalism and not after capitalism. In a way, we are already in this transition stage and we dont need to invoke one for some distant future

Broletariat

2nd August 2011, 18:32

A (wage) slave class is no position to "dictate" terms to the slave owning class - in this context , the capitalists - and if it was, it would certainly have no reason to perpetuate its own enslavement which is implied by its very existence as a class. If workers are in a position to dictate terms to the capitalist class then they are in a position to abolish class ownership, themselves and the capitalists altogether.

Lets put the DotP this way. You've got say 70% of industry in the country/world "liberated." Well the other 30% is still under Capitalist control, so yes we're just a "little bit" Socialist right now. How are we going to go and get that last 30% on our side? Well we've got to unite the 70% we've already got because a scattered force is easy to conquer. That unity is called the DotP.

Personally, I think the whole idea of a transition between capitalism and communism is a load of tosh. Its akin to saying one can be a little bit pregnant. You are pregnant or you are not. You have common ownership of the means of production (and therefore no more economic exchange) or you have not. Its one or the other.

So what, you want every single industry at once to become controlled by the workers? You think that there'll be a unilateral conversion to socialism over night?

maskerade

2nd August 2011, 18:40

Broletariat

2nd August 2011, 18:43

i always understood the dictatorship of the proletariat as an ideological one. So, for example, even in Anarchist Catalonia there was a dictatorship of the proletariat as the working class was in power, and carried out political actions in lieu with their class interests.

Right now we live in a dictatorship of the bourgeois as they have shaped our institutions and 'democracy', no to mention the economic system. I guess the question amongst leftists lies in the shape and form of a proletarian dictatorship, whether it will be assumed as a state or a commune etc.

I'm pretty ignorant about history, but from what I do understand, one of the failings of Anarchist Spain was that they were too anti-political, meaning they didn't participate in the uhh something or another, I forgot.

But mostly for that one I blame the USSR for not helping, but would you really expect a Capitalist nation to help a genuine socialist movement?

I like your comment about "dictatorship of the bourgeoise," as it's a term I've long liked to use.

maskerade

2nd August 2011, 18:47

I'm pretty ignorant about history, but from what I do understand, one of the failings of Anarchist Spain was that they were too anti-political, meaning they didn't participate in the uhh something or another, I forgot.

But mostly for that one I blame the USSR for not helping, but would you really expect a Capitalist nation to help a genuine socialist movement?

I like your comment about "dictatorship of the bourgeoise," as it's a term I've long liked to use.

To be perfectly honest my knowledge of anarchist spain is entirely superficial, but I wouldn't view their reluctance towards politics as a sign that there was an ideological dictatorship of the workers. There is a marxist quote that I don't know by heart but it pretty much says that ideology is what everyone knows but can't articulate - or something to that extent.

But you're right, the soviet union's response to the events in Spain is a terrible shame. As the immortal Against Me! lyrics go: "remember '36? we went our separate ways; you fought for Stalin, I fought for freedom" :)

Pretty Flaco

2nd August 2011, 18:47

So what, you want every single industry at once to become controlled by the workers? You think that there'll be a unilateral conversion to socialism over night?

The revolution itself should be workers seizing the workplaces. If the capitalist class loses control of the economy, how can it enforce authority through use of the state?

Broletariat

2nd August 2011, 18:55

The revolution itself should be workers seizing the workplaces. If the capitalist class loses control of the economy, how can it enforce authority through use of the state?

Because it's not going to all happen at once, you're going to have some reluctant worker's who like the old ways for a time, the bourgeois are going to retain some semblance of an army most likely, etc.

syndicat

2nd August 2011, 19:17

Ehh, I tend to see it as, you've got economic struggle with your councils/collectives/whatever. But when the various fragmented councils unite to collectively and politically fight capitalism, THAT'S the Party.

no political party was ever formed that way. they are formed by activists and intellectuals who have some particular ideology. the organization that unites the mass organizations that control the workplaces is called a federation.

Broletariat

2nd August 2011, 19:18

no political party was ever formed that way. they are formed by activists and intellectuals who have some particular ideology. the organization that unites the mass organizations that control the workplaces is called a federation.

Yea but see, I'm not really using a traditional usage of the word "Party," I think this is just a semantic disagreement really.

robbo203

2nd August 2011, 19:43

How exactly do you think the ex-bourgeoise become just that? Socialism has to be built, it is not something that comes into fruition without the revolutionary efforts of the proletariat. For the former members of the bourgeoisie to become functioning members of a socialist society, we must first expropriate their class entirely. This means their complete isolation from the political, economic, and social institutions of a society led by the proletariat state. It is necessary to dismantle the status quo of capitalism before the former capitalists are allowed to reenter into society.

If this step is forsaken, then you will simply see naturally the former members of the bourgeoisie act in a counter revolutionary fashion and act as a hindrance to the revolutionary progress of the working class.

Here we see clearly where the problem with the DOTP lies. It a based on a fundamental confusion.

Of course the capitalist class must be stripped off their class ownership of the means of production. That requires a socialist revolution. I dont think many would see this as being controversial. The real question that you need to ask yourself is what does that really imply?

If the capitalist class no longer has ownership of the means of production there is no longer a capitalist class. There are only ex-capitalists. If there is no longer a capitalist class then it follows there can no longer be a working class. You cannot have capitalists without workers or workers without capitalists. By definition, the working class is that class in capitalist society which is excluded from ownership of the means of production. If it is excluded that means someone else owns the means of production - the capitalist class - the very class that will no longer exist as a class following a socialist revolution.

If the working class or proletariat no longer exists (becuase the capitalist class no longer exists) then it follows that there can be no such thing as a "proletarian state" - quite because the proletariat no longer exists! Not only that, if classes no longer exists how can a state exist if the state oyself is an instrument of class rule.

In a double sense then the idea of a "proletarian state" is nothing more than nonsense on stilts! Logically, there can be no such thing

Rooster

2nd August 2011, 19:49

It is necessary to dismantle the status quo of capitalism before the former capitalists are allowed to reenter into society.

I'm not sure how a capitalist can re-enter society (as a capitalist) after having their capital and ownership of production expropriated from them. They'd have to go through the whole process of capital accumulation again.

Broletariat

2nd August 2011, 19:49

We've been over this several times before actually.

robbo203

3rd August 2011, 07:35

Lets put the DotP this way. You've got say 70% of industry in the country/world "liberated." Well the other 30% is still under Capitalist control, so yes we're just a "little bit" Socialist right now. How are we going to go and get that last 30% on our side? Well we've got to unite the 70% we've already got because a scattered force is easy to conquer. That unity is called the DotP.

This is a false argument. Supposing your scenario to be the case, all it demonstrates is that you have two distinct modes of production coexisting side by side and not (to refer back to my metaphor of being "a little bit pregnant" which is, of course, an absurdity) one single mode of production that is a little bit "socialist". Its like saying you can mix oil and water. You cant. The properties of oil and water, respectively, simply resist mixing. In the same way, you cannot have common ownership of the means of production along with sectional or private ownership

Thinking about it a little more, I would say the idea of 70% of the industry of a country being socialist while 30% is not, is a non starter becuase the nature of a socialist revolution entails the capture of political power in the form of the state to effect the abolition of capitalism and this necessarily extends to the full extent of the terriroty over which the state has jurisdiction.

Where your scenario might have some validity is in the time lag between different countries affecting a socialist revolution. But the very nature of the socialist movement and the spread of socialist ideas means this factor will not present an insurmountable difficulty. If one part of the world has a socialist majority it is almost bound to be the case that other parts of the world would not be not far behind

So what, you want every single industry at once to become controlled by the workers? You think that there'll be a unilateral conversion to socialism over night?

There wont be a working class under socialism. There wont be any class at all. The means of production will be owned by everyone. Logically speaking between sectional ownership of the means of production and common ownership, there is nothing . So in a sense the transformation from one to the other is "instantaneous". It cannot be anything other than that! But it is not something that is done "over night" with the implication that we are asleep when it happens. It is done in the full glare of mass consciousness and that is something which does not develop overnight or even in a short while. It is a protracted cumulative process. The outcome of that process, however, is an instantaneous result as Marx would seem to have thought:

And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

Broletariat

3rd August 2011, 16:21

Perhaps you should study a bit more about the bourgeois revolutions and the way Capitalism was brought about.

Pro-tip, Capitalism existed alongside feudalism for a longass time.

robbo203

3rd August 2011, 18:40

Perhaps you should study a bit more about the bourgeois revolutions and the way Capitalism was brought about.

Pro-tip, Capitalism existed alongside feudalism for a longass time.

Another false argument. You cannot use bourgeois revolutions as a template for a communist/socialist revolution. The Communist Manifesto gives us a clue as to why this is so

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

and

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

Unlike the situation in feudal society in which capitalist relations of productions can indeed exist and grow within the interstices of such a society, this cannot be the case with communism vis a vis capitalist society. You cannot have common ownership of the means of production AND sectional/private ownership . Its illogical. You cannot have one industry under common ownership and another under private ownership. Thats absurd. As I explained the communist revolutuion, insofar as it involves the capture of the state to abolish capitalism, can only convert all means of production within the territory under the jurisdiction of a given state into common property. Its hardly going to divide up the means of production into commonly owned and privately owned property is it now? Production is a socialised process and the word "socialism" reflects this very fact

The only sense in which a communist mode of production can be said to coexist with a capitalist mode is where these correspond (temporarily) to different national territorial units and where the latter is still expecting a communist revolution and has not yet gone through with it. Like I said, this is not a problem becuase if one part of the world has become communist then very other part of the world is amost certainly likely to be not far behind....

Kiev Communard

3rd August 2011, 20:33

Another false argument. You cannot use bourgeois revolutions as a template for a communist/socialist revolution. The Communist Manifesto gives us a clue as to why this is so

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

and

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

I totally agree. That is why the simplistic schemes of MLs, who for all their revolutionary rhetoric, picture the socialist transformation as a mere continuation of the tendencies of capitalism to centralisation and concentration, without any radical changes in the management of production apparatus, etc., are completely wrong and pernicious from the point of view of the success of the communist revolution.

The only sense in which a communist mode of production can be said to coexist with a capitalist mode is where these correspond (temporarily) to different national territorial units and where the latter is still expecting a communist revolution and has not yet gone through with it. Like I said, this is not a problem becuase if one part of the world has become communist then very other part of the world is amost certainly likely to be not far behind....

I would say that the communist mode of production might co-exist for some time with simple commodity (or, as anarcho-syndicalists called it, an "individualist") production, but only at the earliest stages of its development and in the relatively undeveloped countries.

Comrade Trotsky

3rd August 2011, 21:53

I'm pretty ignorant about history, but from what I do understand, one of the failings of Anarchist Spain was that they were too anti-political, meaning they didn't participate in the uhh something or another, I forgot.

But mostly for that one I blame the USSR for not helping, but would you really expect a Capitalist nation to help a genuine socialist movement?

I like your comment about "dictatorship of the bourgeoise," as it's a term I've long liked to use.

They were plenty political (i.e. spreading class conciousness, thus leading to the overtrowing of wealthy land owners in several areas, such as Aragon, ect.)

The main "failing" of the ancom revolution in Spain was the external factors working against them. No matter how genuine or well intentioned a revolution may be, when one has the fascists and the authoritarian socialists breathing down their necks, having them out-gunned from all sides, there isn't much that can be done, sadly :(

Broletariat

3rd August 2011, 22:20

First I'd like to preface my response by apologising for being extremely condescending before.

Thinking about it a little more, I would say the idea of 70% of the industry of a country being socialist while 30% is not, is a non starter becuase the nature of a socialist revolution entails the capture of political power in the form of the state to effect the abolition of capitalism and this necessarily extends to the full extent of the terriroty over which the state has jurisdiction.

I suppose by definition this is right, but let me make sure we're on the same page. Say revolution breaks out in Northern America. It's quite feasible to imagine that the South refuses to participate and breaks ties and forms their own little Capitalist dealio for the time being.

Where your scenario might have some validity is in the time lag between different countries affecting a socialist revolution. But the very nature of the socialist movement and the spread of socialist ideas means this factor will not present an insurmountable difficulty. If one part of the world has a socialist majority it is almost bound to be the case that other parts of the world would not be not far behind

How then do you explain why the USSR failed? Shouldn't that revolution have spread to Germany (why did the German Revolution fail)?

The outcome of that process, however, is an instantaneous result as Marx would seem to have thought:

How then do you explain the USSR again, weren't some industries worker controlled and others not? It didn't happen at exactly the same time. Wasn't Spain also fragmented during it's civil war? With parts of it being worker run and other parts not?

robbo203

4th August 2011, 00:10

First I'd like to preface my response by apologising for being extremely condescending before.

I suppose by definition this is right, but let me make sure we're on the same page. Say revolution breaks out in Northern America. It's quite feasible to imagine that the South refuses to participate and breaks ties and forms their own little Capitalist dealio for the time being.

Is this likely, though? I really dont think so. To me it is inconceivable that you had could have the growth of mass socialist consciousness in one part of the world and not in another - particularly today given the pervasiveness of modern telecommunications. We are talking about something qualitatively different from anything that has ever happened before - a mass understanding of the need for a new global society without buying or selling or any of the other trappings of capitalism.

In fact, long before that, once a critical mass of support has been reached, enabling the movement to take off in a big way, the entire social environment will have already begun to radically change. Not only that, the socialist movement itself, being a global phenomenom, will have every reason to proactively ensure as far as possible that growth in support proceeds evenly across the globe.

How then do you explain why the USSR failed? Shouldn't that revolution have spread to Germany (why did the German Revolution fail)?

There is simply no way that Russia could have carried out a socialist revolution. It had neither the sufficiently developed material infrastructure to support a socialist society, nor the mass socialist consciouness among the working class to make this possible. As Lenin himself freely acknowleged at the time most workers were nowhere near socialist-minded and in any case the working class itself comprised only a small fraction of the population - less than 10%

How then do you explain the USSR again, weren't some industries worker controlled and others not? It didn't happen at exactly the same time. Wasn't Spain also fragmented during it's civil war? With parts of it being worker run and other parts not?

Common ownership is not the same thing as a worker controlled industry. Of course it is entirely possible for a group of workers to get together to collectively buy or build up an enterprise perhaps as a worker coop. It would still be a capitalist enterprise, however, producing commodities for a market and forced to compete with other enterprises including other coops.

Common ownership is something entirely different. It means ownership by everypone in society of the means of wealth production and not ownership by a small group of workers of a tiny fraction of the means of wealth production. Common ownership in other words has society-wide application whereas "worker controlled industries" relate solely to the specific enterprise owned or controlled as the case may be by the workers concerned.

In fact one of the problems with the factory committees in the immediate aftermath of the Russian Revolution was the concern that individual factories were or would be too preoccupied with their own narrow interests at the expense of the wider society. As I understand it, from reading people Pirani on the subject this was a weakness which the Bolsheviks were able to exploit in furtherance of their own state capitalist agenda and the increasing centralisation of decisionmaking in the hands of the state