The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[Peoples' War]

As the name suggests, it is the revolutionary dictatorship of the working class.

So, what is the economic nature. The classes still exist; Proletariat, Petty-bourgeois, bourgeois.

Is that right?

What is the system. It seems to me that the system of the DOTP would be a form of state capitalism, similar to what Lenin suggested.

What system is the DOTP, it's own, state capitalism, state socialism, what?

[Imposter Marxist]

State capitalism must be fought non-stop if we are too defeat stalinism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is something me and my fellow student group study. I believe that there has never been a dictatorship of the proletariat because no country that had a revolution had a powerful proletariat

[Aurora]

It is a class dictatorship so yes classes still exist but the working class which is in power must use this power to begin the transformation of all people into workers, to expropriate, over time, capitalist property and to transform any remnants of the peasantry into workers.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a political period, the political rule of the working class, so it can't really be said to have it's own characteristic economy, rather it takes over from capitalism and begins the transition to socialism.
At different stages it takes on different forms at the beginning inevitably it will be much closer to capitalism and as it advances begins to become more socialist.
One of the important things to understand is that it isn't a stable state of being, it's a mash up of different factors, either the DOTP will become isolated and degenerate back to capitalism or it will spread worldwide and continue to socialism.

If you take the SU as an example at various different times it had different economic policies from War Communism to NEP to the 5year Plans but through these times it retained it's character of a workers dictatorship more or less degenerated, it was only in 91 that capitalism triumphed, the workers state was destroyed and the old capitalist state was resurrected.


edit: When Lenin was talking about 'state capitalism' the 'state' he was talking about was the workers state, the proletarian dictatorship, allowing areas of capitalism to develop, particularly in the countryside, in an attempt to develop the economy, this was the NEP which ended in 1928 i believe, after this the Soviet economy could not be called 'state capitalist' anymore.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

As the name suggests, it is the revolutionary dictatorship of the working class.

Correct


So, what is the economic nature. The classes still exist; Proletariat, Petty-bourgeois, bourgeois.

The dotp is NOT a classless and stateless society (which is what communism is). After the revolution, it would be utopian and stupid to believe that classes will disappear automatically and that counter-revolutionaries will not violently attack the new revolutionary power (something that happened to the Bolsheviks after the October revolution with the invasion of 14 countries, counter-revolutionary sabotage, civil war, etc.) The dotp is used as a transition stage to defend the revolution until a time when a classless and stateless society can develop.

The dotp is NOT equatable with such countries as Vietnam, China, North Korea, etc. etc. etc. where basic capitalist relations still exist and flourish.


What is the system. It seems to me that the system of the DOTP would be a form of state capitalism, similar to what Lenin suggested.

There are many differing theories on this.

What system is the DOTP, it's own, state capitalism, state socialism, what?[/QUOTE]

No such thing as state socialism and the dotp is just that, a dotp.

Look at this. http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=932

[Prometeo liberado]

State capitalism must be fought non-stop if we are too defeat stalinism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is something me and my fellow student group study. I believe that there has never been a dictatorship of the proletariat because no country that had a revolution had a powerful proletariat

Can we expect to enjoy some modicum of sentence structure here, at least amongst the so called "students"? Anyways, if one takes the literal meaning of the the term DotP then one sees that it is nothing more than class ambitions and revolutionary Marxism taken to its, almost, fruition. Every class lays claim to power when they are at the helm. Call it radical democracy of the great equalizers or liberators if thats what will make you sleep better at night. Fact is is that it will function much like a brutal dictatorship if you are looking at it from the eyes of the displaced class, capitalist. By fearing these words of dictatorship and using the writings of trot or the ISO, SwP or whatever reactionary ilk you come from you betray your loyalty to counterrevolution before class war.

[Geiseric]

Well Russia had a powerful proletariat... Thus why the revolution happened...

The act of revolution establishes a DotP. The question of the make-up of the DotP is whoever directly makes the revolution happen, meaning the most class conscious working class , which will definately be the majority of the proletariat. If you strike, you're part of the Vanguard. If you organize students to fight strike breakers, you're part of the vanguard. If you're a member of the party of the proletariat, you're part of the vanguard.

According to basic logic, those who force the revolution would be in charge once the bourgeois are overthrown. The point when the bolshevik party degenerated was when non revolutionary workers were allowed to join (most of them were opportunists) which watered down the vanguard nature of the party.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Well Russia had a powerful proletariat... Thus why the revolution happened...

The act of revolution establishes a DotP. The question of the make-up of the DotP is whoever directly makes the revolution happen, meaning the most class conscious working class , which will definately be the majority of the proletariat. If you strike, you're part of the Vanguard. If you organize students to fight strike breakers, you're part of the vanguard. If you're a member of the party of the proletariat, you're part of the vanguard.

According to basic logic, those who force the revolution would be in charge once the bourgeois are overthrown. The point when the bolshevik party degenerated was when non revolutionary workers were allowed to join (most of them were opportunists) which watered down the vanguard nature of the party.

Essentially it is this. I think 3 organs of proletariat rule would dominate society after the establishment of the dotp: the party, the soviets, and the trade unions. It is important to note that me and Leon Brotsky here are both Leninists so we agree with the necessity of the party, but others would see the dotp being run mainly by the soviets without a party. I would argue that both the party and the soviets have an important part to play in the dotp.

[Geiseric]

Well the soviets are made up of parties, it's a political body with divisions like any other. The Mensheviki and the Left SRs were both (correct me if i'm wrong) workers parties, however the Bolsheviks served the role of the Vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat, as opposed to the Mensheviks who represented the defeatist proletariat, or the SRs who were populists.

In all reality, a future soviet or workers political body will certainly contain more than one party. However whichever party is most popular among the working class (inevitably the revolutionary party) is what will guide the DotP.

It's something that isn't really debated about, at the moment we live in a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. the term "dictatorship," just means whoever has the sole right to use authority against the oppressed class, which in the proletariats case will be the bourgeoisie.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Well the soviets are made up of parties, it's a political body with divisions like any other. The Mensheviki and the Left SRs were both (correct me if i'm wrong) workers parties, however the Bolsheviks served the role of the Vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat, as opposed to the Mensheviks who represented the defeatist proletariat, or the SRs who were populists.

In all reality, a future soviet or workers political body will certainly contain more than one party. However whichever party is most popular among the working class (inevitably the revolutionary party) is what will guide the DotP.

It's something that isn't really debated about, at the moment we live in a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. the term "dictatorship," just means whoever has the sole right to use authority against the oppressed class, which in the proletariats case will be the bourgeoisie.

I agree with your post, I just wanted to focus on the bolded section for a second. I wouldn't say that the soviets are made up of different parties with their own official representatives (as I think you were saying, but I might be wrong) but made up of the entire proletariat that come from different political backgrounds and, therefore, possibly different parties than the revolutionary party.

[Geiseric]

the proletariat creates different parties to match with its different views, right. Menshevism was a workers ideology, as was Social Democracy. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat will include non revolutionary workers delegates, but nonetheless workers delegates from different political factions of the proletariat is what i'm trying to say. The term "dictator," as its used by Liberals usually means a one party state, however a DotP will include many workers parties (that rise out of the working class.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Essentially it is this. I think 3 organs of proletariat rule would dominate society after the establishment of the dotp: the party, the soviets, and the trade unions. It is important to note that me and Leon Brotsky here are both Leninists so we agree with the necessity of the party, but others would see the dotp being run mainly by the soviets without a party. I would argue that both the party and the soviets have an important part to play in the dotp.


Well the soviets are made up of parties, it's a political body with divisions like any other. The Mensheviki and the Left SRs were both (correct me if i'm wrong) workers parties, however the Bolsheviks served the role of the Vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat, as opposed to the Mensheviks who represented the defeatist proletariat, or the SRs who were populists.

In all reality, a future soviet or workers political body will certainly contain more than one party. However whichever party is most popular among the working class (inevitably the revolutionary party) is what will guide the DotP.

It's something that isn't really debated about, at the moment we live in a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. the term "dictatorship," just means whoever has the sole right to use authority against the oppressed class, which in the proletariats case will be the bourgeoisie.

Why are councils necessary when party-movements of the working class will suffice?

[Grenzer]

Well the soviets are made up of parties, it's a political body with divisions like any other. The Mensheviki and the Left SRs were both (correct me if i'm wrong) workers parties

I don't think they could be considered "workers'" parties at all since their political goals objectively reflected the class interests of the bourgeoisie. There can be division within the proletariat as to go about how to achieve their class interests, but I can't say that reformism and liberalism seems like something that would be considered proletarian strategies or something that would emerge as being reflective of the class interests of the proletariat..

DNZ, I don't think most people are aware of what distinguishes a party-movement from a typical 'Leninist' party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think they could be considered "workers'" parties at all since their political goals objectively reflected the class interests of the bourgeoisie. There can be division within the proletariat as to go about how to achieve their class interests, but I can't say that reformism and liberalism seems like something that would be considered proletarian strategies or something that would emerge as being reflective of the class interests of the proletariat..

The Menshevik-Internationalists should be considered a workers party, but the Defencists were pro-bourgeois and the Left-SRs were pro-peasants. The Left-SRs weren't pro-bourgeois.


DNZ, I don't think most people are aware of what distinguishes a party-movement from a typical 'Leninist' party.

We have the unenviable obligation to spread this awareness, comrade. Anyway, re. Russia, a stable DOTP was not possible without some proletarian demographic majority. The best solution would have been some governmental coalition with the Left-SRs as the senior partner, the Bolsheviks as the main junior partner, and the MIs as the second junior partner.

[Grenzer]

The Menshevik-Internationalists should be considered a workers party, but the Defencists were pro-bourgeois and the Left-SRs were pro-peasants.

That's true, I always forget about the Internationalists. They were a very insignificant and small group, but I would agree that they represented the class interests of the proletariat.

[campesino]

isn't the DoTP
when the workers eliminate the bourgeoisie, essentially destroy capitalism and its institutions.

[Geiseric]

I don't think they could be considered "workers'" parties at all since their political goals objectively reflected the class interests of the bourgeoisie. There can be division within the proletariat as to go about how to achieve their class interests, but I can't say that reformism and liberalism seems like something that would be considered proletarian strategies or something that would emerge as being reflective of the class interests of the proletariat..

DNZ, I don't think most people are aware of what distinguishes a party-movement from a typical 'Leninist' party.

They did indeed represent the class interests of the bourgeoisie, however they still rose out of the working class. The Mensheviks failure at their attmept to save the bourgeois state shows that the revolutionary party is the only one who will fully gain support from the proletariat, after their prior leaders are seen as failures.

However according to your logic, since unions uphold the rule of the bosses, they too are bourgeois organizations. There are sellouts that rise from the proletariat, my point is that in the begining of the DotP they will exist and have a role, however they will be "sweeped by the tide of revolution," as Lenin said.

[Imposter Marxist]

Can we expect to enjoy some modicum of sentence structure here, at least amongst the so called "students"? Anyways, if one takes the literal meaning of the the term DotP then one sees that it is nothing more than class ambitions and revolutionary Marxism taken to its, almost, fruition. Every class lays claim to power when they are at the helm. Call it radical democracy of the great equalizers or liberators if thats what will make you sleep better at night. Fact is is that it will function much like a brutal dictatorship if you are looking at it from the eyes of the displaced class, capitalist. By fearing these words of dictatorship and using the writings of trot or the ISO, SwP or whatever reactionary ilk you come from you betray your loyalty to counterrevolution before class war.

socialism is not about 'brutal dictatorship' if we wanted that, we'd move to syria or korea. The 'workers' as you call them seemed to be pretty happy with liquidating all their economic and political rights in favor of a party class rule. so stop harrasing me, yeah? lets be civil

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can we expect to enjoy some modicum of sentence structure here, at least amongst the so called "students"? Anyways, if one takes the literal meaning of the the term DotP then one sees that it is nothing more than class ambitions and revolutionary Marxism taken to its, almost, fruition. Every class lays claim to power when they are at the helm. Call it radical democracy of the great equalizers or liberators if thats what will make you sleep better at night. Fact is is that it will function much like a brutal dictatorship if you are looking at it from the eyes of the displaced class, capitalist. By fearing these words of dictatorship and using the writings of trot or the ISO, SwP or whatever reactionary ilk you come from you betray your loyalty to counterrevolution before class war.Lol, don't get too muddy from chasing the troll under the bridge.:lol: "Student group" and "defeat (a now pretty-much defeated anyway) Stalinism" shoulda been the clues.

The ISO and SWP support the dictatorship of the proletariat over society, just not dictatorships over the proletariat.

And, IM, if you're sincere I apologize, but you may want to change your screen name and subheading :)

[Manic Impressive]

The important thing you all seem to be missing is why it would still be necessary today in advanced capitalist countries? Unless you're planning a coup d'etat and then it's not a working class revolution or a dictatorship of the class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The important thing you all seem to be missing is why it would still be necessary today in advanced capitalist countries?Leaving aside the question of self-defense and a worker's militia, I'd argue it's because our whole society (especially in advanced capitalist countries), the way our cities are designed, the way services are done, the way schools and hospital are set up, is built around the profit motive and private capital. Workers would have to collectively figure out new and better ways to run things in their own interest, how to plan new housing and distribution and prioritize common projects like where a new Hospital is most needed first etc.

In addition there would still be sections of the masses, of the population as a whole, which support the workers, but aren't engaged in collective production. There would be independant shopkeepers and unemployed and professionals whose skills are needed by the workers until new methods can be developed. These groups wouldn't be oppressed by workers, but workers would have to make sure that the professionals that are kept in their positions initially out of necessity don't become intrenched or hold proletarian democracy, the DoP hostage through disruptions or whatnot.

Obviously this would only be necessary while transitioning - once workers have reorganized society, people probably couldn't start up a mom and pop shop and there would be no need for specialized positions because of improvements in general education and changes in the ways that workers manage production.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The important thing you all seem to be missing is why it would still be necessary today in advanced capitalist countries? Unless you're planning a coup d'etat and then it's not a working class revolution or a dictatorship of the class.

I know that you are extremely anti-Leninist (which is what I assume the "coup" reference was to even though in this thread ComradeOm destroyed every argument you gave (http://www.revleft.com/vb/charge-blanquism-against-t171367/index.html?t=171367)) but even anti-Leninists, like Council Communists, understand the importance of the dotp.

Anyway, I will expand upon Jimmie Higgins post on the subject, specifically on the part where he passes over the question of self-defense. After the Bolshevik revolution the new power faced sabotage, assassination attempts, civil war, invasion by 14 countries, etc. etc. In such conditions, the flowering of a classless and stateless society will not form and to believe so is very idealist and utopian. Every single revolution has had a counter-revolutionary response and the revolution needs to be defended from such a response.

[Prometeo liberado]

And, IM, if you're sincere I apologize, but you may want to change your screen name and subheading
And for what good reason would I be changing me handle for?

[Jimmie Higgins]

And for what good reason would I be changing me handle for?Sorry, I meant if Imposter Marxist was sincere, he/she should change the name to something less suspicious sounding.

[Towarzysz Leninski]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is merely the political expression of the transitional society between capitalism and communism in which the proletariat is the ruling class.

The DOTP is not an economic system in itself, but rather it facilitates the construction of socialism and the transition from socialism to communism (in the process of which it withers away in a direct proportion). It PRESIDES OVER and DIRECTS AND MANAGES the economic system, whatever you think it might be, in the transitional stage of society.

To say that Lenin understood the dictatorship of the proletariat as "state capitalism" is absurd and a major misunderstanding.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is merely the political expression of the transitional society between capitalism and communism in which the proletariat is the ruling class.

I would agree.


The DOTP is not an economic system in itself, but rather it facilitates the construction of socialism and the transition from socialism to communism

Actually, Lenin and Kautsky are the revisionists on this (and this is coming from a fellow Leninist). Marx and Engels, while talking of lower and higher stages, talk of both socialism and communism to mean the same thing: a classless and stateless society.


To say that Lenin understood the dictatorship of the proletariat as "state capitalism" is absurd and a major misunderstanding.

No, this is wrong. Lenin understood that the underdevelopment needed a form of "state capitalism for the benefit of the people" to develop.

[Geiseric]

Nationalizing the resources in 3rd world countries though is "state capitalism," in the context that Lenin used it. Russia needed to develop a modern mode of production, and couldn't do so without making deals which mostly benefited them but at the same time provided incentive for people with mechanical knowlege or production methods not known to any Russians. For example, the U.S.S.R. couldn't develop the Baku oil fields without buying refining and drilling technology, so they needed the help of foreign capitalists to first create the fields. Eventually this worked out once Stalin abolished private property, which is one of the things that he did right, and the capitalist productive forces then belonged to the people of the U.S.S.R.

[Art Vandelay]

No, this is wrong. Lenin understood that the underdevelopment needed a form of "state capitalism for the benefit of the people" to develop.

I have been slowly coming around on the Bolsheviks, but this is where I just can't agree. I don't see how capitalism, whatever form it takes, can be made to benefit the people. And by being leaders of a state-capitalist state, the Bolsheviks took on the role of perpetuating capital.

[Geiseric]

Modernizing the country and economy with technology bought from capitalists, arranged by the workers state to invest in things with a very high use value such as oil drilling or electrification = State Capitalism in Russia.

[Peoples' War]

I have been slowly coming around on the Bolsheviks, but this is where I just can't agree. I don't see how capitalism, whatever form it takes, can be made to benefit the people. And by being leaders of a state-capitalist state, the Bolsheviks took on the role of perpetuating capital.
I think he's saying that this is the form the transition takes...that, so long as there is a DOTP, there can be no communism, and the system must "progress" from capitalism to "state capitalism for the benefit of the workers" into the lower phase of communism/socialism.

I don't think you can really avoid the point that we can't take state power, and immediately go from capitalism to the lower phase. That's absurd idealism. Capitalism WILL continue to exist into the beginning of the DOTP, and we build from that point onward.

Your point is that it can't benefit the people, whilst I would agree that Lenin's phrasing was wrong, he is not wholly incorrect. We can, as we see with modern social democracy, provide a more "human face" -- in reference of Michael Moore and Zizek -- to capitalism. The transition will, quite obviously, grow to benefit the people, unless you suggest we can declare socialism without making advances toward it. It's called transitory, for a reason.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I have been slowly coming around on the Bolsheviks, but this is where I just can't agree. I don't see how capitalism, whatever form it takes, can be made to benefit the people. And by being leaders of a state-capitalist state, the Bolsheviks took on the role of perpetuating capital.

Well, I don't necessarily agree that it was for "the benefit of the people" but it was needed to industrialize Russia from it's basically feudal state (although Russia was developing fast at this point). Obviously, this problem either wouldn't develop or wouldn't be as intense as it was in Russia in a country like the United States.

[Art Vandelay]

I think he's saying that this is the form the transition takes...that, so long as there is a DOTP, there can be no communism, and the system must "progress" from capitalism to "state capitalism for the benefit of the workers" into the lower phase of communism/socialism.

Which I understand, I am just not sure I agree with it.


I don't think you can really avoid the point that we can't take state power, and immediately go from capitalism to the lower phase. That's absurd idealism.

I guess all anarchists are idealists then.


Capitalism WILL continue to exist into the beginning of the DOTP, and we build from that point onward.

Indeed, but we can attempt to mitigate it as best as we can, not embrace it; although I have never argued for a DOTP before.


Your point is that it can't benefit the people, whilst I would agree that Lenin's phrasing was wrong, he is not wholly incorrect. We can, as we see with modern social democracy, provide a more "human face" -- in reference of Michael Moore and Zizek -- to capitalism. The transition will, quite obviously, grow to benefit the people, unless you suggest we can declare socialism without making advances toward it. It's called transitory, for a reason.

How was his phrasing wrong? I think for the most point, this issue will not be a problem in the majority of industrially advanced countries in the world come time for the next revolutionary wave.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, I don't necessarily agree that it was for "the benefit of the people" but it was needed to industrialize Russia from it's basically feudal state (although Russia was developing fast at this point). Obviously, this problem either wouldn't develop or wouldn't be as intense as it was in Russia in a country like the United States.

I guess I just don't see how, after taking on the role of leading a capitalist state and perpetuating capital, how you will act in the interests of anything but capital.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I guess I just don't see how, after taking on the role of leading a capitalist state and perpetuating capital, how you will act in the interests of anything but capital.

by redistributing it, I guess. (This is coming from a noob, though)

EDIT: Maybe a slightly short answer. To add some on this, Marx and Engels said The Paris Commune was how the dictatorship of the proletariat looked like. The little I've read on the Commune, said that they focused on redistribution of capital/wealth. So I suppose that is how "State capitalism in the interest of the people" would or could work.