"Communism will become a dictatorship"

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

People use this argument a lot, and I don't know any really good arguments to get back at it. Any ideas?

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Yeah, but transitioning into communism. They say someone will take power then.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yeah, but transitioning into communism. They say someone will take power then.

What reasoning do they use? During the transition such tendencies would long since be erased from the collective consciousness (so to speak); if communism is on the horizon than one-person rule would be unthinking when workers control and state withering comes into play.

[Red Enemy]

You counter with:

"There can be no dictator, it is simply impossible. The working class, in totality, will be in charge of the state and everything else. The working class organized into workers' councils. There will be no president, prime minister, no parliament, no senate, just councils which will democratically decide things, actively, every day. Those involved in the council will not be wealthy, for they will be proletariat, and their salaries will reflect the lowest payment among the workers under the DOTP."

[Dave B]

Never mind the idea of a ‘communist dictatorship’

We can look at the so called ‘lower phase of communism’ ie ‘Socialism’.

And thus the so called recent ‘post soviet’ terms of ;‘democratic socialism’ and ‘authoritarian socialism’.

The one of course pre-supposes the other.

But ‘democratic socialism’ used to be a tautology; as in a burning flame or gaseous air.

Demonstrated by the fact it was rarely if ever used before the Bolshevik revolution.

And thus likewise ‘authoritarian socialism’ for ‘Marxists’ at least, was, an oxymoron, like ‘true lies’.

And was only introduced into the ‘Marxists’ own vocabulary after the Bolshevik revolution.

The notion of ‘authoritarian socialism’, or the idea of Bakunin’s ‘political aristocracy’, same thing basically, was part of the pre Bolshevik, anti Marxist, Anarchist vocabulary; which used to provoke apoplexy in the ‘Marxist’ community.

It was only after Bolshevik revolution and the ‘introduction’ of ‘authoritarian socialism’ into the post 1917 Bolshevik nomenclature; that the new ‘idea’ for ‘Marxists’ of ‘taking the democracy out of socialism’ came out and took on firm ground; and two types of ‘socialism’ were ‘ideologically’ conceived.

By ‘taking the democracy out of socialism’, and by defining socialism as primarily (all that matters) as an ‘economic system’ or category eg; the ‘abolition of private production and of private competition’).

Then everything likewise deserves the name.

And therefore now ‘socialism’, as only just an ‘economic category; can appear as ‘two’ possible ‘political’ versions, types or sub categories; democratic and undemocratic.

I thought it was amusing that Thoedore Dan in 1946, one of the last Menshviks (In ‘The Origins of Bolshevism), took basically the orthodox Trot and related Paul Cockshott position on Soviet Russia.

By his own, taking the ‘democracy out of socialism’; soviet Russia was for him an undemocratic economic ‘socialist society’, or by another name that smells as sweet, a ‘degenerate workers state’.

The idea of a degenerate workers state originated with Bukharin in 1917; Trotsky the “windbag” never did have an original idea of his own.

[Ele'ill]

Yeah, but transitioning into communism. They say someone will take power then.

If more anarchists were posting in the DOTP and The Vanguard Party threads I'd direct you there but I guess regardless those would be topics of contention among radicals to read up on, regarding the state not withering away, and the criticisms of party or political oriented revolution. A lot of insurrectionary and post-left writings focus on this stuff too.

I don't know how in depth of an analysis you'd be looking for but feral faun/wolfie landstreicher texts that I recently reread kind of focus on this although they are arguably 'fuzzy' in their depth.

[ckaihatsu]

People are naturally wary because they may be relating to the realm of politics through their own *personal* (interpersonal) experience, and issues of control and authority are ubiquitous for everyone in regular daily life.

In planning for the future, though, for the world, the reality of scale / magnitude comes into play -- people should realize that political dynamics of *any* sort always go beyond any individual person and their personal characteristics. Politics is formally specified in terms of *policy*.

So, by definition, discussing proletarian possibilities is about *policy*, and we do not intensively discuss *personalities* in a managerial or celebrity-type way, as if the political task were about picking out the "right" person (idealism).

This, by the way, is really the mark of either fatalism or antagonism, since nothing about humanity's future is automatic, least of all who the actual personalities of a future communist world might be.

[Sea]

People use this argument a lot, and I don't know any really good arguments to get back at it. Any ideas?A simple "How come?" would be a good place to start. Don't give reactionaries' reasoning more credit than it deserves. ;)


What reasoning do they use?Generally speaking, they don't.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Yeah, but transitioning into communism. They say someone will take power then.

Well, if they are talking about the transition to communism, then they are absolutely right and wrong at the same time. They are absolutely right that we seek a transitional dictatorship, but this is much different than a one man dictatorship.

There are plenty of discussions going on about this, but I will copy and paste from other posts I made on this in different threads.

"Yes, the dictatorship of the proletariat is contradictory, but this is because it is emerging from capitalist society along with all of it's contradictions. The whole purpose of the proletarian dictatorship is to end these contradictions and then, consequently, the contradictions of the state's existence."

From this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2559341&postcount=6

"The state is an organ of class rule. The state came into being to try to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose in the conditions of conflict between these classes, it is the state of the dominant class. So, the state has worked in the interests of a certain class against others. In the past, it's worked for feudal lords, in modern times (especially since the French Revolution) it has worked in the interests of the bourgeoisie (or capitalists).

Because the state works in the interests of one class, every state is a dictatorship of one class. Right now, we would argue, we live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not synonymous with "one-man dictatorial rule" but can be understood in class terms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing more than the proletariat organizing itself as the ruling class. This part is important, because classes (and therefore the state) do not go away overnight. Elements of the bourgeoisie will (and have) exist after the success of the proletariat. The proletariat needs to defend the gains it made during the revolution.

It should also be remembered that many communists argue that the proletariat should directly administer it's own class dictatorship through various organs of proletarian class rule (such as the soviets, etc.) That is why Marxists, such as Engels, argue that such a society isn't even a state, but a semi-state that is in the process of destroying the basis of the need for a state (class society, generalized commodity production, etc)."

From this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2558635&postcount=28

"Most of us that argue for a proletarian dictatorship would argue that the working class have to first completely smash the bourgeois state and, on top of it's ruins, establish the rule of the proletariat through it's various organs of class rule."

From this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2557089&postcount=25

I hoped this helped you out.

Communism cannot be a "dictatorship" because it is a stateless society, so there can be no dictatorship.

[Ostrinski]

Assuming they are referring to the communist movement as communism is by definition stateless and therefore incompatible with dictatorship, then all you have to answer with is "no it won't." Because as far as we know, all they argued with is this one sentence as you didn't provide us with any background or supporting arguments that this person might have used, which are imperative to know if we are to refute this argument.

If I said to you, "you are going to die tomorrow," your task would only be to look at me as if I was crazy and respond with "no I am not" because I didn't provide any reasoning as to why I thought you were going to die tomorrow.

[Red Banana]

If this is just an argument of definition, don't waste your time. Someone saying "communism leads to dictatorship" is like saying red leads to green. It only makes sense to people who don't know what those words mean.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Actually, communism does lead to a dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletariat. :laugh:

[Ostrinski]

Actually, communism does lead to a dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletariat. :laugh:Not to be pedantic or anything but by the time we reach communism, both the proletariat and the dictatorship of such will exist only within the museum.

[Fourth Internationalist]

not to be pedantic or anything but by the time we reach communism, both the proletariat and the dictatorship of such will exist only within the museum.

9000

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

If more anarchists were posting in the DOTP and The Vanguard Party threads I'd direct you there but I guess regardless those would be topics of contention among radicals to read up on, regarding the state not withering away, and the criticisms of party or political oriented revolution. A lot of insurrectionary and post-left writings focus on this stuff too.

I don't know how in depth of an analysis you'd be looking for but feral faun/wolfie landstreicher texts that I recently reread kind of focus on this although they are arguably 'fuzzy' in their depth.

I started out as an anarchist, so I've read some of those texts. Not to say I'm totally against anarchism though.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Thanks everyone, lots of helpful answers. I know communism was the stateless part, but I was talking about when people try to bring the agonizing Russia or Cuba argument into it. This was very helpful.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Actually, communism does lead to a dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletariat. :laugh:

other way around

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks everyone, lots of helpful answers. I know communism was the stateless part, but I was talking about when people try to bring the agonizing Russia or Cuba argument into it. This was very helpful.


Maybe also remind them that things have changed quite a bit since the time of Stalin, FDR, and Churchill -- would the world have to go through the growing pains of industrialization *today* -- ?

I think there was much more going on in terms of world events back then, and so the timeline was more momentous, compared to now. Also consider that the entire globe is fully financialized now, thereby transcending much of the nation-based politicking of decades past (Cold War, etc.).

It would be valid to confront facile historical comparisons with a "So what's your point?", since the person is merely mentioning a certain empirical fact from history, and, as we all know, history itself doesn't determine the future.


philosophical abstractions

http://s6.postimage.org/yqh065ey5/2597461130046342459sy_ZWdo_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/yqh065ey5/)

[Rafiq]

Communism *is* the process of (forming) proletarian dictatorship, and a Marxist can say no more, no less in regards.

[Hiero]

Communism *is* the process of (forming) proletarian dictatorship, and a Marxist can say no more, no less in regards.

And I am sure that catches on well with the average Joe.

[Let's Get Free]

Tell them we're already living under Obama's communist dictatorship.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

[FONT=Arial]And thus the so called recent ‘post soviet’ terms of ;‘democratic socialism’ and ‘authoritarian socialism’.

The one of course pre-supposes the other.

But ‘democratic socialism’ used to be a tautology; as in a burning flame or gaseous air.

Demonstrated by the fact it was rarely if ever used before the Bolshevik revolution.



That's not true. Social-democrat was a term widely used by communists in the early 20th century. The Bolshevik party used to be named the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party.

[Dave B]

Social Democrat isn't the same as democratic socialism.

They were 'all' called social democrats, I think it was on the shortlist for the name of the SPGB in 1904.

you can have 'legitimately'; 'socialist democracy' because there exist the idea of a 'capitalist democracy'.

[Dave B]

I suppose you can have 'undemocratic socialism' in the sense that some Anarchists opposed the idea the tyranny of the majority democracy and Kropotkins criticism collectivism etc

But that wouldn't authoritarian socialism

[Rafiq]

And I am sure that catches on well with the average Joe.

Who cares? Objective reality does not constitute as the magnitude of how simplistic it is to understand.

[Delenda Carthago]

Yeah, but transitioning into communism. They say someone will take power then.
And you tell them, he's not.

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, but transitioning into communism. They say someone will take power then.


This *is* a valid point, and is one that we can't just breezily dismiss as naive foolishness -- or even retort-to with a nerdy "Well it's true by definition". The latter may be more appropriate as a reminder to someone who is already sympathetic, but in terms of "public relations" we should be able to provide a coherent and cogent response to anyone who asks, regardless of whether the intention behind their asking is an open-minded one or a more-hostile one.

The entire history of civilization so far has featured this very kind of power-grabbing dynamic, so it's no wonder that people think of it immediately and mention it.

It may be more productive to *explain* the 'definition' of socialism / communism, instead of relying on a snippy 5-word retort. A revolution is where the workers of the world rise up in unison to assert their rightful place as collective co-administrators over all productive assets and natural resources. It may be likened to a tsunami of mass activity that crashes down and all around all aspects of society and social life, pardon the metaphor. Within such a dynamic the role of any one individual would be relatively moot compared to the overarching scale of the mass political task ongoing.

Sure, *any* movement could potentially weaken for whatever reason, where the desired flat-level topology of participation gives way to widespread deferring to 'leaders' who go on to consolidate their power on the backs of habitual acquiescence. Obviously we don't *want* this, so the only way to mitigate the possibilities of that direction is to encourage a climate of constant revolutionary organizing, meaning a broad-based political culture of participation that turns *everyone* into leaders.

Some will say that this would have to happen indefinitely, with the revolution continually refreshed with constant struggle, no matter how difficult or easy the external conditions may be. I tend to think that regular routines would be mostly automated by the time genuine communism rolls around, then requiring only light mass oversight by that point (as through wiki pages), but this is a minor point.

Perhaps end by telling them that their point is worth discussing, but that again, revolution is borne out of mass intention, and so that person will readily have to decide which side they're on, and that they should seek a resolution to their fence-sitting as soon as possible.

[RedMaterialist]

The OP has it backwards. It is the dictatorship of the working class which will lead to communism.

[red guerilla]

Well, if they are talking about the transition to communism, then they are absolutely right and wrong at the same time. They are absolutely right that we seek a transitional dictatorship, but this is much different than a one man dictatorship.

There are plenty of discussions going on about this, but I will copy and paste from other posts I made on this in different threads.

"Yes, the dictatorship of the proletariat is contradictory, but this is because it is emerging from capitalist society along with all of it's contradictions. The whole purpose of the proletarian dictatorship is to end these contradictions and then, consequently, the contradictions of the state's existence."


"The state is an organ of class rule. The state came into being to try to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose in the conditions of conflict between these classes, it is the state of the dominant class. So, the state has worked in the interests of a certain class against others. In the past, it's worked for feudal lords, in modern times (especially since the French Revolution) it has worked in the interests of the bourgeoisie (or capitalists).

Because the state works in the interests of one class, every state is a dictatorship of one class. Right now, we would argue, we live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not synonymous with "one-man dictatorial rule" but can be understood in class terms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing more than the proletariat organizing itself as the ruling class. This part is important, because classes (and therefore the state) do not go away overnight. Elements of the bourgeoisie will (and have) exist after the success of the proletariat. The proletariat needs to defend the gains it made during the revolution.

It should also be remembered that many communists argue that the proletariat should directly administer it's own class dictatorship through various organs of proletarian class rule (such as the soviets, etc.) That is why Marxists, such as Engels, argue that such a society isn't even a state, but a semi-state that is in the process of destroying the basis of the need for a state (class society, generalized commodity production, etc)."


"Most of us that argue for a proletarian dictatorship would argue that the working class have to first completely smash the bourgeois state and, on top of it's ruins, establish the rule of the proletariat through it's various organs of class rule."


I hoped this helped you out.

Communism cannot be a "dictatorship" because it is a stateless society, so there can be no dictatorship.

This is all true, however I would add one caveat. Within the dictatorship of the proletariat there must be an earnest push towards actual worker control of the means of production and not simply an indefinite period of state led production. This implies some sort of democratic process within both the party and the process of production (soviets, councils etc). Otherwise you get a layer of state officials who are divorced from the will of the proletariat and thus can scarcely purport to represent their interests.

An example of this can be found in the ussr as well as the prc where instead of representing the true interests of the proletariat, the state represented only its own interests, leaving the workers to continue to be exploited not by capitalists but now by the state. If the goal of the application of marxism is to liberate the proletariat from the yoke of the capitalist mode of production, this is hardly possible if the state simply replaces the capitalist as exploiter of labor.

[ComradeScientist]

Marx or Lenin would say any state is necessarily a dictatorship, and that in transition to communism there is a phase where the proletariat will be the holders of state power, therefore there will be a dictatorship of the proletariat, but, the issue is the definition of dictatorship. The Marxist would identify any state as a dictatorship, whereas the bourgeois would define something akin to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I think the issue here isn't if there is or will be a dictatorship, its finding a way to communicate what dictatorship actually is.

[Le Socialiste]

Communism will become a dictatorship. People use this argument a lot, and I don't know any really good arguments to get back at it. Any ideas?

Communism isn't predisposed toward dictatorship in this sense, no. People who suggest otherwise are adopting a viewpoint that is a) immaterial, and b) ahistorical. (Indeed, you can't have one and ignore the other.)

One good way to swiftly and easily refute any assertion to the contrary is to point out that people are more inclined toward cooperation than competition. In times of crisis, people have a habit of banding together, whether it be to run medical supplies to an elderly couple in NYC after Sandy or to organize public dispensaries of food, clothing, and other limited comforts. People are more likely to organize collectively than they are to strike out on their own; just look at the Chilean cordones, the Russian soviets, and the Iranian shoras (there are many more examples, stretching from China to Ireland). These organs of workers' power administered to the popular need, and in essence resembled the embryonic foundation(s) of future governance from below.

Historically, these forms of genuine control have been supported by Marxists. Marx and Engels were among the first to identify the working-class as the agent of its own emancipation. Lenin argued that the proletariat must demand the immediate establishment of its control, "to be exercised by the workers themselves." Of course, these instruments of class power aren't immune to occurrences and/or shifts in the world. In order to meet these challenges, workers must first organize. The Marxist party complements this self-activity, attracting the most radical workers. Acting in tandem with proletarian activity, the party utilizes internal democracy and unity to educate, agitate, and propagate within working-class communities and organizations.

Perhaps one of the most important things to highlight is why revolutions in Russia, Germany, and elsewhere failed to bring forth a socialist society. In Russia the revolution was crippled by a number of debilitating factors, including civil war and the failure of the international proletariat to seize and hold power. This resulted in the decimation of the Russian working-class, which made up the backbone of the Bolshevik party. Without a proletarian foundation/base, the party degenerated in isolation, creating conditions for bureaucratism and unnecessary rigidity in the party. There is nothing inherently dictatorial about communism, but it is the forcible replacement of one class with another, the usurpation of the minority in favor of those who truly keep the wheels turning.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

All they do is go back to references with how communism is a evil system
For example, China or Vietnam but that is so ignorant

[TheRedAnarchist23]

People use this argument a lot, and I don't know any really good arguments to get back at it. Any ideas?

Become anarchist, then you don't have to counter that argument, you can use it to your advantage.

I simply do not know how to counter that argumment without vomiting all the marxist knowledge you have at someone. Most people don't like it when someone vomits stuff at them.
What I am trying to say is that the ammount of marxist knowledge you have to use to combat that argument is so great that, even before you are done countering the argument, the other person is already repulsed by you, because of the ammount of marxism you have just spoken.
At least that is what happens when someone here on revleft tries to counter that argument when I make it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Who cares? Objective reality does not constitute as the magnitude of how simplistic it is to understand.
Marx does. Guess what quote I'm referring to here?

And I know that you're all high and mighty pronouncing these obvious truths from the cloudy abode of distinguished scientists, but your sentences often make no sense. Something constitutes as the magnitude of how simplistic it is to understand? Does that actually mean something?

And of course, you merely duck the issue by deciding to change the terminology. The issue isn't what is meant by the term communism, but rather the prospects for workers' power not devolving into a dictatorship of the party or even a dictatorship of a clique within the party.

So, why dodge this issue? Too hard to handle it? Too much "blueprints" necessary, so you can keep hiding from vague and ambiguous statements with no clarification which relates to possible and necessary, and very concrete, measures for proletarian self-emancipation?

And of course, the deluded and unreflected replication of the division of labour within proletarian ranks by implicit self-positioning as a part in that gifted bunch who can actually understand things. No no, that woudn't be a problem at all, right?



I simply do not know how to counter that argumment without vomiting all the marxist knowledge you have at someone. Most people don't like it when someone vomits stuff at them.

The premise is that the broad layers of the working class will actually constitute the new organs of proletarian political power.
In this sense, communists ought to push forward not for the dictatorship of the party, but for all power to these organs, whatever you call them, and act within them as the group proposing, clearly and rationally, definite measures and policies.
At the same time, within the party, it is necessary to conduct a merciless struggle by all means necessary against the viewpoints which, if they'd come to actual implementation, would push in another direction. That means purges. And some more purges (this doesn not presuppose extrajudicial or judicial killings).

This is one concrete idea. Other such counter-arguments would need to address the internal structure of the party, and its recruitment policies.

[Luís Henrique]

I simply do not know how to counter that argumment without vomiting all the marxist knowledge you have at someone. Most people don't like it when someone vomits stuff at them.

It is usually better to counter with questions:

- Communism will necessarily become a dictatorship!
- Yes? Why? What do you mean by 'communism'? What to you mean by 'dictatorship'?

This way you allow them to entangle themselves in their own contradictions.

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

It is usually better to counter with questions:

- Communism will necessarily become a dictatorship!
- Yes? Why? What do you mean by 'communism'? What to you mean by 'dictatorship'?

This way you allow them to entangle themselves in their own contradictions.

Luís Henrique
Or how about actually addressing the historical development which is the foundation of such statements? Is it that communists need to confuse people or to clarify and build on a correct understanding of history and class struggle?

Of course, this does not mean that people making these arguments have a grasp on what communism or dictatorship are.

[Luís Henrique]

Or how about actually addressing the historical development which is the foundation of such statements? Is it that communists need to confuse people or to clarify and build on a correct understanding of history and class struggle?

Probably, we communists are evil people who eat little kids, why wouldn't we confuse people too? But seriously, people are not empty slates, they already have preconceptions that need to be destroyed, so I would say the first step is to help them realise that such preconceptions can't actually stand. And if they realise it by themselves, they are much more likely to actually understand the issue, which merely preaching to them likely won't achieve.


Of course, this does not mean that people making these arguments have a grasp on what communism or dictatorship are.

They certainly haven't. They mistake Stalinism (or even social-democracy) for communism, or at least will try to think it within the categories of bourgeois ideology (equal pay, how do you avoid free-riders, what about those who work more or better, "my work", one's "own work", fair wages, etc., etc., etc.) You can, I suppose, just tell them they are wrong. I would prefer to lead them to conclude that they are wrong by themselves.

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

At the risk of entering a tendency war here, I'll posit that the dissolution of the bourgeois state *is* the reason for revolution, and for all efforts towards revolution.

So while many understandably interpret this conception of revolution as a *stagist* one (1. Seize the state, 2. Dissolve the state), wherein a myriad of complications involving claims to power could arise between '1.' and '2.', we can *counter* this potential problematic by keeping our eyes 'on the prize', defining our politics every step of the way in relation to this one-point goal of 'dissolving the bourgeois state'.

Objectively there is nothing else we can say or do anyway, in terms of a principled politics.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog_callback.php?b=18809


I'll add to this by making the distinction between '(revolutionary) politics' and 'strategy' -- revolutionaries of all stripes are for the dissolution of the (bourgeois) state, but there are some differences within the camp as to *strategy*. Unfortunately some are overly skeptical and outright dismissive of the strategy of 'seizing the state' [in order to dissolve it].

[feeLtheLove]

In communism there is no state.If there is no state there is no dictator to rule it.

Republicans shit their pants whenever I tell them this.

[Art Vandelay]

And I know that you're all high and mighty pronouncing these obvious truths from the cloudy abode of distinguished scientists, but your sentences often make no sense. Something constitutes as the magnitude of how simplistic it is to understand? Does that actually mean something?

To be fair, I am pretty sure that what rafiq meant to say was something along the lines of:


Objective reality is not measured by how simplistic it is to understand.

Not:


Objective reality does not constitute as the magnitude of how simplistic it is to understand.

I could be wrong, but I got the impression that he kinda jumbled up the delivery, of what otherwise was an entirely accurate statement.

[Thirsty Crow]

To be fair, I am pretty sure that what rafiq meant to say was something along the lines of:
...
Which would be fine if the issue wasn't convoluted language and essentially ambiguous statements, but the simplicity of proposed explanations. However, what is at stake is the former.

[Luís Henrique]

Republicans shit their pants whenever I tell them this.

Laughing?

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

Probably, we communists are evil people who eat little kids, why wouldn't we confuse people too?

Luís Henrique
I'm also speaking from personal experience. There is this tendency to consider debate on such issues as a competition, with the problem of who wins the most important one. This is silly in itself, but that is not the core problem as all of this pushes communists to actually engage in dubious argument points which are designed so as to baffle and confuse the opponent. And worst of all, this approach is probably unconsciously geared towards evading some really nasty problems.

Did a person posting on this board always escape from the idea of simply dismissing the problems in a manner which shifts discussion to defining the terms, and so coming dangerously close to the no true scotsman?

And to clarify, I don't actually think that you advocate this. What you wrote can be taken as a kind of a Socratic maieutics, but still I think it is best to proceed from the concrete rather than engaging in a definition war of position.

[Luís Henrique]

Socratic maieutics

Yeah, that.

Luís Henrique

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I'm also speaking from personal experience. There is this tendency to consider debate on such issues as a competition, with the problem of who wins the most important one. This is silly in itself, but that is not the core problem as all of this pushes communists to actually engage in dubious argument points which are designed so as to baffle and confuse the opponent. And worst of all, this approach is probably unconsciously geared towards evading some really nasty problems.

Did a person posting on this board always escape from the idea of simply dismissing the problems in a manner which shifts discussion to defining the terms, and so coming dangerously close to the no true scotsman?

And to clarify, I don't actually think that you advocate this. What you wrote can be taken as a kind of a Socratic maieutics, but still I think it is best to proceed from the concrete rather than engaging in a definition war of position.

What the bloody hell is that?

[Thirsty Crow]

What the bloody hell is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maieutics

Disregard the Platonic and generally idealist undertones.

[human strike]

Communism *is* the process of (forming) proletarian dictatorship, and a Marxist can say no more, no less in regards.

Communism is the process of abolishing the proletariat, not of forming a dictatorship of it.

[MarxArchist]

People use this argument a lot, and I don't know any really good arguments to get back at it. Any ideas?
Attempts to form socialism in regions/nations where certain pre-conditions have not been met ; where there is not a majority proletarian class which has culturally matured under enlightenment values while 'enjoying' a fair amount of bourgeois democracy will create the need for a perversion of the dictatorship of the proletariat (*Kautsky). A perversion which is necessary in non or underdeveloped nations (Lenin's Russia- Mao's China) in order to cement or secure the foundation for socialist development (which has traditionally been capitalism's job but when skipping the capitalist phase of development this phase has been overseen by Marxists, in the case of China not fully until Mao's death). Without a mature proletariat class with advanced industry and a basic understanding of how to run society of course a sort of party dictatorship will manifest!

This process, undertaken by Lenin and later Stalin, (partially by Mao) has been used by capitalists to show what "communism" would look like when in reality the process is sped up and managed capitalist development. Attacks from all angles directly by capitalists and by proxy also added to the undemocratic nature of past and existing "communist" states. Marxism in practice would look quite different if in 1917, lets say, Germany had a revolution instead of Russia. Especially if revolutions in France, Italy and Britain followed and Germany was not isolated/surrounded by hostile interests (capital). The same can be said of Russia as it happened. If advanced capitalist nations followed in revolution Russia would have been much more democratic and the economic transition would have been much easier on the population. Maoism has it's roots in Marxist-Leninist theory which was formulated in Russia after it became apparent Russia was on it's own so to speak. I personally reject most Marxist-Leninst theory born out of that "necessity" (State capitalist development in isolation).

Which brings us to places like North Korea which cherry picked some of the rather undemocratic practices of Russian Bolsheviks and mixed that with Stalin's Socialism In One Country theory which has isolated them into a state of undemocratic social and economic decay. I don't think Marx would approve of Juche theory/practice. Keep in mind, with Russia, things started to go wrong after it became apparent Russia wasn't the 'spark' for a global revolution. Marxist theory proper, from that point, became extremely different than what was intended.

But then we have the anarchist critiques and predictions. Bakunin and Kropotkin come to mind....try reading this:

libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism

[Hexen]

What reasoning do they use? During the transition such tendencies would long since be erased from the collective consciousness (so to speak); if communism is on the horizon than one-person rule would be unthinking when workers control and state withering comes into play.

They'll then use the Human Nature argument.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

They'll then use the Human Nature argument.
"Our species has been around for 200,000 years, and we only JUST in the last few thousand years found systems that are compatible with our supposed 'nature'? What luck!!"

[ckaihatsu]

What reasoning do they use? During the transition such tendencies would long since be erased from the collective consciousness (so to speak); if communism is on the horizon than one-person rule would be unthinking when workers control and state withering comes into play.





They'll then use the Human Nature argument.


One-person rule is essentially the *consolidation* of power, given prevailing social conditions in which so many have been so thoroughly dispossessed simply as a matter of course -- hence fascism employed for the sake of convenience for those who rule.

(Historical note: Consider that the Allies knew early on about the Nazis' extermination campaigns, yet allowed such political power to be concentrated further still, with even greater excesses as a result.)


'Himmler's Program Kills Polish Jews', New York Times, November 24, 1942, page 10:

http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/2.99.2012/image062_tn.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Stone's_Untold_History_of_the_United_States


So this is to say that a transition to communism is the *opposite* -- it's an expansion and democratization of all effective power, so that participation is *broadened*, making any threat of consolidated rule a contradiction of terms.

The fact that we have historical examples nearing either side of the spectrum (arguably) means that 'human nature' is subject to greater, societal and political forces -- there's no statue-like ideal that resists the world as it changes for better or worse.

[RedMaterialist]

You have it backwards. The dictatorship of the proletariat will become communism.