Help me better understand the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[feeLtheLove]

Hey,
So I'm a little confused about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Can you help me understand it better? Like give me a good explanation of it because Engels said that the Paris Commune was a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But he also said the it wasn't Socialist nor could it be. Do I have this right or am do I have my facts mixed up?

Thanks :)

[feeLtheLove]

bump

[SergeNubret]

I believe it is when all workers control the means of production and there has been an abolition of classes and there is no capitalists to have the suplus value(?)

[Permanent Revolutionary]

In short this means that the working class has the political power. Do note that the term [I]dicatorship[I] dooes not imply the modern meaning as in totalitarianism.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the working-class form of state that smashes the old state, and this 'dictatorship' is exemplified by the Paris Commune. The task of this state is to create the conditions for its own withering away into socialism, a classless and stateless society. The 'DotP' state is not socialism, even if it is part of the task of facilitating socialism.

[Art Vandelay]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the stage in socialist development where the proletariat suppresses class alien elements. Given their specific relationship to the means of production, as expounded by Marx and Engels, the proletariat has the historical task of leading the struggle to surpass the capitalist mode of production, ie: the proletariat is the revolutionary class in capitalist society. Upon the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the smashing of the bourgeois state apparatus, it is of utmost necessity for the proletariat to erect their own state, noted by Engels as best being described as a 'semi-state,' for it is not to resemble the bourgeois state. To understand the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is necessary to understand the role a 'state' plays in society. It has not been a constant in human history and it did not arise in a vacuum; it arose with very specific material conditions, ie: class society. The state can be best understood as the institution through which the dominant class in society exerts its class hegemony. Noting this, we can see that another way to describe capitalist society, would be the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (Marx). Upon the construction of the proletarian 'semi-state' the proletariat exerts its hegemony and class dominance over the remnants of bourgeois society and class alien forces. Why is this necessary you may wonder? While we would all love to see the revolution be bloodless, given historical analysis, we can see that this is not how revolutions transpire. Every disposed ruling class in history has mounted an attempted comeback to return to its place of hegemony and this must be stopped; it is through the dotp (dictatorship of the proletariat) that the proletarian class sees to it that the revolutionary gains are not lost. Eventually the state will whither away and what will be left is a stateless, classless society of free producers. The series of events which must transpire for the state to 'whither away' is not as it is commonly posited by those unfamiliar with Marxist thought, that there exists some benevolent bureaucrats which decide to give up their posts to establish socialism, but that the material conditions which give rise to the state (class society) no longer exists. To abolish class society the proletariat must establish its dictatorship, suppress the counter revolution of the bourgeoisie and surpass capital; thus completing its historical task of the surpassing of the capitalist mode of production and its historical task of abolishing itself as a social class, thus resulting in the liberation of humanity.

[vanukar]

it's really just an empty concept that hardcore marxists spend their spare time theorizing. There really isn't a need (or even possibility) for a "workers state," as the working class already possesses the ability to dismantle global capitalism without having to rely on nation states.

[Blake's Baby]

By the way, it was Marx who said the Commune wasn't, for the most part, socialist, and nor could it be.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, contra the Leninists, is not the same as 'socialism'.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the period in which the proletariat begins to abolish capitalism, the state, class relations, property, but has not yet completed the process. As such, it must (in my estiamtion of what the terms 'capitalism' and 'socialism' mean, and the relationships between them) logically be regarded as the final phase of capitalism - when capitalism is being transformed into something else, under the direction ('dictatorship') of the proletariat.

[Aurora]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the political rule of the working class, it is the means by which the working class holds down the bourgeoisie, constitutes itself ruler of society and begins the revolutionary transformation of capitalism to communism.

I'll throw you some quotes from Marx and Engels so you can get an idea of what they thought in their own words:
The Communist Manifesto
"The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."
"We have seen above, that 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."
"One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”"
Critique of the Gotha Program
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Letter to Kugelmann
"the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it"

The Civil war in France
"The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people."
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.

"Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman’s wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government. Not only municipal administration, but the whole initiative hitherto exercised by the state was laid into the hands of the Commune."

"Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress [ver- and zertreten] the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business."

"In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents."

[Ostrinski]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a political description, not an economic one. It simply describes a state that has been created by the working class upon the overthrow of the bourgeois state, for the purpose of abolishing classes, the state, and ultimately themselves as proletarians.

Some choose to speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a process, the process by which the proletariat carries out those measures (abolition of class society, the state, and themselves).

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not synonymous with socialism, because under a socialist mode of production the proletariat wouldn't exist, as the proletariat can only exist in relation to a capitalist class. As soon as the proletariat manages to dismantle the capitalist class and integrate them into working class society, the proletariat stops existing because the proletariat is a class defined by the necessity of labor power sale which must exist in relation to capital accumulation and surplus value extraction.

[revoltordie]

the dictatorship of the proletariat is the revolutionary transformation of society from black to white from class society to non class society. there can not be a middle to this because it is equatable to turning a light switch on and off with the movement between being the revolutionary transformation. the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a state in the idea that it is the alleviating cure of class contradictions one that seeks to be above society a dictatorship in the normal use of the word but it is the subsumption of state to the proletariat. it is the anti state the negation of the state, by which it accomplishes this by negating class society through the emancipation of the proletariat. the commune of paris marx and engels tell us took the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat but it could not be socialism because it was not in the strength to end capitalism. marx says that the best it could do was to hold the state ransom with the bank. it hence was only an early beginning.

[subcp]

By the way, it was Marx who said the Commune wasn't, for the most part, socialist, and nor could it be.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, contra the Leninists, is not the same as 'socialism'.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the period in which the proletariat begins to abolish capitalism, the state, class relations, property, but has not yet completed the process. As such, it must (in my estiamtion of what the terms 'capitalism' and 'socialism' mean, and the relationships between them) logically be regarded as the final phase of capitalism - when capitalism is being transformed into something else, under the direction ('dictatorship') of the proletariat.

I completely agree with this- I'd add that one of the most important parts of the DotP is the working-class forcing proletarianization on non-bourgeois classes and strata of society. The huge population of petit-bourgeoisie would be forced to give up their small shops to all humanity, same with the remaining peasants, the large declassed/lumpen dwelling in slums would have to be integrated into the transformation of all things. The petit-bourgeoisie probably won't give up what little they have quietly, and there's magnitudes more of them than bourgeoisie.

[Blake's Baby]

While I don't disagree in substance with anything else you've said, I have to take issue with this:


...
The Communist Manifesto
'The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.'
'We have seen above, that 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.'
'One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”'...

This is not from 'The Communist Manifesto' (1847) as it manifestly refers to the events of 1871. It is from a much later introduction - I think it is from the English translation of the intro to the 1872 German edition. I have a copy of 'The Manifesto', for instance, that features only the 1847 text, and I suspect most internet searches for the Manifesto will only supply the 1847 text. I have another version that has (I think) 9 introductions from different editions until the late 1880s or early 1890s. But these aren't from the Manifesto proper.

[Aurora]

This is not from 'The Communist Manifesto' (1847) as it manifestly refers to the events of 1871. It is from a much later introduction - I think it is from the English translation of the intro to the 1872 German edition. I have a copy of 'The Manifesto', for instance, that features only the 1847 text, and I suspect most internet searches for the Manifesto will only supply the 1847 text. I have another version that has (I think) 9 introductions from different editions until the late 1880s or early 1890s. But these aren't from the Manifesto proper.
Ya it's from the 1872 German Preface, the text quoted is from the Civil War in France, i assumed all modern versions of the Manifesto contained the prefaces like my Penguin version and the version on Marxists.org where i took it from.

I merely quoted the text that Marx and Engels wrote and wanted added to the Manifesto in order to amend what they called 'antiquated'.

[Narodnik]

First thing about the past time- in Marx's time, and for some time after, the proletariat was a minority, and in the majority of countries the peasants were the majority of the population, in the years when Communist Manifesto was written about 80% of both France and Germany were either peasants or artisans, only Britain had majority of proletarian population.

Dictatorship of the proletariat is a Marxist term, but I will mention anarchists have a different view of what is the proletariat. E.g. Bakunin expresses his opinion how:

the designation of the proletariat, the world of the workers, as class rather than as mass” was “deeply antipathetic to us revolutionary anarchists who unconditionally advocate full popular emancipation.” To do so, he argued, meant “[n]othing more or less than a new aristocracy, that of the urban and industrial workers, to the exclusion of the millions who make up the rural proletariat...”

The Narodniks of Russia held the view of the proletariat together with the anarchists.

The thing is that Marx defined class by ownership of the means of production, the proletariat being the class of people who don't own the means of production but have to sell their labor, that is- rent themselves to those who own the MoP.

[Proudhon and later anarchists, together with the Narodniks held a view of class according to means of livelyhood. If you live of your own work (whether you own the means of production or not) you are a labourer/ proletarian, and if you live of the work of other (that is- extract surplus value from other people's labor)- you're a capitalist/ parasite.]

Knowing what is meant by the proletariat in Marxist thought, now about the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In the writing of Marx and Engels it is basically about the proletariat gaining state power prior to the abolition of capitalism.

When Marx discussed what the “dictatorship of the proletariat” meant, he argued (in reply to Bakunin’s question of “over whom will the proletariat rule?”) that it simply meant “that so long as other classes continue to exist, the capitalist class in particular, the proletariat fights it (for with the coming of the proletariat to power, its enemies will not yet have disappeared), it must use measures of force, hence governmental measures; if it itself still remains a class and the economic conditions on which the class struggle and the existence of classes have not yet disappeared, they must be forcibly removed or transformed, and the process of their transformation must be forcibly accelerated.”

So- like the name "dictatorship of the proletariat" itself impies- capitalism is not yet abolished, and both capitalists and proletarians exist.

In practice the dictatorship of the proletariat means the state rule of a proletarian party, being that it impossible that all the proletarians, even if they are a minority in a society, all together manage the state, being that state necessitates centralisation of power in the hands of smaller group, like the party (leadership).

What is to be done when dictatorship of the proletariat is established is another question.

[AFAIK, a sort of left Marxist answer is that- the proletariat should use the state to change the laws and abolish private property and establish worker control of the economy, something like Engels wrote:

“[a]s soon as our Party is in possession of political power it has simply to expropriate the big landed proprietors just like the manufacturers in industry ... thus restored to the community [they] are to be turned over by us to the rural workers who are already cultivating them and are to be organised into co-operatives.”

This view is espoused by Luxemburgists and World Socialists (like SPGB), and similar.

There's also a sort of right Marxist view (of Bolshevism) which seems use the necessity of "dictatorship of the proletariat" being established trough a party representing the proletariat as a source of an idea that also in the abolition of the capitalism the workers cannot operate the economy except by trough a party representing them operating it. Here the party rule is seen as same thing as working class rule.]

[RedMaterialist]

Hey,
So I'm a little confused about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Can you help me understand it better? Like give me a good explanation of it because Engels said that the Paris Commune was a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But he also said the it wasn't Socialist nor could it be. Do I have this right or am do I have my facts mixed up?

Thanks :)

Russia was the first country in which the working class took over political power. Stalin took control of the revolution and created his own particularly brutal version of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Stalin used the state to eliminate the Russian bourgeoisie, defeat Hitler, and turn Russia into a world power. It wasn't pretty, but it was extremely effective. So, in my opinion, if you want to know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is, look at the Soviet Union. I'm not saying that the Soviet DOP was the only way that this dictatorship can develop, just that this is the way the first worker's revolution developed.

[tuwix]

Hey,
So I'm a little confused about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Can you help me understand it better? Like give me a good explanation of it because Engels said that the Paris Commune was a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But he also said the it wasn't Socialist nor could it be. Do I have this right or am do I have my facts mixed up?

It's easy. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat it is just direct democracy but not only on the central level. On the level of workplace too.

[Art Vandelay]

Russia was the first country in which the working class took over political power. Stalin took control of the revolution and created his own particularly brutal version of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Stalin used the state to eliminate the Russian bourgeoisie, defeat Hitler, and turn Russia into a world power. It wasn't pretty, but it was extremely effective. So, in my opinion, if you want to know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is, look at the Soviet Union. I'm not saying that the Soviet DOP was the only way that this dictatorship can develop, just that this is the way the first worker's revolution developed.

Any semblance of a genuine proletarian dictatorship was eliminated in the USSR by at the very latest the late 1920's, so I'm not sure that is the best advice.

[Brutus]

Aye, the OP didn't ask us to explain the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.
And to the OP, from the almighty lenin:
Dictatorship does not necessarily mean the abolition of democracy for the class that exercises the dictatorship over other classes; but it does mean the abolition of democracy (or very material restriction, which is also a form of abolition) of democracy for the class over which, or against which, the dictatorship is exercised.

[l'Enfermé]

By the way, it was Marx who said the Commune wasn't, for the most part, socialist, and nor could it be.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, contra the Leninists, is not the same as 'socialism'.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the period in which the proletariat begins to abolish capitalism, the state, class relations, property, but has not yet completed the process. As such, it must (in my estiamtion of what the terms 'capitalism' and 'socialism' mean, and the relationships between them) logically be regarded as the final phase of capitalism - when capitalism is being transformed into something else, under the direction ('dictatorship') of the proletariat.
Contra the "Leninists", perhaps, but Lenin didn't equate the DoTP to "socialism".

[Marino56]

The "dictartorship of the proletariat" only means true worker democracy.
It isnt a dictatorship but the rule of the working class :)

[RedMaterialist]

I would say it was a Stalinist proletarian dictatorship. Whether it was "genuine" or "false" is an anti-dialectic question. It was a dictatorship, it functioned on behalf, more or less, of the urban worker.

[RedMaterialist]

The "dictartorship of the proletariat" only means true worker democracy.
It isnt a dictatorship but the rule of the working class :)

A dictatorship, I think, is exactly what the word implies. A class, the working class, dictates to, controls, suppresses and finally destroys another class, the capitalist class.

[RedMaterialist]

Contra the "Leninists", perhaps, but Lenin didn't equate the DoTP to "socialism".

I think Lenin equated the DoTP to an initial stage in the transition to socialism.

[Art Vandelay]

I think Lenin equated the DoTP to an initial stage in the transition to socialism.

Which is exactly what the dictatorship of the proletariat is.

[Brutus]

Look at the Paris commune- civil war in France is a great book

[feeLtheLove]

So, please correct me if I'm wrong.

In The dictatorship of the proletariat the state still exists but only in order to make sure the bourgeoisie do not regain power. And not until the world revolution will the state start to gladly fade away?

[Art Vandelay]

So, please correct me if I'm wrong.

In The dictatorship of the proletariat the state still exists but only in order to make sure the bourgeoisie do not regain power. And not until the world revolution will the state start to gladly fade away?

Correct. Socialism is a stateless and classless society and therefor, quite obviously, can only exist on a global level. The dictatorship of the proletariat is to guard the class interests of the proletariat and to organize production to help bring about socialist society.

[Blake's Baby]

So, please correct me if I'm wrong.

In The dictatorship of the proletariat the state still exists but only in order to make sure the bourgeoisie do not regain power. And not until the world revolution will the state start to gladly fade away?

Pretty much. If the state can 'fade away' before the world revolution, why does the world revolution need to happen?

The state lasts as long as classes last (because, in the end, the state is the organ that one class uses to oppress another). Classes last as long as property lasts (because, in the end, classes are the expression of different property-relations). If the world revolution hasn't succeeded, then the conditions for doing away with property haven't been fulfilled. Capitalism has to be abolished as a world system, it cannot be abolished locally. Until the working class has taken control everywhere and can abolish the totality of capitalism, it must excercise its power locally through its dictatorship.