What do Communists mean when...

[Katharsis]

What does it mean when Communists talk about the "abolition of the State" yet refer to a "dictatorship of the Proletariat"? That to me, sounds contradictory as if the majority (proletariat) rule over an area / nation, then it would mean there still exists a State, per say.

Does the Proletariat make laws that prevent an overturn of power? If so, wouldn't they be in turn the "State"? And how do they enforce / implement laws, if any... Would it be a form of Direct Democracy?

It seems to me that everytime there was anything similar to a popular uprising, the a certain group of initially well-intentioned people seized power and eventually turned into the Elite themselves. How do Communists prevent a scenario like that from playing out over and over again?

I don't have much knowledge of Marxist writings so I'm trying to understand this in layman's terms.

[TiberiusGracchus]

Both Marx and Engels (and also Lenin) writes that the dictatorship of the proletariat (ie. the Paris Commune) is not a state proper but still a state in some aspect.

So what are these different aspects of the state? It seems to be:
1. Class dictatorship (organised monopoly force in the hands of the workers)
2. Bureaucracy

And they all seem to advocate that the second aspect should be abolished with or soon after the revolution. Down with the standing army and bureaucracy. Replace with workers militias and democracy. Instead of an hierarchic top-down order the officals (like judges, chief of police, administrators etc) are elected from beneath. The state ceases to be an independent organ above the structures of everyday life.

But it keeps control. It keeps utilising dictatorial force, to supress capitalism and reactionary elements and clear the way for communism.

I do believe it's likely that such a state would wither away with communist development. But our duty during this phase is to be very vigilant and prevent any development of the provisional state into a state proper.

[feeLtheLove]

The dictatorship of the Proletarian is different from the time when they go through the abolition of the state. You see, you can only abolish the state when there is a world revolution. However the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is when there isn't a world revolution and the state still exists but the state is run directly by the proletariat and is only kept to make sure the bourgeoisie do not rise to power again. Only until a world revolution will the state start to gladly fade away.

I'm not to much of an authority on this (Still somewhat of a noob) so I don't know if this is accurate.

Also, a good example of the Dictatorship of the proletariat is the Paris Commune. But keep in mind "it wasn't socialist nor could it be"

[Katharsis]

Both Marx and Engels (and also Lenin) writes that the dictatorship of the proletariat (ie. the Paris Commune) is not a state proper but still a state in some aspect.

So what are these different aspects of the state? It seems to be:
1. Class dictatorship (organised monopoly force in the hands of the workers)
2. Bureaucracy

And they all seem to advocate that the second aspect should be abolished with or soon after the revolution. Down with the standing army and bureaucracy. Replace with workers militias and democracy. Instead of an hierarchic top-down order the officals (like judges, chief of police, administrators etc) are elected from beneath. The state ceases to be an independent organ above the structures of everyday life.

But it keeps control. It keeps utilising dictatorial force, to supress capitalism and reactionary elements and clear the way for communism.

I do believe it's likely that such a state would wither away with communist development. But our duty during this phase is to be very vigilant and prevent any development of the provisional state into a state proper.

Thanks. From your response, I too believe that a more likely than not scenario would be the people chosen end up abusing their position of authority (judges, police, etc.), which seems to have happened time and time again over the course of history and with it, the ideals of communism (or the end goal perhaps) are lost yet again, and bureaucracy would take shape again.

I'm sure there would be a vigilant few, but they'd be done away with as well I feel. To be in a perpetual state of revolution (or even the threat of it) seems like a daunting task for any people.

[Katharsis]

The dictatorship of the Proletarian is different from the time when they go through the abolition of the state. You see, you can only abolish the state when there is a world revolution. However the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is when there isn't a world revolution and the state still exists but the state is run directly by the proletariat and is only kept to make sure the bourgeoisie do not rise to power again. Only until a world revolution will the state start to gladly fade away.

I'm not to much of an authority on this (Still somewhat of a noob) so I don't know if this is accurate.

Also, a good example of the Dictatorship of the proletariat is the Paris Commune. But keep in mind "it wasn't socialist nor could it be"

That makes sense, as the abolition of the State would be pointless when you are surrounded by other states. Although I am still curious as to how such a world revolution could even come about and if and when it does, what type of rules / laws there would be (if any) when there are no states. It all sounds vague and sort of idyllic.

I will read up on the Paris Commune in more detail though.

[subcp]

The DotP is a series of events, not a static 'thing' (like a state, or political party). Many will disagree, but I think, in one sentence, it is the time when the international proletariat has begun to take power from the bourgeoisie and nation-states, and immediately begun to institute the movement toward communism. So in that sense, that DotP is the period in-between when the revolution kicks off and when there is 'full communism' everywhere- if there is no more bourgeoisie, there is no more proletariat, if there is no more capital, there is no more bourgeoisie or proletariat.

Many theorize that while this is all going on, either the proletariat through its political party (the International) will 'seize power' from the bourgeoisie, and be the new ruling party over a 'proletarian state'. Many of us reject that- and instead think that in its movement to abolish the current state of things and build communism, a 'semi-state' or 'para-state' will develop after the working-class has abolished existing nation-states: since states exist due to class divisions, and the current nation-state form is tailored for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the 'semi-state' or 'para-state' would exist but not look anything like what we think of as a state today. Since not all classes have been abolished (but are on their way to being so), a state-type formation must exist due to the conflicts between classes- even if the working-class is on its way to abolishing class society. Even after the bourgeoisie is expropriated and crushed, there are masses of petit-bourgeoisie (all the small businessmen and remaining peasantry), lumpenproletariat/declassed (all the worlds 'criminal class' and slum populations), managerial and professional strata, etc. who would need to be (likely through force and coercion) "proletarianized" i.e. have all private property and specialization stripped from them so they have nothing but their labor (thus becoming part of the proletariat in its march to abolish all classes and strata). The creation of the Red Guards and the infant Tcheka by the Russian working-class are examples of what a para-state or semi-state looks like- organized bodies composed or directed by the proletariat to crush the bourgeoisie and proletarianize all others.

[ZenTaoist]

The theory is that DOTP will lead to socialism, and that eventually the state will wither away. However, as it turns out historically, the party leadership ends up grabbing more power for themselves rather than helping to diminish it, thus socialism is completely wrecked. So this functions very much like a state.

I will take lots of heat for this opinion, no doubt; but I believe dictatorship of the proletariat stems from a fundamental mistrust of the working-class from the very start.

[tuwix]

Comrades concentrated on DotP. I will say something about abolition of state. The state by Marx and many anarchist as Bakunin, Proudhon was meant as service of enforcement. They meant by state a police and military. Those forces mainly serve to maintain a private or state property. When the property will be abolished in gradual way, the forces to maintain it will be abolished too.

[Strannik]

I have always understood it this way:
State is the rule of law. Every decision by lawmakers is made into a condition that applies for everyone for all time.
Dictatorship is the rule by decree. Every decision by dictator is an order to someone and when order is fulfilled, they don't need to keep doing it.

"Withering away" of state would mean movement from rule by general abstract law towards rule by decrees, which in case of proletariat are produced by majority of people. This is consistent with Marxist dislike of unchanging abstractions and "truths".

[subcp]

I will take lots of heat for this opinion, no doubt; but I believe dictatorship of the proletariat stems from a fundamental mistrust of the working-class from the very start.

Wasn't the party taking state power a Leninist invention after October? Marx and Engels' writing on the DotP are pretty general, and mainly just mean a period when the working-class (as a whole) is asserting dominance over all other classes and strata, but before communism has become universal.