Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Russia 1918

[Dear Leader]

I have been reading a lot of things that were suggested to me. It seems that a dictatorship of the proletariat should be a "semi-state" set up by the working class, which oversees a transition into socialism. Some say that it is it's somethign that occurs in the end of capitalism - capitalist mode of production, and others say that it has to have a socialist mode of production (which would make it socialism, right?). I guess I should get to the point. What mode of production is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and doesn't it mean that the proletariat, 100%, controls the state, and not the party? Or can the party control the state in the name of the proletariat? Thanks in advanced for your responses! :)

Sorry, I forgot to add the question about Russia! Was it a dictatorship of the proletariat? Did it have rule by the workers or the party?

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat begins in capitalism, and ends in socialism. It's basically capitalism being dismantled, and socialism being built at the same time. The bourgeoisie still own most or some of the means of production (less and less), but what they no longer own is the state, which belongs to the workers. Whether the workers should use workers' councils (soviets), or a party, or some other method for controlling the state is not really something all communists agree on.

(You didn't mention anything about Russia in 1918 in your post, so I'm not sure why it's in the title)

[Fourth Internationalist]

I see the start dictatorship/rule of the proletariat as the start of socialism. I cannot see a proletariat as a ruling class with a system that is characterized by the dictatorship/rule of the capitalists (capitalism).

[Fourth Internationalist]

*Or can the party control the state in the name of the proletariat?*

No. Unless you want a dictatorship over the proletariat, not of the proletariat.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I have been reading a lot of things that were suggested to me. It seems that a dictatorship of the proletariat should be a "semi-state" set up by the working class, which oversees a transition into socialism.

I would say that you are correct on this point. The proletarian dictatorship is a unique state, because the whole goal of this state is it's own abolition. It's goal is to destroy those things (see: class society, generalized commodity production, wage labor, money, etc.) that create the basis for the need of a state.


What mode of production is the dictatorship of the proletariat?

The dictatorship of the proletariat exists within the capitalist mode of production. Under this dictatorship, there still exists classes, and obviously the state. These things are completely at odds with what we understand as "socialism". (Of course, I see socialism and communism and interchangeable terms). This seems pretty contradictory to many, but it really does make complete sense. 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.



and doesn't it mean that the proletariat, 100%, controls the state, and not the party? Or can the party control the state in the name of the proletariat? Thanks in advanced for your responses! :)

Some argue that there should be no fusion between the party and the proletarian state. Others (such as myself) would disagree, and do think that the party should be involved in the proletarian dictatorship. Either way, the party cannot "control" the state in the name of the proletarian. That is called "substitutionism" and is widely critiqued across the left. Most Marxists advocate the proletarian directly administering their dictatorship.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The bourgeoisie still own most or some of the means of production

Not in the proletarian dictatorship they don't. Bourgeoisie property should be expropriated immediately, like on day one of the revolution.

[Dear Leader]

Thanks guys, but what about overseas assets. A lot of western corporations have mines, oil reserves, and other resources over seas that they claim as their own. What happens to those things? Are they given away to the bourgeoisie of that particular country? Or does the dictatorship of the proletariat try to administer the mine/reserve/resource in a socialistic manner to those over seas?

[Blake's Baby]

As Brosa says, the dictatorship is what transforms capitalist society into socialist society. If socialism is classless and communal, then the dictatorship must cease before it happens (how can there be a 'proletariat' in a classless society?). So the dictatorship must preside over the final phase of capitalism. It socialism is not classless and communal, then it can exist at the same time as capitalism because it isn't a new mode of production, and you can call the dictatorship 'socialist'. But it still must mean capitalist. If there are classes, then socialist/communist society hasn't been established, and the only word we have for the mode of production that exists in that case is capitalism.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Not in the proletarian dictatorship they don't. Bourgeoisie property should be expropriated immediately, like on day one of the revolution.
But if classes still exist, and the bourgeoisie don't own any means of production anymore, then..what exactly makes them bourgeois?

[Dear Leader]

But if classes still exist, and the bourgeoisie don't own any means of production anymore, then..what exactly makes them bourgeois?
I may be off the mark here, but is it because classes are global in nature? Such as the bourgeoisie is still once class, regardless of whether i still has control of "their property" in their own nation? It is still a part of a wider global class.

[chase63]

Is it fair to say, then, that the USSR went wrong because of the emergence of substitutionism? I am relatively uneducated on the concept of the DOTP, so I may end up asking a million questions on this topic btw.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

But if classes still exist, and the bourgeoisie don't own any means of production anymore, then..what exactly makes them bourgeois?

Capitalism can exist without the bourgeoisie. "Workers can oversee their own exploitation" so to speak. I'm not saying I at all advocate worker-run cooperatives as some "socialist solution" but what I am saying is that capitalism can exist without the bourgeoisie and that provides a good example. I would also suspect that the expropriation of petit-bourgeois property wouldn't happen nearly as fast as the expropriation of bourgeois property (although i'm sure it would be up towards the top on the list of shit to get done!). Therefore, classes would still exist in the dictatorship of the proletariat, but would be fading away and a socialist society would be emerging as the revolution spread.

[GoddessCleoLover]

DotP has never really existed due to Party substitutionism in Russia and elsewhere. The working class has yet to achieve class rule. The history of social revolutions so far has been a history of self-appointed vanguard parties sezxing power in the name of the proletariat. The historical reality of these revolutions has been that of the Party seizing power for the benefit of the Party rather than the working class.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

DotP has never really existed due to Party substitutionism in Russia and elsewhere. The working class has yet to achieve class rule. The history of social revolutions so far has been a history of self-appointed vanguard parties sezxing power in the name of the proletariat. The historical reality of these revolutions has been that of the Party seizing power for the benefit of the Party rather than the working class.

I would say that the proletarian dictatorship did exist in Russia early on when the Bolsheviks were in power, although this dictatorship began to fade with the mounting counter-revolution and isolation. The isolation of the revolution was the major reason the revolution in Russia degenerated. The revolution has to spread for socialism to succeed.

[Blake's Baby]

Is it fair to say, then, that the USSR went wrong because of the emergence of substitutionism?...

No, I don't think it is 'fair'. I'm not sure if you're asking because you think it is fair, or because it isn't; but I think the substitutionism of the Bolsheviks was no more than a contributary factor in the character of the degeneration of the revolution in Russia. The reason the revolution failed was that it didn't spread. That killed it. The errors of the Bolsheviks (including usurping the role of the soviets) may have shaped the degeneration, but they didn't cause it.


... I am relatively uneducated on the concept of the DOTP, so I may end up asking a million questions on this topic btw.

I think asking questions about the DotP is an inherently worthwhile thing to do - it seems to me that it's an under-explored topic that needs to be looked at. I expect to following your million questions with interest!

[Geiseric]

I see the start dictatorship/rule of the proletariat as the start of socialism. I cannot see a proletariat as a ruling class with a system that is characterized by the dictatorship/rule of the capitalists (capitalism).

Umm all property worldwide isn't publicly owned during the begining of the DotP, assuming the revolution starts in a single country. As Lenin said "while there is a state there can be no freedom. With freedom there is no state." Meaning socialism is impossible for the working class while a state is still intact. The fSU showed this, since "the state" became the new capitalists, as a result of outside pressure.

There is a difference between socialism and a state owned, command economy. socialism is the point when across the world capitalism isn't a threat, and the productive forces are directly run by the working class, as capitalism is now run by the bourgeoisie. Socialism doesnt really need money nor a state. Soviets would be the centers of community wide decision making, as opposed to parliaments or congress.

[Geiseric]

DotP has never really existed due to Party substitutionism in Russia and elsewhere. The working class has yet to achieve class rule. The history of social revolutions so far has been a history of self-appointed vanguard parties sezxing power in the name of the proletariat. The historical reality of these revolutions has been that of the Party seizing power for the benefit of the Party rather than the working class.

Oh yeah because beng voted into soviets is so substitutionist. :D

[chase63]

I would say that the proletarian dictatorship did exist in Russia early on when the Bolsheviks were in power, although this dictatorship began to fade with the mounting counter-revolution and isolation. The isolation of the revolution was the major reason the revolution in Russia degenerated. The revolution has to spread for socialism to succeed.

Just to clear things up, are you saying that the failure of the revolution to spread was a contributing factor to the substitutionalism that developed?

I'm very interested in how the soviets became usurped and lost their power. I understand that a revolution must spread, this is obvious, but I am not seeing the connection between the revolution not spreading and the soviets losing their power. Is it a case of the party, for the perceived defense of the revolution, taking power to fight counter revolutionaries?

And while I'm on this train of thought, I'd like to ask what the opinion is on the state of the soviet union after the substitutionism was fully in place? surely not socialist, or anywhere near what would be a transitional stage, no? Wouldn't substitutionism effectively make the party the new capitalist class, instituting a form of state capitalism?

[Blake's Baby]

... Is it a case of the party, for the perceived defense of the revolution, taking power to fight counter revolutionaries? ...

There is more to it than that but it's certainly a factor.

All the parties of the Second International (including the Bolsheviks) thought that the task of the revolutionary organisation was to take state power on behalf of the proletariat. That now seems to have been a bad idea. Who knew then? It had never been attempted before.


...And while I'm on this train of thought, I'd like to ask what the opinion is on the state of the soviet union after the substitutionism was fully in place? surely not socialist, or anywhere near what would be a transitional stage, no? Wouldn't substitutionism effectively make the party the new capitalist class, instituting a form of state capitalism?

Many of us would agree pretty much with that line of argument. Expect arguments from others though.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Just to clear things up, are you saying that the failure of the revolution to spread was a contributing factor to the substitutionalism that developed?

Not only contributing, but the overwhelming reason.


I understand that a revolution must spread, this is obvious, but I am not seeing the connection between the revolution not spreading and the soviets losing their power.

To re-word the question a little, you don't see the connection between the failure of the revolution to spread and the loss of working class power. Capitalism is a global system. To defeat it, it has to be defeated globally. If the proletariat succeed in one country, but the revolution only is contained in that single country, the only thing the proletariat can do is re-organize and sustain national capital. They will still have to compete on the global market. If the revolution fails to spread, it is only a matter of time until the revolution degenerates.


And while I'm on this train of thought, I'd like to ask what the opinion is on the state of the soviet union after the substitutionism was fully in place? surely not socialist, or anywhere near what would be a transitional stage, no? Wouldn't substitutionism effectively make the party the new capitalist class, instituting a form of state capitalism?

The Soviet Union, after the success of Stalinist counter-revolution, was not a socialist paradise, workers' state, etc. etc. It was a capitalist society, with generalized commodity production, wage labor, money as the general equivalent of value, surplus-value production, etc. etc.

[Sudsy]

An important distinction between socialism and communism is that in communism there is no dictatorship of the proletariat, because there are no classes. In socialism, wage is divided by each according to their contribution while communism is each according to their need.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

An important distinction between socialism and communism is that in communism there is no dictatorship of the proletariat, because there are no classes. In socialism, wage is divided by each according to their contribution while communism is each according to their need.

Not all of us see it this way, the OP should keep in mind that many of us see it the way Marx and Engels originally saw it, as socialism and communism being interchangeable terms.

[Dear Leader]

From what I have been reading, it seems (even when I read Lenin), there isn't really a distinction except when the "first Phase"(?) of communism is mentioned. Lenin calls it socialism. However, it seems that it is one and the same stateless and class free society. The only distinction being distribution being based on contribution in the first phase or socialism, and need in the second phase of communism. Is there something where Lenin says that Socialism is different from communism apart from what he mentions in State and Revolution?