Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[MengTzu]

Dear all,

I have some questions about Marx's concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. My understanding is that Marx believed a Dictatorship of the Proletariat must be in place during the first phase of Communism in order to suppress the capitalist class, and that such dictatorship would disappear once all class distinctions disappear. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the capitalist class exists insofar as it controls the means of production. My question is this: as soon as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat comes into power and takes over control of all means of production, wouldn't the capitalist class immediately disappear (as there is no longer any private ownership of means of production)? If so, wouldn't society already have achieved classlessness under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

[Remus Bleys]

Dear all,

I have some questions about Marx's concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. My understanding is that Marx believed a Dictatorship of the Proletariat must be in place during the first phase of Communism in order to suppress the capitalist class, and that such dictatorship would disappear once all class distinctions disappear. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the capitalist class exists insofar as it controls the means of production.
Well, now no. The dictatorship of the proletariat is in capitalism, and therefore it dissapears under the first phase of communism.


My question is this: as soon as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat comes into power and takes over control of all means of production, wouldn't the capitalist class immediately disappear (as there is no longer any private ownership of means of production)? If so, wouldn't society already have achieved classlessness under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
They still exist as a counterrevolutionary force.

[Ritzy Cat]

My question is this: as soon as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat comes into power and takes over control of all means of production, wouldn't the capitalist class immediately disappear (as there is no longer any private ownership of means of production)? If so, wouldn't society already have achieved classlessness under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

That sounds like socialism to me, if that is the only revolutionary change that has occurred.

[reb]

Dear all,

I have some questions about Marx's concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. My understanding is that Marx believed a Dictatorship of the Proletariat must be in place during the first phase of Communism

No, he doesn't say that. This is a later development.


in order to suppress the capitalist class, and that such dictatorship would disappear once all class distinctions disappear. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the capitalist class exists insofar as it controls the means of production. My question is this: as soon as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat comes into power and takes over control of all means of production, wouldn't the capitalist class immediately disappear (as there is no longer any private ownership of means of production)? If so, wouldn't society already have achieved classlessness under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

You're correct on the whole and is the logical argument, hence your confusion with it. What you described was the stalinist reinvention of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a regular state, to hide the capitalist nature of the soviet union and to justify the states existence in a supposedly socialist society.

The problem that a lot of people have in regards to this topic is that they still hold onto the bourgeois view of history and a slavish obedience to the theories and practice of social-democracy. Communism is classless society and one that has abolished the law of value as a result. The point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that it is the revolutionary moment which ends capitalism and as such, Marx called it the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, a word which a lot of people like to miss out.

That is not to say that there won't be a bunch of pissed off dispossessed capitalists kicking their heels, but without their hold over society through their ownership of the means of production, they won't have the power or authority to re-constitute capitalism without a massive counter-revolution. Another thing that we have to remember is that people do not make history themselves. The idea that you can only have capital with individual people personify capital is a largely redundant one, it is a series of social relations that can come about by the state itself, hence the irresolvable problems that pseudo-marxist have about calling the dictatorship of the proletariat a state. The modern state, no matter what form it takes, is a capitalist machine.

[MengTzu]

Thank you all for the responses, but I think my questions were misunderstood (because I phrased them poorly). What I mean is that as soon as the dictatorship of proletariat comes into power, there will be no private ownership of means of production, so how can there be any capitalist class? It would seem, then, that the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat will immediately destroy the capitalist class, thereby achieving classlessness immediately, such that an intermediate stage between capitalism and classlessness is unnecessary.

Instead of accusing Marx of missing such a simple logical point, I presume that it must be me who misunderstood Marx. So what I want to know is how and in what sense does the capitalist class continues to exist under the dictatorship of the proletariat according to Marx and/or Engel (I know what Lenin said on the matter but I want to know what Marx and Engel said on this issue). Can anyone help?

[bluemangroup]

Thank you all for the responses, but I think my questions were misunderstood (because I phrased them poorly). What I mean is that as soon as the dictatorship of proletariat comes into power, there will be no private ownership of means of production, so how can there be any capitalist class? It would seem, then, that the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat will immediately destroy the capitalist class, thereby achieving classlessness immediately, such that an intermediate stage between capitalism and classlessness is unnecessary.

Instead of accusing Marx of missing such a simple logical point, I presume that it must be me who misunderstood Marx. So what I want to know is how and in what sense does the capitalist class continues to exist under the dictatorship of the proletariat according to Marx and/or Engel (I know what Lenin said on the matter but I want to know what Marx and Engel said on this issue). Can anyone help?

During the New Economic Policy (NEP) there was limited concessions to foreign capitalists, with industries known as mixed industries appearing which were controlled jointly by capitalists from other nations and the Soviet state.

For that matter, the capitalist class does still exist under the proletarian dictatorship. However, Russia's proletariat and peasantry had overthrown the domestic capitalists and the land owners - War Communism, which proved unworkable in the long run, gave way to a partial restoration of free-market capitalism although one with heavy state involvement (hence why Lenin continually referred to the new economic system in place under the NEP as state-capitalism)

Revolutionary socialist measures temporarily failed, esp. as the petty-bourgeois peasant yearned for the freedom to trade its grain and was openly hostile to the setting up of committees of the village poor in the countryside.

IMHO the creation of the first Five-Year Plan and the subsequent collectivization of agriculture revolutionized Soviet economics and thereby put central-planning onto the agenda.

[MengTzu]

During the New Economic Policy (NEP) there was limited concessions to foreign capitalists, with industries known as mixed industries appearing which were controlled jointly by capitalists from other nations and the Soviet state.

For that matter, the capitalist class does still exist under the proletarian dictatorship. However, Russia's proletariat and peasantry had overthrown the domestic capitalists and the land owners - War Communism, which proved unworkable in the long run, gave way to a partial restoration of free-market capitalism although one with heavy state involvement (hence why Lenin continually referred to the new economic system in place under the NEP as state-capitalism)

Revolutionary socialist measures temporarily failed, esp. as the petty-bourgeois peasant yearned for the freedom to trade its grain and was openly hostile to the setting up of committees of the village poor in the countryside.

IMHO the creation of the first Five-Year Plan and the subsequent collectivization of agriculture revolutionized Soviet economics and thereby put central-planning onto the agenda.

Thank you. Did Marx or Engel ever say or write anything specifically regarding how or in what manner the capitalist class exists under a dictatorship of the proletariat?

[MengTzu]

No, he doesn't say that. This is a later development.



You're correct on the whole and is the logical argument, hence your confusion with it. What you described was the stalinist reinvention of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a regular state, to hide the capitalist nature of the soviet union and to justify the states existence in a supposedly socialist society.

The problem that a lot of people have in regards to this topic is that they still hold onto the bourgeois view of history and a slavish obedience to the theories and practice of social-democracy. Communism is classless society and one that has abolished the law of value as a result. The point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that it is the revolutionary moment which ends capitalism and as such, Marx called it the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, a word which a lot of people like to miss out.

That is not to say that there won't be a bunch of pissed off dispossessed capitalists kicking their heels, but without their hold over society through their ownership of the means of production, they won't have the power or authority to re-constitute capitalism without a massive counter-revolution. Another thing that we have to remember is that people do not make history themselves. The idea that you can only have capital with individual people personify capital is a largely redundant one, it is a series of social relations that can come about by the state itself, hence the irresolvable problems that pseudo-marxist have about calling the dictatorship of the proletariat a state. The modern state, no matter what form it takes, is a capitalist machine.

Thank you, but this really didn't answer my question. I don't understand what you mean that I was correct and therefore confused. Even if the dictatorship is not a regular state, there is still a transition period. The question remains: if the proletariat ceased all means of production, and if the bourgeoisi class is defined as the class of people privately owning the means of production, then it would seem that as soon as the capitalists are overthrown, the means of production would be immediately in the hands of the proletariat, the bourgeoisi class disappears and classlessness is immeciately achieved. So why the need of a transition period?

Put another way:

1) Classes exist so long as bourgeoisi class exists.
2) The Bourgeoisi class exists so long as the capitalists own privately the means of production.
3) When the Proletariat overthrows the capitalist state, the Proletariat immediately take over all means of production.
4) Therefore, when the Proletariat overthrows the capitlist state, the Bourgeoisi class ceases to exist.
5) Therefore, when the Proletariat overthrows the capitlist state, classlessness is achieved, and a transition period is not necessary.

I think I might have figured out the answer to this paradox. The problem is that 3) is perhaps an incorrect assumption. When the Proletariat overthrows the capitalist state, the capitalists are out of political power, but it does not mean that all means of production are immediately taken away from them. Perhaps even with the overthrow of the capitalists, the capitalists continue to own at least some means of production (and would fight to keep it that way.) One purpose of the dictatorship of proletariat is to gradually take the means of production away from the capitalists. To say that such a dictatorship is not needed is like saying that all drug trafficking ceases as soon as you enact a law outlawing drug trafficking. Just because the Proletariat overthrows the state and declares that there should be no more private ownership of property does not mean that the capitalists would immediately relinquish their private ownership of the means of production.

What do you think?

[robbo203]

Thank you, but this really didn't answer my question. I don't understand what you mean that I was correct and therefore confused. Even if the dictatorship is not a regular state, there is still a transition period. The question remains: if the proletariat ceased all means of production, and if the bourgeoisi class is defined as the class of people privately owning the means of production, then it would seem that as soon as the capitalists are overthrown, the means of production would be immediately in the hands of the proletariat, the bourgeoisi class disappears and classlessness is immeciately achieved. So why the need of a transition period?

Put another way:

1) Classes exist so long as bourgeoisi class exists.
2) The Bourgeoisi class exists so long as the capitalists own privately the means of production.
3) When the Proletariat overthrows the capitalist state, the Proletariat immediately take over all means of production.
4) Therefore, when the Proletariat overthrows the capitlist state, the Bourgeoisi class ceases to exist.
5) Therefore, when the Proletariat overthrows the capitlist state, classlessness is achieved, and a transition period is not necessary.

I think I might have figured out the answer to this paradox. The problem is that 3) is perhaps an incorrect assumption. When the Proletariat overthrows the capitalist state, the capitalists are out of political power, but it does not mean that all means of production are immediately taken away from them. Perhaps even with the overthrow of the capitalists, the capitalists continue to own at least some means of production (and would fight to keep it that way.) One purpose of the dictatorship of proletariat is to gradually take the means of production away from the capitalists. To say that such a dictatorship is not needed is like saying that all drug trafficking ceases as soon as you enact a law outlawing drug trafficking. Just because the Proletariat overthrows the state and declares that there should be no more private ownership of property does not mean that the capitalists would immediately relinquish their private ownership of the means of production.

What do you think?

I think the question of the DOTP becames clearer once you grasp what are , or need to be, the conditions under which the proletariat captures political power. It has to be on the basis of a mass communist consciousness and with the intention of overthrowing capitalism and establishing communism. Anything short of this will guarantee the perpetuation of capitalism, and indeed the emergence of a new ruling class that oppresses the proletariat in the name of the proletariat.

Once you understand this, things fall into place and the DOTP can be seen for what it is - a conceptual error on the part of Marx. The idea that a revolutionary working class can capture power in order to perpetuate capitalism in some form - and hence their own exploitation as a class - is just absurd. Its like slaves running a slave-owning society in their own interests when it can only be run inthe interests of the slave owners (for which reason they are slave owners).


It is, in any case, illogical to postulate a transition period between capitalism and communism. Either the means of porpduction are owned in common or they are not. When you think about it carefully, you cannot incrementally seize means of production from the capitalist class over a period of time. Its like saying you can be a little bit preganant. It makes no sense. How can a communist mode of productioin coexist with a capitalist mode? How can the abolition of production for sale, money, wage labour etc coexist with private capital? It cant. The existence of one destroys the conditions under which the other can exist.

The only rational conclusion to draw from all this is to reject altogther the whole idea of the DOTP as an unfortunate aberration by Marx. He meant by that a sort of democratic republic in which the interests of the proletariat prevail - dictate. He did not mean, as Hal Draper showed, dictatorship in the modern sense of the term - a political dictrorship. And of course Engels somewhat melodramatically cited the Paris commune as an example of the DOTP which some on the Left continue slavishly to do. There is a good post here which puts the matter of the Paris Commune in better perspective

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=573879


The illogicality of the whole idea of the DOTP lies in the fact, as I said, that you cannot have a situation in which the interests of the proletariat prevail in society when the proletariat by definition is an exploitated class whose interests by definition must be subordinate to that of an exploiting capitalist class.


If people insist on the need for a "transition period" on the grounds that "you cannot just introduce communism all at once" (actually, Marx argued elsewhere in his writings - like the German Ideology - that this precisely how communism would materialise: ALL AT ONCE) , then the logical place for any such transition period would be PRIOR to the capture of political power NOT AFTER that capture. But then that disposes of the whole idea of the DOTP anyway and quite rightly so, in my opinion.

We dont need this absurd construct in the lexicon of revolutionary socialism. Its a red herring. Scrap it.

[Captain Red]

I thought that dictatorship of the proletariat meant that the proletariat controls all means of production and political power instead of as we have today dictatorship of the bourgeois where the bourgeois controls the production and exploits the working class?

like Marx said "When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, by their revolutionary dictatorship . . . to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie... the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form"

You could achieve proletarian dictatorship through democratic or organic centralism that rules in the interest of the proletariat or syndicates, soviets, unions and workers councils and than when all form of capital have been destroyed you would achieve communism

"As, therefore, the State is only a transitional institution, which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a “free people’s State”; so long as the proletariat still needs the State, it does not need it in the interests of freedom, but in order to hold down its adversaries, and, as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom, the State, as such, ceases to exist" -Friedrich Engels

[robbo203]

I thought that dictatorship of the proletariat meant that the proletariat controls all means of production and political power instead of as we have today dictatorship of the bourgeois where the bourgeois controls the production and exploits the working class?

like Marx said "When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, by their revolutionary dictatorship . . . to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie... the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form"

You could achieve proletarian dictatorship through democratic or organic centralism that rules in the interest of the proletariat or syndicates, soviets, unions and workers councils and than when all form of capital have been destroyed you would achieve communism

"As, therefore, the State is only a transitional institution, which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a “free people’s State”; so long as the proletariat still needs the State, it does not need it in the interests of freedom, but in order to hold down its adversaries, and, as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom, the State, as such, ceases to exist" -Friedrich Engels


There is a fundamental difference between saying the proletariat needs to capture the state and saying that the proletariat needs to use the state as a "transitional institution", as a so-called "proletarian state" (an oxymoron) - operating over a period of time. I think Engels was fundamentally misinformed on this and such reasoning leads us directly into all the kind of contradictory positions I highlighted in my previous post

The only rational and logical position in all of this is to say that once the state is captured by the proletariat, that very act of capturing it , dissolves the state and the class basis of society itself which the state presupposes. There can be no other sensible way of approaching this matter. You simply cannot have the existence of an exploited class managing society in the interests of this class - which is what "dictatorship" means in this context - when its very existence as an exploited class presupposes a society that operates against its class interest.


All over the other arguments for a DOTP fall away once you grasp this basic point. The need for a so-called transitional period to allow for a psychogical readjustment to the new social reality is amply accommodated if instead of locating the transitional period after the capture of political power you locate it before that act and in the context of a growing mass movement of communist minded workers already in the process of changing the social outlook and its dominant values. After all you cant have communism (aka socialism) without communists. You cant impose communism on a non communist working class and since you cannot do that, that means you are left with capitalism. And anyone who tries to take over the management of capitalism will pretty soon find it can only be managed in one way and that is against the interests of workers

It is also before the formal capture of political power by the revolutionary working calss that the influence of capitalist class will have become progressively weakened in the face of this huge sea change in the social outlook. If the capitalists wanted to halt the revolutionary transfomration of society , NOW is the time to do it - when the movement is pathetically weak - not when it has to deal with a mass movement for genuine communism.

When the writing is on the wall, it will be far too late for the capitalists to do anything about it. The game will be up and whatever little resistance the mass movement encounters would most certainly not require the existence of some state to quell it

[reb]

I thought that dictatorship of the proletariat meant that the proletariat controls all means of production and political power instead of as we have today dictatorship of the bourgeois where the bourgeois controls the production and exploits the working class?

It isn't just that and it can't be described as a state either. It is like Marx said the revolutionary dictatorship, the revolutionary moment when we go from capitalism to communism. And it's wrong to conflate both Marx and Engels together in regards to the state because they both had differing views on the subject. This is something that leninoids do and claim it's not a dogma.

[reb]

1) Classes exist so long as bourgeoisi class exists.
2) The Bourgeoisi class exists so long as the capitalists own privately the means of production.
3) When the Proletariat overthrows the capitalist state, the Proletariat immediately take over all means of production.
4) Therefore, when the Proletariat overthrows the capitlist state, the Bourgeoisi class ceases to exist.
5) Therefore, when the Proletariat overthrows the capitlist state, classlessness is achieved, and a transition period is not necessary.

Well, to number one, we're talking about communism here and the abolition of capital with the corresponding law of value. The proletarian revolution is just the vehicle towards that, that allows it, and also as a result we end in a classless society, hopefully. There are two things going on here in regards to revolution. One is that there is a transformation of the mode of production from capitalism to communism. This means that there is no transitory mode of production or some half way thing. It is either/or. Over the top of this, as the mode of production changes, there corresponds a political transition in the shape of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. In essence you are correct but it's a very simple way of putting it.

I
think I might have figured out the answer to this paradox. The problem is that 3) is perhaps an incorrect assumption. When the Proletariat overthrows the capitalist state, the capitalists are out of political power, but it does not mean that all means of production are immediately taken away from them. Perhaps even with the overthrow of the capitalists, the capitalists continue to own at least some means of production (and would fight to keep it that way.) One purpose of the dictatorship of proletariat is to gradually take the means of production away from the capitalists. To say that such a dictatorship is not needed is like saying that all drug trafficking ceases as soon as you enact a law outlawing drug trafficking. Just because the Proletariat overthrows the state and declares that there should be no more private ownership of property does not mean that the capitalists would immediately relinquish their private ownership of the means of production.

Like I said, it's also about ending the law of value. Unless that is done then it can't be called communism (or socialism or the lowest stage of communism, etc). Part of that involves the forceful push out the capitalists out of power and also of smashing the state. The problem is that stalinites have formulated a whole new theory of socialism as transition, with a state and the law of value and classes, in order to justify the capitalist nature of the soviet state, which confuses a lot of things with it's bourgeois mentality. What we are trying to get rid off is capitalism, not just individuals who serve capital.

[Red Shaker]

Marx's view of the dictatorship of the proletariat was very limited. He only used the term once and that was in reference to the Paris Commune. It was with Lenin's work "State and Revolution" that the term was more fully defined. I think we have a better understanding of the term today nearly 150 years after the Paris Commune. The seizure of power by the working class does not happen everywhere and all at once. The DOTP is that period when the working class is consolidating its power in the area it has liberated and defending that area from attacks by the capitalists in areas that have not been liberated. In the liberated areas the DOTP is used to wipe out the remnants of capitalist power and to begin the construction of communism, i.e. abolishing the wage system, defeating racism, sexism and other forms of class oppression. The Red Army is used primarily to protect these areas from external threats. Once revolution has been accomplished world wide and the capitalist class and their armed forces have been defeated, the DOTP can begin to whither away.

[Comrade #138672]

I think the TS has a somewhat idealist conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat, ignoring the fact that the material conditions cannot be changed at once. The proletariat and the bourgeoisie will still exist after the revolution for some time. If the (world) revolution is successful, the state, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will all wither away.