Capitalists under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[MengTzu]

Hi all,

Sorry if this is a stupid question. It is my undestanding that, according to Marx, during the first phase of Communism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat owns and controls all means of production, and that each worker under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat works for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and gets compensated with labor voucher according to his contribution. Does this mean that, according to Marx, a capitalist living under a Dictatorship of the Proletariat has to work for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in order to make a living?

[The Idler]

Capital won't exist, so neither will capitalists.

[Tim Cornelis]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a political transition toward communism (lower phase or otherwise). The (former) capitalists will have been expropriated and integrated into producers' associations (or dead) wherefore they will be accorded labour credits on the basis of contribution, measured in some way, to the social product.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Hi all,

Sorry if this is a stupid question. It is my undestanding that, according to Marx, during the first phase of Communism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat owns and controls all means of production, and that each worker under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat works for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and gets compensated with labor voucher according to his contribution. Does this mean that, according to Marx, a capitalist living under a Dictatorship of the Proletariat has to work for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in order to make a living?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the first phase of communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the transitional society towards communist society. Another thing, the workers don't work for the dictatorship of the proletariat (how does that work?). The workers are the proletariat themselves. It is their class dictatorship (as opposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or bourgeois society, which we all currently live in). The proletariat is a term used by communists for the modern working class. I'm also not sure that Marx spoke of labor vouchers in the dictatorship of the proletariat (or at all). Money and currency would still have its place in society until communism.

[Sinister Intents]

Hi all,

Sorry if this is a stupid question. It is my undestanding that, according to Marx, during the first phase of Communism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat owns and controls all means of production, and that each worker under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat works for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and gets compensated with labor voucher according to his contribution. Does this mean that, according to Marx, a capitalist living under a Dictatorship of the Proletariat has to work for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in order to make a living?

There are no stupid questions. Capital will cease to exist as well as class based society will cease to exist, there will only be proletarians, so all people can work and contribute for the whole of society without any exploitation.

[G4b3n]

"The dictatorship of the proletariat" is said to exist in order to suppress the bourgeoisie and dismantle the capital-bound relationships that they have established.

In reality this can be accomplished with our own tools and institutions. There is no need to utilize state power which we are more likely to view from the sidelines as opposed to actively participating.

[Remus Bleys]

In reality this can be accomplished with our own tools and institutions. There is no need to utilize state power which we are more likely to view from the sidelines as opposed to actively participating.

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"
.

As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is the case. Marx's idea is that the working class must break up, smash the "ready-made state machinery", and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it.

[G4b3n]

.

No need need for your typical childish insults. I am very well versed in both Marx and Lenin as most serious revolutionaries are.

I am not saying that Marx or Lenin advocated for use of the bourgeois state by the workers, I am arguing that the state as a structure of class rule (even from a "proletarian" perspective) alienates the genuine working class and elevates those who claim to represent us. Therefore we must accomplish the task "with our tools and institutions", this would include soviets, syndicates, worker's committees, councils and so forth.

[Remus Bleys]

No need need for your typical childish insults. I am very well versed in both Marx and Lenin as most serious revolutionaries are.

I am not saying that Marx or Lenin advocated for use of the bourgeois state by the workers, I am arguing that the state as a structure of class rule (even from a "proletarian" perspective) alienates the genuine working class and elevates those who claim to represent us. Therefore we must accomplish the task "with our tools and institutions", this would include soviets, syndicates, worker's committees, councils and so forth.
And this is still a state. Soviets exists to suppress the bourgeoisie. That is the marxist definition of the state.

[G4b3n]

And this is still a state. Soviets exists to suppress the bourgeoisie. That is the marxist definition of the state.

Soviets do not constitute a state. Soviets can exist with or without a state. In the latter they act as a collective formation of institutions that utilize whatever form of democracy they choose; look at turn of the century Russia or Germany. In the former they are subordinated to the state and all other factions of the worker's movement are suppressed, not just the bourgeoisie. Soviets in the absence of a state is a decentralized form of power as opposed to centralized in the case of the existence of a state. Do you see the difference?

[Remus Bleys]

Soviets do not constitute a state. Soviets can exist with or without a state. In the latter they act as a collective formation of institutions that utilize whatever form of democracy they choose; look at turn of the century Russia or Germany. In the former they are subordinated to the state and all other factions of the worker's movement are suppressed, not just the bourgeoisie. Soviets in the absence of a state is a decentralized form of power as opposed to centralized in the case of the existence of a state. Do you see the difference?
what the fuck state are you refering to?
and the soviets are a state at the time they suppress the bourgeois - any institution by which one class suppresses the others and acts as a governing body for a particular area is a state - do you not understand this?

also this is a good article on soviets http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/soviets.htm

[reb]

Hi all,

Sorry if this is a stupid question. It is my undestanding that, according to Marx, during the first phase of Communism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

This is wrong. What you are describing is a Stalinist invention, where the lowest phase of communism, which they call socialism, has a state and classes, and wage-labor, and commodity production and so on. Basically, all of the features of capitalism. It is a common misunderstanding though, so don't feel bad about it. Stalinists haven't read Max, but you should.

Marx's own ideas are different in that communism refers to a classless society, and if a proletariat exists then it means there are still classes. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat serves as a crossover point between capitalism and communism. Capitalists won't be able to be capitalists if the dotp is doing it's job in dismantling capitalism and class society. They will have to either submit and give up being a capitalist or they will be done away with.

[reb]

"The dictatorship of the proletariat" is said to exist in order to suppress the bourgeoisie and dismantle the capital-bound relationships that they have established.

In reality this can be accomplished with our own tools and institutions. There is no need to utilize state power which we are more likely to view from the sidelines as opposed to actively participating.

Only Leninists with their bourgeois ideology can consider soviets to be a state. The soviets, factory committees and other institutions of proletarian power could only have formed the basis of a state, or as Leninists like to call it, a semi-state, with the ending of proletarian power and the formation of regular bourgeois relations.

[MengTzu]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a political transition toward communism (lower phase or otherwise). The (former) capitalists will have been expropriated and integrated into producers' associations (or dead) wherefore they will be accorded labour credits on the basis of contribution, measured in some way, to the social product.

Thank you. If there are only former capitalists, who are direct producers like everyone else, then in what sense is there still a capitalist class in the lower phase
of communism?

[G4b3n]

what the fuck state are you refering to?
and the soviets are a state at the time they suppress the bourgeois - any institution by which one class suppresses the others and acts as a governing body for a particular area is a state - do you not understand this?

also this is a good article on soviets http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/soviets.htm

Yes, that is when soviets exist within a so-called worker's state, in which case the soviets are subordinated to the ruling party's central committee or whatever name is given to the elite few.

Soviets that govern local areas independently of singe-party tyranny act as worker's institutions and do not constitute a state in any sense of the word.

[Remus Bleys]

Define state