Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[Durka]

Hi there,

Do communists believe that there must be a transitionary phase from capitalism to communism where a temporary dictatorship is setup for the benefit of the working class?

If so, how long would this last, and who would be in control?

thanks.

[Five Year Plan]

Hi there,

Do communists believe that there must be a transitionary phase from capitalism to communism where a temporary dictatorship is setup for the benefit of the working class?

If so, how long would this last, and who would be in control?

thanks.

You'll find on this forum many people who think that such a dictatorship is unnecessary and downright counter-revolutionary. Others will argue that a dictatorship of the proletariat, under workers' control, is necessary to lead the transition from capitalism to communism. Among the latter group, there is no agreement on time frame. It all depends on the circumstances.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I personally am rather ambivalent on the issue. If a DOTP is something that will prove to be neccessary, then I'll support it. However, there's the possibility that such a thing would be counterproductive and unnecessary. In that event, we'd be better off without it.

Really, it'll all be dependent on the material circumstances of each territory as it falls to the international proletariat.

[tuwix]

Hi there,

Do communists believe that there must be a transitionary phase from capitalism to communism where a temporary dictatorship is setup for the benefit of the working class?

If so, how long would this last, and who would be in control?

thanks.

In my opinion, in present technical conditions the DotP is just direct democracy. The rest is self-explanatory.

[adipocere12]

Hi there,

Do communists believe that there must be a transitionary phase from capitalism to communism where a temporary dictatorship is setup for the benefit of the working class?

If so, how long would this last, and who would be in control?

thanks.


This is an often misunderstood phrase. Marx meant dictatorship of the proletariat in contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie of capitalism. He was talking purely about which class would be in power. Not this or that group of people.

[Brutus]

It's a dictatorship in the sense that it's a class dictatorship- i.e. the working class uses it's state apparatus to enforce it's hegemony over the other classes.

[adipocere12]

OP, you've gotta remember the time Marx was writing. In England (where a lot of his major works were written) not even all men had the vote let alone women. It was a dictatorship if the bourgeoisie in every sense

[Tim Cornelis]

According to Marxism, contradictions within capitalism produce class antagonisms between the working class and capitalist class which will result in a revolutionary situation wherein the working class forms organs of workers' power -- such as workers' councils, workers' associations, committees, communes -- to try and conquer political power. These organs, part of a revolutionary body -- the workers' state -- is organised from below with power in the lowest organs, and mandated, recallable, rotating workers' deputies in higher organs executing decisions, whom are binding on all organs by virtue of the lower organs accepting the decisions of the higher organs. The revolutionary state is a temporary one where councils and the like will wield political power, and workers' associations will assume control of production. Socialised production under private property is transformed into social ownership. The state will use violence, pressure, and coercion where necessary to consolidate power and carry the revolution to victory. This violence is directed at the reaction, those using violence to restore property rights and the bourgeois class to the position of ruling class. As the social revolution progresses the reaction is beaten and defeated, and the process of socialisation is completed, revolutionary violence is obsolete and will necessarily disappear. What remains of the workers' state is the associations of producers and social ownership. As such, the result is the free association of equal producers and consumers administrating commonly owned productive resources: communism.

[Blake's Baby]

Tim, if I were you, I'd avoid muddying the water with terms such as 'workers' state' (for reasons I'll let Marx explain below).

Marx refers to the 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' (in Part IV of the Critique of the Gotha Programme for example, linked in my sig as this comes up a lot) as being the political phase of transition that corresponds to the proletariat reorganising the economy to make the transformation from capitalist society to communist society.

The quote in context is:
"The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.{BB's note - for the same reason I'd avoid 'workers' state' as a description}

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."

So in Marx's conception, the proletariat can't simply declare itself the only class in society and 'implement communism' on day one of the revolution, but needs to go through a process of transforming capitalist society into communist society. During this process, it needs to be in control of society. This control, like that of the classical dictators, is a time-limited and emergency condition. When the transformation is complete there is no more '(1)revolutionary (2)dictatorship of the (3)proletariat' because 1-the revolutionary transformation has happened; 2-the dictatorship over the rest of society ends because 3-the proletariat abolishes itself through reorganisation of the economic bases of society.


To directly answer your questions "Do communists believe that there must be a transitionary phase from capitalism to communism where a temporary dictatorship is setup ..."

Yes.

"... for the benefit of the working class?"

No. By the working class. Of the working class.

"...If so, how long would this last, and who would be in control?"

It would last until the working class has re-organised society, ie as long as the working class exists (as long as there are separate classes in society, in other words). The working class would be in control, that's the point. Not 'the Communists'. Not 'the Party'. The working class.

[Tim Cornelis]

This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.{BB's note - for the same reason I'd avoid 'workers' state' as a description}

I don't get it to be honest.

If anything, I'd say, because the present meaning of the word dictatorship is not an emergency and temporal measure, it should be avoided.

[Blake's Baby]

Because of the Anarchist problem with the word state. The Marxist use is no more unproblematic than the use of the word 'dictatorship'. One alsways has to go into the 'but this is a state unlike any other, the state of a majority not a minority, so one in which a specialised apparatus of repression is not necessary', to which Anarchists reply, 'that's not a state, why are you calling it a state?'

[adipocere12]

I don't get it to be honest.



If anything, I'd say, because the present meaning of the word dictatorship is not an emergency and temporal measure, it should be avoided.


"Dictatorship of the proletariat" was a common phrase amongst the left back then though

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Don't forget the people who'll argue that the Marxist/Anarchist/everyone-not-in-the-same time-period-as-Marx-ist understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat actually means something different from what Marx seemed to think it was! You know, linguistic differences that caused confusion and indirectly contributed to the USSR somewhere.

Oh and that the dictatorship of the proletartiat can either be seen as implementing communism from day one or as a period of change leading to communism, which is really the same thing (implementing communism from day one). If, somehow, it isn't, then it doesn't matter because the notion is no longer relevant to this day in age via the terminology "dictatorship of the proletariat".

[Blake's Baby]

Well, I take Tim's point that no-one understands the term 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' any more.

My contention would be that as it actually appears in Marx's works, it's better to use and explain it, rather than pretend it's not there and use other ambiguous terms like 'workers' state' instead, which aren't there and have no better explanatory power.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Well, I take Tim's point that no-one understands the term 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' any more.

My contention would be that as it actually appears in Marx's works, it's better to use and explain it, rather than pretend it's not there and use other ambiguous terms like 'workers' state' instead, which aren't there and have no better explanatory power.

Or just... use it and explain it as something relevant to that time period and use new things, like communisation. Which also means killing of the term "workers state". What a horrible pair of words. Eugh.

[Blake's Baby]

It depends on whether or not you think communisation theory is junk or not.

I really don't see a problem with the notion of the 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat'. Sure, the words are a bit offputting. But is there a problem with the content?

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It depends on whether or not you think communisation theory is junk or not.

I really don't see a problem with the notion of the 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat'. Sure, the words are a bit offputting. But is there a problem with the content?

What's the content for you?

[Tim Cornelis]

Because of the Anarchist problem with the word state. The Marxist use is no more unproblematic than the use of the word 'dictatorship'. One alsways has to go into the 'but this is a state unlike any other, the state of a majority not a minority, so one in which a specialised apparatus of repression is not necessary', to which Anarchists reply, 'that's not a state, why are you calling it a state?'

I understand this even less. Because anarchists have a problem with the word state, you suggest we use dictatorship, which the anarchists despise even more…?



"Dictatorship of the proletariat" was a common phrase amongst the left back then though

Yeah, it still is. But dictatorship was meant to convey a temporal state, like 'in the days of old', but today's meaning of dictatorship is a durable self-preserving state where power is concentrated in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable elite.



Well, I take Tim's point that no-one understands the term 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' any more.

Well some do understand. However, the meaning of dictatorship in DOTP is archaic; and is often conflated, logically, with today's meaning of the word. Since we live in today, we might as well just drop the word entirely.


My contention would be that as it actually appears in Marx's works, it's better to use and explain it, rather than pretend it's not there and use other ambiguous terms like 'workers' state' instead, which aren't there and have no better explanatory power.

That just strikes me as a Marx-fetish.

My suggestion is not, by the way, pretend it's not there. But when you describe a revolutionary workers' state (if you were to write an introductory essay or post or whatever on the subject) explain that 'dictatorship' as it's used in DOTP refers to Roman law, with power formed to crush a civil insurrection. In the context of a DOTP this would be the revolutionary working class using power to crush the insurrectionary reaction. And then propose an alternate name that does not use the archaic meaning of dictatorship, like workers' state.


Or just... use it and explain it as something relevant to that time period and use new things, like communisation. Which also means killing of the term "workers state". What a horrible pair of words. Eugh.

The concept of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is not 'irrelevant' in this time period as you suggest, and if you dispose of the concept and replace it, that'd be a grave mistake.



I really don't see a problem with the notion of the 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat'. Sure, the words are a bit offputting. But is there a problem with the content?

Same goes for workers' state I guess, to me at least.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

The concept of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is not 'irrelevant' in this time period as you suggest, and if you dispose of the concept and replace it, that'd be a grave mistake..

Yeah that's great except for a few small things, such as what you actually mean by those three words, the ideological certainty you place in those words (which I still need to know your understanding of) and the opinion that somehow it's a grave mistake that I choose to consign these words to a mere historical role and influence.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah that's great except for a few small things, such as what you actually mean by those three words, the ideological certainty you place in those words (which I still need to know your understanding of) and the opinion that somehow it's a grave mistake that I choose to consign these words to a mere historical role and influence.

I would guess everyone, except maybe Stalinists, have the same conception of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, which I call a workers' state. And I've given a fairly detailed description of that already.

It would be a mistake to want to dispose of it since it's an absolute requirement to carry a revolution to victory, to have force, violence, and coercion at your disposal to beat the reaction.

[Thirsty Crow]

Hi there,

Do communists believe that there must be a transitionary phase from capitalism to communism where a temporary dictatorship is setup for the benefit of the working class?

If so, how long would this last, and who would be in control?

thanks.
Yes. I do think it is inevitable because simultaneous world revolution is very, very unlikely.

Who would be in charge? The name gives away the game - the working class would be. I would assume that the class would exercise power through its unitary organs such as territorial councils and public safety committees (on the condition of class wide arming of people), workplace organs such as workplace committees and perhaps some form of semi-institutionalized mass assemblies. The role of the revolutionary political organizations on the other hand is decidedly not to fuse themselves into the state apparatus, but to act as facilitators of social transformation and nexus of proposals and ideas which are presented to the base.

[Blake's Baby]

What's the content for you?

The content is the working class organising itself to expropriate the capitalist class, take production and distribution into its own hands, and generalise its condition to integrate the whole of society into the productive and distributive process, while also protecting the gains of the revolution and suppressing pro-restoration movements - until the point that it has completed the re-organisation of society and as a result, ceases to exist. I think the organisation form that this will take will be a combination of 'factory' and neighbourhood councils.

[RedMaterialist]

It depends on whether or not you think communisation theory is junk or not.

I really don't see a problem with the notion of the 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat'. Sure, the words are a bit offputting. But is there a problem with the content?

It seems to be that the word "proletariat" has lost any real meaning or signifying effect. Most people think of it as some kind of musty, 19th century, word meaning low wage employees.

So, what would we have? A Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Service Employees?

Why not just stick with revolutionary dictatorship of the working class? Of course it doesn't take us a "flea-hop closer" to what that phrase really means but at least people know what the "working class" is.

The problem, as I see it, is that no one is out there explaining to the low-wage (of whom I myself recently was an unemployed one) working class exactly what a working class is, what a revolution by that class would look like and why it is essential to destroying the capitalist class.

I know personally that workers would understand immediately that the capitalist class takes at least one-half of the value produced by workers and leaves them only with low wages. And uses the threat of unemployment to keep workers from doing anything about it.

If a socialist can win in Seattle and get elected to the U.S. Senate from Vermont then why not anywhere (except maybe the U.S. south, a reactionary paradise, where I live?) Bernie Sanders may be a bourgeois socialist, but at least calls himself a socialist.

Why don't more communists and socialists become active politically? Fear of the state?

[DasComrade]

I think the dictatorship of the proletariat is completely unnecessary, and frankly who would go for it? I would see the word dictatorship and then I would want nothing to do with it.

I feel that maybe a democracy of the proletariat is probably a better way of achieving a communist society.

[hashem]

Do communists believe that there must be a transitionary phase from capitalism to communism where a temporary dictatorship is setup for the benefit of the working class?

Yes. but dictatorship is the essence of proletarian government during this period, not its form. dictatorship of proletariat means democracy for huge masses of proletariat and suppression of bourgeois counter revolution. the form of government during dictatorship of proletariat is more democratic than dictatorship of bourgeoisie. dictatorship of bourgeoisie can take form of monarchy, theocracy, police state and a modern republic at best. but since proletariat (along with its allies) makes overwhelming majority of population, the form of its rule must allow its base to run the state. this is done by councils and was exprienced in commune of Paris and early years of USSR.


If so, how long would this last, and who would be in control?

it will last during the socialism phase, when classes and struggle between them still exists. when communism is reached, there will no longer be any proletariat (or classes in general), thus it will be abolished. proletariat will be in control with its allies like peasant. these allies will eventually turn into workers (as a result of advanced technology which abolishes petty production). during communism, proletarians will become workers which are no longer a class, and since all of other classes have been abolished, all of population will become workers. class struggle ceases and there will be no longer any need for dictatorship or government which represents dictatorship.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the dictatorship of the proletariat is completely unnecessary, and frankly who would go for it? I would see the word dictatorship and then I would want nothing to do with it.

I feel that maybe a democracy of the proletariat is probably a better way of achieving a communist society.

Are you arguing about the content here, or about a word?

It seems like you're arguing against the word. But then again if you believe in 'the democracy of the proletariat' maybe you think we can just vote our way to communist society.

[hashem]

I would see the word dictatorship and then I would want nothing to do with it.

thats because you cant tell the difference between form of governments and their class essence. dictatorship of proletariat means proletariat will be in charge. the essence of government will be proletarian. it doesnt mean giving authority to a person or a party which ignores peoples demands. on the contrary, under this class dictatorship, proletariat (and its allies) will enjoy freedom and democracy to some degree which is impossible even under the most democratic republic of bourgeois dictatorship.

read "state and revolution" by Lenin for more information.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Hi there,

Hwwo


Do communists believe that there must be a transitionary phase from capitalism to communism where a temporary dictatorship is setup for the benefit of the working class?

Yes.


If so, how long would this last, and who would be in control?

4 months and 7 fort nights. The proletariat, peasantry and lumpenproletariat.


thanks.

You're welcome friend :)

[hashem]

If a DOTP is something that will prove to be neccessary, then I'll support it. However, there's the possibility that such a thing would be counterproductive and unnecessary. In that event, we'd be better off without it.

Really, it'll all be dependent on the material circumstances of each territory as it falls to the international proletariat.

dictatorship is neccessary until classes exist. bourgeoise cannot rule without its dictatorship as a class (despite its dictatorhip can take many forms, like monarchy, republic or ...) and neither can proletariat (despite its dictatorship can only be in the shape of broadest democracy for workers). dictatorship will become unneccessary when there are no longer any classes or in other words: when communism has been reached. but is that what you mean? can you explain the circumstances which under them dictatorship is not neccessary?

[exeexe]

But why would you want a dictatorship, that is you want to tell/force the capitalist to live like workers or producers, when instead you could just expel them. Tell them to leave. Kick them out. In that way there would be no need for a dictatorship. If not across a border then away from the means of production.

[Creative Destruction]

But why would you want a dictatorship, that is you want to tell/force the capitalist to live like workers or producers, when instead you could just expel them. Tell them to leave. Kick them out. In that way there would be no need for a dictatorship. If not across a border then away from the means of production.

If socialism is supposed to be an international phenomenon, what use is it to "expel" capitalists? Expel them to where? A class dictatorship simply means that one class controls the productive forces rather than another. Since bourgeois dictatorship is characterized by private property, if you abolish that and socialize the means of production, that is suppressing the bourgeois class. At the same time, you're undertaking the task of abolishing the working class as well. However, in order to do this, the struggle comes in beating back people who want to restore the old ways of production and misery, in which an organized class dictatorship is necessary to quell.

[Creative Destruction]

I hate it how it's not "violence" when the bourgeois state violates people's rights, and it's "violence" when we legitimately stop a violation of social property.

well, it sort of goes along with that cliche that says the history books are written with the pens of the victors. it's the same thing here. if the productive forces switches hands and generalizes enough, the "violence" referred to will be that of people who are employing conservative terrorism and violence in order to restore capitalist property relations, whereas the worker's state will be the actor defending progress toward emancipation.

[exeexe]

If socialism is supposed to be an international phenomenon
Yes in the ideal imagination, but in the realistic world there will be regions that will fall before others.
In those regions where the police would be non existent you could expel the capitalist from those regions.

[Creative Destruction]

Yes in the ideal imagination, but in the realistic world there will be regions that will fall before others.
In those regions where the police would be non existent you could expel the capitalist from those regions.

expel them to where? and why expel them and allow them to possibly build up a greater possibility of a capitalist insurrection? that doesn't make any sense.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes in the ideal imagination, but in the realistic world there will be regions that will fall before others.
In those regions where the police would be non existent you could expel the capitalist from those regions.
And what happens to those capitalists when the region they're expelled to undergoes communist transformation?

Yes, the poor things would be forced to renounce their social position and function. One way or the other. And sure, this actually means they'd have to work (and not be able to politically push for restoration, of course).

[motion denied]

The DotP is not a matter of will. We live in a class society; therefore, political power exists, whether we like it or not. The interests of the proletariat, "what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do", the reorganisation of the whole society and the universalization of the proletarian interests (and its consequent disappearance), to be carried will need organs of whatever form. There's your DotP.

[hashem]

But why would you want a dictatorship, that is you want to tell/force the capitalist to live like workers or producers, when instead you could just expel them. Tell them to leave. Kick them out. In that way there would be no need for a dictatorship. If not across a border then away from the means of production.

class struggle of proletariat is not a struggle against certain number of capitalists. it is a struggle against basis of exploitation in any form. if you get rid of todays capitalists, tomorrow some of present day workers can accept bourgeois ideology and become capitalists under the cover, just like what happened in USSR. in USSR means of production were governmental and there was officially no private ownership, but since the class essence of ruling party and state changed, privileged bureaucrats became exploiters and a new bourgeoisie rose to power.

also, class struggle cant be limited to one country. if proletariat is victorious in one country, bourgeoise of other countries will contiune the struggle against it.

dictatorship of proletariat can be abolished when bourgeoisie (along with its ideology and leftovers of the old world which are based on explotation) is destroyed internationally.

[exeexe]

expel them to where?
I made this fictional example showing if some parts of the world turns anticapitalistic, then you can expel them to the parts of the world that is not anticapitalistic
http://i60.tinypic.com/2qbby8x.jpg

and why expel them and allow them to possibly build up a greater possibility of a capitalist insurrection? that doesn't make any sense.First You cant make an insurrection in a region where you are not operating. Second capitalists are not using methods like insurrection.

And newsflash: People would rather live in a capitalist economy than in a dictatorship. So if dictatorship would be introduced you would not get one step closer to communism, you would just make communism impossible.

[exeexe]

And what happens to those capitalists when the region they're expelled to undergoes communist transformation?

I dont agree to the premise of your question. When you expel a capitalist, he is no longer a capitalist.

[Blake's Baby]

Newsflash, capitalism is international. Bill Gates might have been expropriated in Socialist Upper Cascadia, but you can be damn sure that when he goes to New York or Tokyo, they're still going to treat him as the third richest man in the world.

Every currently existing 'dictatorship' is capitalist, and all capitalist countries are dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, so I don't get your point about 'dictatorship or capitalism'.

Should the working class take hold of society and re-organise it to lay the basis for the creation of world socialist (or communist, same thing) society?

YES/NO

[consuming negativity]

map of forced capitalist expulsions

This is some ridiculous shit right here. Yeah, let's show them we're not bad by telling them about how we're going to ship people off to Siberia if they disagree with us.

[Blake's Baby]

No, I think what exeexe had in mind was throwing them out of the territories we control, like those lines of refugees you see pushing handcarts fleeing every warzone ever. Tent cities full of ex-bourgeoises, crying children foced to walk along with Mummy and Daddy while the au pair is busy fighting with the revolutionary militia. Or, you know, voting, because it seems for an Anarchist, exeexe is remarkably squeemish about the process of revolution.

[exeexe]

Newsflash, capitalism is international. Bill Gates might have been expropriated in Socialist Upper Cascadia, but you can be damn sure that when he goes to New York or Tokyo, they're still going to treat him as the third richest man in the world.

The stock markets under such an example would be plummeting just out of fear even in capitalist countries. They wont treat him as a capitalist unless he has workers working for him.



and all capitalist countries are dictatorships
No if all capitalist countries were dictatorships, then we would all be capitalists and it would be illegal to be workers. What an absurd idea..



Should the working class take hold of society and re-organise it to lay the basis for the creation of worldsocialist (or communist, same thing) society?
YES/NONO



Should the working class organise to liberate society from exploitation and hierarchy and create a socialist (or communist, same thing) bottom up society?
YES/NOYES

First you dont take hold of the capitalist engineered society*, you destroy it. Second you dont reorganise society after you have destroyed society. This would just end up in chaos. So the new form of organisation (think industrialized unions as an example) would already be in place before you destroy society. And then you cant implement socialism in the whole world, only where the working class is prepared for it. And the way the working class will prepare for it is by establishing a new form of organisation that is ready to run society when the old comes crumbling down. And lastly, ofcourse a bottom up society.

Edit: ok not destroy society, but destroy the state*

[exeexe]

No, I think what exeexe had in mind was throwing them out of the territories we control, like those lines of refugees you see pushing handcarts fleeing every warzone ever. Tent cities full of ex-bourgeoises, crying children foced to walk along with Mummy and Daddy while the au pair is busy fighting with the revolutionary militia.

Yeah it could end up like that


Or, you know, voting, because it seems for an Anarchist, exeexe is remarkably squeemish about the process of revolution.You are right. I am squeemish about the process of revolution, but not revolution in itself. And yes there is a strong link between anarchism and direct democracy.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

No if all capitalist countries were dictatorships, then we would all be capitalists and it would be illegal to be workers. What an absurd idea.
That's not how dictatorships work and it's bizarre that you even wrote this. Essentially what Blake's Baby is saying (although I don't want to put words into his mouth) is that a dictatorship is when one group of people exerts economic and political dominance over another group of people. In the case of capitalism, this is the capitalist class maintaining hegemony in their own interest over the working class. How they do this is shown in a variety of ways: assassinating leftist leaders, the culture industry, homogenising the voting system, monopolising the news media, work practices, tear gas thrown into demonstrations, etc.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, therefore, is when the working class exerts their interests over the capitalist class. And what is in the interest of the working class? To abolish the class system altogether by expropriating private property.

[exeexe]

The idea that capitalism should be some kind of dictatorship in a liberal democracy, is absurd. Because dictatorship means that you cant have influence on decision making, and it means that everyone should have the same opinion on vital subjects, which would be a violation of the free press and other things.

Now you talk about assassinating of leftist leader, i dont remember any leftist leaders being assassinated here and we have capitalism.
- the culture industry: Do you even culture?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWSqs4zuVOk
- homogenising the voting system: i dont know what this means
- monopolising the news media: have you ever tried to google for alternative news agencies?
- work practices: Work practices can be improved if you put collective pressure on the capitalist class.
- tear gas thrown into demonstrations: Here it is used to restore bourgeoisie order but it doesnt compare to for example dictator Hussein, throwing mustard gas, sarin, tabun, VX, and hydrogen cyanide to kill Kurdish people

Dictatorship of capitalism is just something that has been invented to try to justify that the dictatorship of the proletariate should be more acceptable, but people are not stupid enough to be fooled by this.

[hashem]

Dictatorship of capitalism is just something that has been invented to try to justify that the dictatorship of the proletariate should be more acceptable, but people are not stupid enough to be fooled by this.

if that is true, workers can take over means of production whenever they like. so why are you discussing things here when you can make your anarchist dreams come true? or are you stupid enough to claim that police remains neutral if workers try to take over means of production when capitalists are no longer needed but are a burden for society?

there is no class society without dictatorship of one class against others. even in the most democratic republic, the nature of state is bourgeois dictatorship. form of government is one thing, its class nature is another thing. in ancient Athens form of government was democracy but its class nature was dictatorship of slave owners; democracy was useful for the ruling class as long as it served the class nature of its state. same thing is true about bourgeoisie today.

[hashem]

No if all capitalist countries were dictatorships, then we would all be capitalists and it would be illegal to be workers. What an absurd idea.

you are embrassing yourself with these statements. go study a little then come back to have a discussion.

and i tell those who try to discuss things with this person: by answering to these statements you are wasting your time. he who doesnt study should not speak.

[Creative Destruction]

First You cant make an insurrection in a region where you are not operating. Second capitalists are not using methods like insurrection.

I said: by doing this, you're allowing for the possibility of an insurrection. You need to build a base of some kind of support and organize before you can have anything like an insurrection. And why wouldn't capitalists use that method in order to combat a socialist take over? What the hell are you talking about?


And newsflash: People would rather live in a capitalist economy than in a dictatorship. So if dictatorship would be introduced you would not get one step closer to communism, you would just make communism impossible.

We live in a dictatorship right now, you dummy! I'm not talking about an autocrat taking over everything and controlling it. I explained to you already what a class dictatorship is. Right now, we are living in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[Creative Destruction]

Dictatorship of capitalism is just something that has been invented to try to justify that the dictatorship of the proletariate should be more acceptable, but people are not stupid enough to be fooled by this.

you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

[Tim Cornelis]

But why would you want a dictatorship, that is you want to tell/force the capitalist to live like workers or producers, when instead you could just expel them. Tell them to leave. Kick them out. In that way there would be no need for a dictatorship. If not across a border then away from the means of production.

It's an unrealistic suggestion since the context required for this to happen would be instantaneous hegemony by anarchist militias and instantaneous disarmament of bourgeois forces (police, army) so the anarchist militias can just take property without a chance for reaction to occur.

Realistically, this will never happen. Workers will start seizing private property and police, army, and paramilitary with come to crush the revolution. So expelling capitalists so you don't need to use force and coercion -- which they would need to accept willingly and give up without a fight -- is an illusion. In fact, expelling would require substantial force and coercion and is arguably a state function.


The idea that capitalism should be some kind of dictatorship in a liberal democracy, is absurd. Because dictatorship means that you cant have influence on decision making, and it means that everyone should have the same opinion on vital subjects, which would be a violation of the free press and other things.

Your view of a dictatorship seems to be some Orwellian parody with absolute power concentrated in the hands of a ruthless dictator. Of course you can have influence in a dictatorship. Even dictators need to ensure that a substantial part of the population backs it to prevent its power base from crumbling. Dictators will try and listen to complaints about policy (while often crushing public opposition, but even then they may concede to some of their demands to co-opt this sentiment).


Now you talk about assassinating of leftist leader, i dont remember any leftist leaders being assassinated here and we have capitalism.
- the culture industry: Do you even culture?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWSqs4zuVOk
- homogenising the voting system: i dont know what this means
- monopolising the news media: have you ever tried to google for alternative news agencies?
- work practices: Work practices can be improved if you put collective pressure on the capitalist class.
- tear gas thrown into demonstrations: Here it is used to restore bourgeoisie order but it doesnt compare to for example dictator Hussein, throwing mustard gas, sarin, tabun, VX, and hydrogen cyanide to kill Kurdish people

Dictatorship of capitalism is just something that has been invented to try to justify that the dictatorship of the proletariate should be more acceptable, but people are not stupid enough to be fooled by this.

Ridiculous. Moreover, it conflates two different meanings of dictatorship. A revolutionary proletarian dictatorship is a temporary emergency structure (the archaic meaning of the word); a bourgeois dictatorship is a durable unelected (top-down) regime (today's meaning of the word) -- whereas you suggest as if Marxists want a durable unelected nominally proletarian top-down regime.

All liberal-democracies have structures intended to maintain the rule of the minority, surrounding property rights. Moreover, policy is designed to advance the interests of capital, not because it has power in and of itself, but because ignoring the needs and wants of capital results in economic stagnation or collapse. So the interests of the minority, the personification of capital -- the capitalist class -- is prioritised. Economic decision-making is concentrated in the hands of the minority that owns and/or controls capital, and public policy is skewed toward satisfying its needs and wants. As such, we live in a dictatorship of capital.

Of course, this dictatorship of capital is quantitatively different in its repressive functions, and therefore you don't generally see it use sarin gas to exterminate ethnic minorities, but it's a dictatorship nonetheless.

[exeexe]

Workers will start seizing private property and police, army, and paramilitary with come to crush the revolution.
This is unrealistic and devoid of any revolutionary understanding. Why do you think police have the power to go in and force private property on factories?
Because right now a large part of the people are supporting it. But in a revolutionary situation when the workers are united at the common goal of expelling the capitalist class who would then support the police doing their thing, or even who would support that there even should be a police?
Yeah you forget police does not magically get money out of the thin air. When all the curtains have been removed it is clear the police get their wages from the workers. When the workers control the factories they also control the police. Its a fact.

Your view of a dictatorship seems to be some Orwellian parody with absolute power concentrated in the hands of a ruthless dictatorFirst when you call it an orwelian parody it just shows you dont take a dictatorship serious.
Well its not that a person should be a ruthless dictator but that a party should take the role of a ruthless dictator. The idea of a vanguard party dictatorship. And if the dictatorship are forced to listen to people, then you might aswell cancel the vanguard and take an anarchistic approach...

[exeexe]

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/dictatorship-vs-democracy.html

Democracy is defined as a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Such a government is formed through elections in which the adult citizens of a county cast vote to elect their representatives. Thus, in a way, the government is ruled by the citizens of the country.

Dictatorship is a form of government in which a single individual or a group of individuals hold power and take all the decisions pertaining to running the country. There is complete centralization of power, with the dictator deciding what is expected of all the citizens of the country. Thus, in this form of government, people have no say in how the country will function or how they will lead their lives.

So basically if you want a dictatorship you are a fascist? I would urge you to not call it a dictatorship of the proletariat if that is not what you want.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Well its not that a person should be a ruthless dictator but that a party should take the role of a ruthless dictator. The idea of a vanguard party dictatorship. And if the dictatorship are forced to listen to people, then you might aswell cancel the vanguard and take an anarchistic approach...

Why should a party (or any revolutionary group, even if it doesn't call itself a party) establish a dictatorship? The point is the dictatorship of the proletariat. You try to usurp the power of the working class (organised through the workers' councils) and you are by definition a counter-revolutionary.

[RedMaterialist]

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/dictatorship-vs-democracy.html


So basically if you want a dictatorship you are a fascist? I would urge you to not call it a dictatorship of the proletariat if that is not what you want.

A fascist dictatorship is one which is concerned with murdering as many international socialists and communists as possible with the intention of destroying any possibility of socialism. Fascism in its modern sense arose as a reaction against the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1917.

A fascist is, essentially, an anti-communist. Some Vietnam veterans are still proud to call themselves commie killers.

The dictatorship of the capitalists is well hidden under the camouflage of parliamentary democracy. Only occasionally is the brutality exposed as with Hitler, Pinochet, etc.

The dictatorship of the proletariat will be a dictatorship of the vast majority of the people. You might call it a dictatorship of the 99% which intends to eliminate the 1% as a class of parasites.

[exeexe]

and you are by definition a counter-revolutionary.
Well this just proves that you are not worthy of a discussion. You only wants to blame blame and blame.

[exeexe]

The dictatorship of the capitalists is well hidden under the camouflage of parliamentary democracy. Only occasionally is the brutality exposed as with Hitler, Pinochet, etc.

Well i could accept this explanation if it wasnt for that, prior to these dictators coming into power, they had to go through a revolution or a coup de tat.


The dictatorship of the proletariat will be a dictatorship of the vast majority of the people. You might call it a dictatorship of the 99% which intends to eliminate the 1% as a class of parasites.
And you are so afraid of these 1% of the people that you do not dare to expel them and give them that kind of freedom they want themselves. The freedom to be exploited. Cowards! These 1% of the people have never lifted a brick in their life. They cant fight, they cant run, and yet when it comes down to it you are all so scared of them.

A fascist dictatorship is one which is concerned with murdering as many international socialists and communists as possible with the intention of destroying any possibility of socialism. Fascism in its modern sense arose as a reaction against the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1917.

A fascist is, essentially, an anti-communist. Some Vietnam veterans are still proud to call themselves commie killers.
Yes i agree to that definition of facism. I guess i was just carried away by the moment. Nevertheless what did Stalin say? He said since we are organised as a dictatorship of the proletariat i can take absolute power as a representative of the proletariat. And since he had people supporting this view he could do it.
So, really, one shouldnt use the word dictatorship since it has another more evil meaning and this meaning is much more widespread in the population.

[Five Year Plan]

Why should a party (or any revolutionary group, even if it doesn't call itself a party) establish a dictatorship? The point is the dictatorship of the proletariat. You try to usurp the power of the working class (organised through the workers' councils) and you are by definition a counter-revolutionary.

What about cases where a majority of the population organizes itself into a formalized political institution to protect the revolution from reactionary workers and other counter-revolutionary elements? Rather than a "usurpation of power of the class," the party in this case actually represents the protection of the working class's power.

There's also the scenario of a party governing in the dictatorship because it enjoys the support of the majority of the working class.

The fetishisation of hierarchy and non-hierarchy implicit in the dichotomy you set up between party power and working class power seems to be highly problematic.

[RedMaterialist]

Well i could accept this explanation if it wasnt for that, prior to these dictators coming into power, they had to go through a revolution.

Those two specifically came to power through counter-revolutions. Hitler took power from the Social-Democrats and murdered as many communists as he could; and Pinochet and the U.S. murdered Allende.



And you are so afraid of these 1% of the people that you do not dare to expel them and give them that kind of freedom they want themselves. Cowards! These 1% of the people have never lifted a brick in their life. They cant fight, they cant run, and yet when it comes down to it you are all so scared of them.

Nobody is afraid of the 1%. It's the army and the police of the 1% that will be doing the fighting.

[exeexe]

Those two specifically came to power through counter-revolutions. Hitler took power from the Social-Democrats and murdered as many communists as he could; and Pinochet and the U.S. murdered Allende.

Yes


Nobody is afraid of the 1%. It's the army and the police of the 1% that will be doing the fighting.
And this army, because the police probably wont exist anymore, will it be stronger or weaker because some skinny or fat dislocated pale parasites are added to their arsenal?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The raw fighting power of the bourgeoisie isn't much of a concern, its the raw fighting power they could aquire with their assets and influence that are the issue.

[Blake's Baby]

Those two specifically came to power through counter-revolutions. Hitler took power from the Social-Democrats and murdered as many communists as he could...

Read a history book. Hitler was given the Chancellorship by President Hindenburg after an election.

[exeexe]

Read a history book. Hitler was given the Chancellorship by President Hindenburg after an election.
He had to throw the communist party out to get full power. What does your history book say about this?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The communist party and the worker movement in general was already in retreat by the time Hitler took power, the social democrats and the communists themselves has done his work for him.

[RedMaterialist]

Read a history book. Hitler was given the Chancellorship by President Hindenburg after an election.

Oh...all that business about the Reichstag fire and the Enabling Act was just a misunderstanding between politicians?

[RedMaterialist]

And this army, because the police probably wont exist anymore, will it be stronger or weaker because some skinny or fat dislocated pale parasites are added to their arsenal?

You think the army and police are just going to disappear? You seem to believe that one day the ruling capitalist class will throw up their hands and resign. That's the worst kind of anarchist idealism. It only leads to the mass slaughter of socialists.

[exeexe]

You think the army and police are just going to disappear? You seem to believe that one day the ruling capitalist class will throw up their hands and resign. That's the worst kind of anarchist idealism. It only leads to the mass slaughter of socialists.
Ok let me give an example to what i mean. Lets say Denmark expels all the danish capitalists to Norway and the police in Denmark doesnt get any pay. So half a month later going through their food stock the police gives up and wants to get a job or something. So now the police force doesn't exist anymore.
But then Norway, as imperialistic as they are, because Norway is very imperialistic by per Marxist definition :rolleyes:, invades Denmark. Who would be in this invasion? The Norwegian military but not the Norwegian police. Because the role of the police is to control people domestically, so they stay in Norway. So the only conflicting force left is the military.

[Blake's Baby]

Oh...all that business about the Reichstag fire and the Enabling Act was just a misunderstanding between politicians?

The Reichstag fire was set by a Dutch Council Communist. What's your point?

[Halert]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship the same way current society is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. If the proletariat wants to transform society toward socialism, they need the power to do that and the Dotp is the vehicle for that. I understand that the word dictatorship causes some issues but i think most people here can support the notion of "all power to the proletariat".

[Creative Destruction]

The Reichstag fire was set by a Dutch Council Communist. What's your point?

But that's really an aside, as well. Your original contention is correct. Hitler was given the Chancellorship, through some back-room deals with the Catholics, and he used that position to consolidate his power by pretty much forcing the Enabling Act through.

[RedMaterialist]

The Reichstag fire was set by a Dutch Council Communist. What's your point?

who apparently confessed after being tortured.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Ok let me give an example to what i mean. Lets say Denmark expels all the danish capitalists to Norway and the police in Denmark doesnt get any pay. So half a month later going through their food stock the police gives up and wants to get a job or something. So now the police force doesn't exist anymore.
But then Norway, as imperialistic as they are, because Norway is very imperialistic by per Marxist definition :rolleyes:, invades Denmark. Who would be in this invasion? The Norwegian military but not the Norwegian police. Because the role of the police is to control people domestically, so they stay in Norway. So the only conflicting force left is the military.

In reality the way your situation would likely play out would be that the now unemployed police force in Denmark would be hired by the capitalists you just expelled to Norway to act as a guerilla army to restore them to power in Denmark. This is kind of a ridiculous thought experiment to begin with but your assumption that a capitalist's influence or assets cannot cross borders doesn't make any sense.

[RedMaterialist]

But that's really an aside, as well. Your original contention is correct. Hitler was given the Chancellorship, through some back-room deals with the Catholics, and he used that position to consolidate his power by pretty much forcing the Enabling Act through.

Hitler was named chancellor by Hindenberg, however that did not give him complete control of parliament. It was only after the fire and the Enabling Act that he was able to arrest and expel the communists and social-democrats from parliament, thus giving himself complete power. Whether the Reichstag fire was a black flag operation or was set by someone who claimed to be a communist, is, at this date, probably irrelevant.

In the context of this thread the point is that Hitler used armed force to overthrow a democratically elected government (of which he was part.) He then replaced the "left" socialists and communists with a fascist National Socialist dictatorship, with the approval of the German industrialist class (also with the approval of the American capitalists, including Henry Ford.)

The dictatorship of the proletariat will do the same thing except it will represent the vast majority of the working class. It will be a dictatorship of the majority. And, as Engels said, the transition to full socialism will be peaceful if the capitalist class has any sense.

[RedMaterialist]

Ok let me give an example to what i mean. Lets say Denmark expels all the danish capitalists to Norway and the police in Denmark doesnt get any pay. So half a month later going through their food stock the police gives up and wants to get a job or something. So now the police force doesn't exist anymore.
But then Norway, as imperialistic as they are, because Norway is very imperialistic by per Marxist definition :rolleyes:, invades Denmark. Who would be in this invasion? The Norwegian military but not the Norwegian police. Because the role of the police is to control people domestically, so they stay in Norway. So the only conflicting force left is the military.

The invading force won't just be from Norway. As in the Soviet Union from 1917-1922 the invading force will be a coalition of western capitalist countries.

Besides, you don't have to dream up an imaginary invasion of Denmark. Venezuela is, right now, ripe for an invasion from the U.S. All it would take is some kind of "Reichstag" fire in a US bank in Caracas, with scenes of bank employees being burned to death.

[Blake's Baby]

who apparently confessed after being tortured.

So? Are you saying he didn't do it, because he didn't confess straight away? Or did they torture him straight away not giving him time to confess not under torture? Or are you insinuating that no-one who confesses under torture has done the thing that they confess to? I don't get your point.

[exeexe]

In reality the way your situation would likely play out would be that the now unemployed police force in Denmark would be hired by the capitalists you just expelled to Norway to act as a guerilla army to restore them to power in Denmark. This is kind of a ridiculous thought experiment to begin with but your assumption that a capitalist's influence or assets cannot cross borders doesn't make any sense.
And from where would these capitalist get their money and why are they capitalist after they have been expelled? Also who said anything about the police force being unemployed?

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Am I the only one around here who actually went back on what he said and thought that the DotP was worth keeping based on what Karl Marx said in his "Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy"? I've had this viewpoint before and very few people seem to come up with it, they just rehash the same Marxist position over and over again.

[Blake's Baby]

Never read it I'm afraid. I'll put it on the list.

[Red Star Rising]

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" simply refers to the workers owning the means of production and seizing control of the state to oppress bourgeois society in order to achieve the social conditions necessary for Communism. Marx was alive in a time when the bourgeoisie wielded pretty much total political power (in many ways they still do). Marx viewed this as a dictatorship of sorts and envisioned it being reversed via revolution which put in place a system in which the people would organise their own affairs and central administration and control would not be in the hands of a wealthy elite. I do think that Socialists ought to come up with a different term to avoid the negative connotations. "Self-Liberation" of the Proletariat or something.

[RedMaterialist]

So? Are you saying he didn't do it, because he didn't confess straight away? Or did they torture him straight away not giving him time to confess not under torture? Or are you insinuating that no-one who confesses under torture has done the thing that they confess to? I don't get your point.

very tortured post

[Blake's Baby]

What does the fact that he confessed under torture have to do with anything?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

And from where would these capitalist get their money and why are they capitalist after they have been expelled? Also who said anything about the police force being unemployed?

Not all capitalists keep their entire estate in one particular country, think of all the people who have bank accounts in Switzerland, Cayman Islands, etc. Taking everything they own in one particular country doesn't mean they've been totally expropriated. The police force is instantly unemployed if there has indeed really been a revolution, and that particular pool of people is particularly dangerous in a counter-revolutionary sense.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What does the fact that he confessed under torture have to do with anything?

Confessions given under torture are generally seen as legally suspect to say the least. People will agree to anything under torture.

[Blake's Baby]

Is that meant to imply that he didn't do it, because he was tortured?

His comrades in the Netherlands thought he'd done it. I think generally, Left Comms think he did it (we might be expected to know, he was one of ours).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No it means that confessions made as a result of torture are legally suspect for reasons that should be common sense. If that confession and a general belief on the part of the public is all the proof available, well thats not very convincing is it? I'm surprised this has merited more than a single post to be honest.