long-term proletarian dictatorship as a meritocratic social contract

[consuming negativity]

We have seen historically that changes in the mode of production are not always accompanied by violence, nor are they absolute or indistinguishable from country to country. There are many European countries which still have vestiges of their monarchies, and the landed aristocracy in some capitalist countries have continued to be assimilated into the capitalist class. I am therefore working from the assumptions that proletarian dictatorship can accompany either a complete or partial removal of the bourgeois and surviving aristocratic and slave-owning classes, depending on the circumstances surrounding each individual country and administrative region.

What if, then, we were to look at the characteristics of a country wherein the previous owner classes were subsumed into the working class as class hegemons? It would be impossible for the society to be stateless unless all of the lower classes were also to become part of the proletariat, but this is not the process that characterizes changes in the mode of production in a society.

---

If we are to look at the structure of a society in which things are administered but people are not govern, it could only immediately be a society in which a class of working persons are able to legislate the law - hence the term proletarian dictatorship. But we can't assume that a destruction of inheritance and abolition of hierarchy to be in the interest of a proletarian class which has the underclasses still beneath it. Therefore, the proletarian dictatorship will still be a state in some if not all cases. It will be characterized by bureaucracy so as to be as fair and equal as possible in line with current morals in the working/petit bourgeoisie classes, which are steadily merging together into one single working class.

Because the government in question will be run by a largely conservative working class, it will retain hierarchy and will function strictly through meritocracy. Working more hours or working more dangerous jobs will come with incentives for doing so, and people with large houses will be able to continually own them and have a higher standard of living based on a continuation of all property not related to production. This will leave people against the bureaucratic government "out in the cold", and eventually, the tables will flip. Those who had ancestors who worked the hardest will inherit easier jobs, and will give themselves more and more pay for less and less work through the bureaucratic organ. The ruling bureaucratic class will actually function similarly to the USSR under Stalin - party members will have it better than everybody else in every way, and will continue to give themselves ever-increasing benefits. Because of pervading morals, this system will not collapse back into capitalism like the USSR did, but rather, it will just do the same thing capitalism did - it will become more and more exploitative, and the ruling classes will be increasingly concentrated and separated from the rest of the population.

---

Just because there are states, however, that doesn't mean that they look anything like the countries we have today. No, instead, they will more or less be corporate conglomerates, competing against each other to provide administrative services to people all over the world, as more and more people are subsumed back into the working hierarchy. This process will bring more and more territory under the umbrellas of a handful of giant all-production-owning bureaucratic corporatocracies, similar to those in 1984, but not quite as blatantly, cartoonishly evil. It would be a libertarian's wet dream; several global corporations pretending to compete with each other for a virtually-enslaved consuming underclass. The development of these structures would continually grow through the same imperialist accumulation that we have seen with all other modes of production. Places in small near-anarchic situations would be forced to rely on the superstructures, which would allow them to incorporate the entire species through non-aggression/enforcement of a philosophy of negative rights much like libertarianism.

Over time, continuing technological process by the intelligent and scientific upper class will make the class system irrelevant, thereby destroying classes altogether as all production has become completely automated. There would be no more reason for any ruling class to subjugate another class, as they wouldn't be needed for production and there is always a threat of rebellion that would be unnecessary. Eventually, humanity itself will become unnecessary, and we will transmit our biological profiles into the electronic computing system which can allow our organic electronic species to continually gather the supplies needed to sustain itself. Other species, who have also become electronic, will fight over resources on a cosmic scale, until all of the programming has merged and the entire systems of the universe have merged into a universal collective electronic intelligence comprised of the history of all life.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you proposing (perhaps not in a normative but descriptive sense) an alternative to the 'traditional' concept of a revolutionary transformation?

I think your concept of revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is incorrect, and therefore your premise is, and therefore the conclusions of your premise.


"We have seen historically that changes in the mode of production are not always accompanied by violence". Then you go on to give an example of something different: residual aristocratic elements, such as constitutional monarchies, which are part of the superstructure, not mode of production; and landed aristocracy, which function today as capitalist land-owners. I suppose the latter is an example of a gradual, non-violent change. But then, you follow up by saying "I am therefore working from the assumptions that proletarian dictatorship can accompany either a complete or partial removal of the bourgeois and surviving aristocratic and slave-owning classes," I don't see the connection. And of course, a proletarian dictatorship will remove in their entirety such class elements.

"But we can't assume that a destruction of inheritance and abolition of hierarchy to be in the interest of a proletarian class which has the underclasses still beneath it." Why not and which 'underclass'?

"Therefore, the proletarian dictatorship will still be a state in some if not all cases." It will be in all cases.

"It will be characterized by bureaucracy so as to be as fair and equal as possible in line with current morals in the working/petit bourgeoisie classes, which are steadily merging together into one single working class."

Where does the petty bourgeoisie come from? There is no merging into a single working class, there is the self-abolition of the working class.

"Because the government in question will be run by a largely conservative working class"

Conservative in what sense? Residual bourgeois consciousness?

"it will retain hierarchy"

I don't see the connection per se.

"Working more hours or working more dangerous jobs will come with incentives for doing so, and people with large houses will be able to continually own them and have a higher standard of living based on a continuation of all property not related to production."

Only moderately.

"This will leave people against the bureaucratic government "out in the cold""

People against bureaucratic government?

"Those who had ancestors"

Ancestors? How long do you envision the DOTP to last?

"who worked the hardest will inherit easier jobs"

how?

"and will give themselves more and more pay for less and less work through the bureaucratic organ"

where in this scenario did the workers' government lose its democratic organs and were replaced by unaccountable bureaucracy? Why did this happen?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

We have seen historically that changes in the mode of production are not always accompanied by violence, nor are they absolute or indistinguishable from country to country. There are many European countries which still have vestiges of their monarchies, and the landed aristocracy in some capitalist countries have continued to be assimilated into the capitalist class. I am therefore working from the assumptions that proletarian dictatorship can accompany either a complete or partial removal of the bourgeois and surviving aristocratic and slave-owning classes, depending on the circumstances surrounding each individual country and administrative region.

So, can you give an actual example of a change in the mode production that was not accompanied by violence? The monarchy is not incompatible with bourgeois power - the governments of the United Kingdom, Sweden etc. obviously act as "executive committees of the bourgeoisie" even if they let some idiot wear a metal hat and smile to foreign heads of state.

The holdovers from the previous modes of production - slavery, semi-feudal landownership etc. - occur on the periphery of global capitalism and, far from being incompatible with capitalism, are necessary to enable the super-exploitation that drives imperialism.

Of course, imperialism itself did not come to the regions of belated capitalist development peacefully.


What if, then, we were to look at the characteristics of a country wherein the previous owner classes were subsumed into the working class as class hegemons?

(1) What does "class hegemons mean"?

(2) How did the former bourgeoisie become "class hegemons"?


It would be impossible for the society to be stateless unless all of the lower classes were also to become part of the proletariat, but this is not the process that characterizes changes in the mode of production in a society.

It would be impossible for society to be stateless (not "the society" meaning "the society in question", as statelessness is impossible in one region) if classes, including the proletariat, still exist.


If we are to look at the structure of a society in which things are administered but people are not govern, it could only immediately be a society in which a class of working persons are able to legislate the law - hence the term proletarian dictatorship.

The proletarian dictatorship is a state, and as any state, it does govern people. In communism, there is no state, and no government over persons. But neither is there a proletariat, or any "class of working persons".


But we can't assume that a destruction of inheritance and abolition of hierarchy to be in the interest of a proletarian class which has the underclasses still beneath it.

(1) What is an "underclass"?

(2) Why would the abolition of inheritance not be in the interest of the proletariat, when inheritance is a mechanism of capitalist society? As for "hierarchy", talking about "the abolition of hierarchy" as if the Congress of Soviets of the Socialist Republic of Mountainous Montana is going to meet one day and table a motion to abolish hierarchy is ridiculous. Hierarchy will be abolished as the need for coercive measures fades.


Therefore, the proletarian dictatorship will still be a state in some if not all cases.

It will be a state in all cases, albeit a state that is tasked with safeguarding the process that will destroy it, because that is literally what the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" means.


It will be characterized by bureaucracy so as to be as fair and equal as possible in line with current morals in the working/petit bourgeoisie classes, which are steadily merging together into one single working class.

"Fairness and equality" are bourgeois ideological notions, the proletarian dictatorship will be naked class power of the proletariat. And the petite bourgeoisie is not "merging with the proletariat", it is disappearing as capitalism slowly grinds the small businessman down.


Because the government in question will be run by a largely conservative working class, it will retain hierarchy and will function strictly through meritocracy.

And here is the chief problem, the assumption that the current working class is somehow particularly conservative, and the even more dubious assumption that a conservative working class could overthrow capitalism.


Working more hours or working more dangerous jobs will come with incentives for doing so, and people with large houses will be able to continually own them and have a higher standard of living based on a continuation of all property not related to production. This will leave people against the bureaucratic government "out in the cold", and eventually, the tables will flip. Those who had ancestors who worked the hardest will inherit easier jobs, and will give themselves more and more pay for less and less work through the bureaucratic organ. The ruling bureaucratic class will actually function similarly to the USSR under Stalin - party members will have it better than everybody else in every way, and will continue to give themselves ever-increasing benefits. Because of pervading morals, this system will not collapse back into capitalism like the USSR did, but rather, it will just do the same thing capitalism did - it will become more and more exploitative, and the ruling classes will be increasingly concentrated and separated from the rest of the population.

---

Just because there are states, however, that doesn't mean that they look anything like the countries we have today. No, instead, they will more or less be corporate conglomerates, competing against each other to provide administrative services to people all over the world, as more and more people are subsumed back into the working hierarchy. This process will bring more and more territory under the umbrellas of a handful of giant all-production-owning bureaucratic corporatocracies, similar to those in 1984, but not quite as blatantly, cartoonishly evil. It would be a libertarian's wet dream; several global corporations pretending to compete with each other for a virtually-enslaved consuming underclass. The development of these structures would continually grow through the same imperialist accumulation that we have seen with all other modes of production. Places in small near-anarchic situations would be forced to rely on the superstructures, which would allow them to incorporate the entire species through non-aggression/enforcement of a philosophy of negative rights much like libertarianism.

Over time, continuing technological process by the intelligent and scientific upper class will make the class system irrelevant, thereby destroying classes altogether as all production has become completely automated. There would be no more reason for any ruling class to subjugate another class, as they wouldn't be needed for production and there is always a threat of rebellion that would be unnecessary. Eventually, humanity itself will become unnecessary, and we will transmit our biological profiles into the electronic computing system which can allow our organic electronic species to continually gather the supplies needed to sustain itself. Other species, who have also become electronic, will fight over resources on a cosmic scale, until all of the programming has merged and the entire systems of the universe have merged into a universal collective electronic intelligence comprised of the history of all life.

To be honest, this is the point where what was already speculation becomes science fiction.

[consuming negativity]

I broke up my argument into paragraphs and sections for a reason, and it was to keep each separate idea placed appropriately within the larger post as a whole. It is very annoying to have to address my posts line by line after they've been picked apart, and it causes me to have to repeat myself over and over because of minor things that you didn't understand or worded wrong because you took the line out of context. So, this is going to be really jumbled, but I think I addressed or made irrelevant most questions.

--

You both say how proletarian dictatorship is a state, but a state cannot exist unless there is a ruling/hegemonic class and a lower class, according to a Marxist definition of what a state is and how it functions. But you both then wonder what the "underclass" is, and then say there won't be any other classes under the dictatorship of the proletariat. If this was true, then the proletarian dictatorship could not be a state. Your position is not internally consistent. The incongruent position is resolved by recognizing that there is an underclass that exists within capitalist society that will still exist after the mode of production has shifted. If you're unsure of what I mean by "underclass", Google it. What matters for this discussion is that they exist and are below the rank of the working class in the current class hierarchy of the capitalist West. They are distinct from the working class and are separated by their relation to the means of production; Marx called them the lumpenproletariat.

--

I also said that modes of production are not clean cut replacements of one another, and that both revolutionary and democratic methods can help to change the current mode of production. While we are getting more conservative around the world, the overall historical trend has been towards a large, democratic, inclusive "welfare state", and I am assuming that this will continue and the public ownership of the means of production will eventually replace capitalism as the primary mode of production through revolutions and reforms across the capitalist world.

The base model given for transition from feudal to capitalist society is the French revolution, but things are much more complicated than that even in France. It wasn't just bam, revolution, Jacobins got destroyed, French Republic. No, there were Kings in France after that, and the change of power was over time. A combination of protests and other legal reforms and changes in government structure can also contribute, which is true in pretty much every case, but is dependent ultimately on the specific situation in each country. The UK, for example, never had its monarchs beheaded in some grand revolution, and in fact, the monarch is still the head of the church of England which is still state-owned.

Denmark and other countries also have monarchs alongside a capitalist elite, who they have adopted the characteristics of. Rather than destroying the old ruling class, the old ruling class became part of the new ruling class. It makes sense that this could also happen under proletarian dictatorship - it would have to happen. Sympathetic elements of the old ruling classes will be on our side and be subsumed into the proletariat under specific circumstances.

--

I think that in some areas, it is possible for anarchists to take over in the same way they did during the Russian revolution. I'm talking about variations in the global political system. These will of course still be proletarian revolutions, but it would be a situation of anarchy afterwards. My prediction is that just like with Russia, the pockets of anarchism will coalesce either through force or gradual change until they are also part of the proletarian state dictatorship system. This trend will sort of resemble how the collapse of the Roman slave state left behind a "Holy Roman Empire" that consisted of hundreds and hundreds of localized governments which eventually became centralized under the governments we see in Europe today.

--

So, after establishing...

1. That proletarian dictatorship will have multiple classes, of which the proletarian is the ruling.
2. That proletarian dictatorship will not necessarily come about only through revolution, or at any one time, but gradually, globally, through reforms and revolution.
3. That proletarian dictatorship will also take different forms and cause a decentralization of power that will be reversed over time.
4. That the dictating proletarian class will include elements of the old ruling classes which have been subsumed, because reforms will also bring about proletarian dictatorship in some areas.

I can therefore conclude that proletarian dictatorship is not the final mode of production, because...

1. The working and middle classes are being combined into one class.
2. The service economy is helping this.
3. It is in the interests of those who work to be able to hand down and inherit things. Many working class people own things like cars, homes, boats, and other things, but these possessions are not the means of production. People will want to pass those down and it will be in their interest to do so. People want their kids to have things. This is just obvious as it has been a primary motivating factor for people since there have been - reproduction is the purpose of evolution.

....and that it will be a society with a state that has the following properties...

1. It is bureaucratic and meant to administer goods. (see: "the administration of things")
2. There are many specialized jobs.
3. There are multiple classes, of which the ruling class will be the proletariat.

Because of those qualities.

The post is basically showing how the "first" and "second" "stages of communism" are actually two separate modes of production. One is characterized by proletarian dictatorship, and the other is post-proletarian and characterized by the dictatorship of all people. Which, like all changes in the mode of production, have been made possible by technological improvement.

There's just too much nitpicking at each thing for the sake of it, but I think I wrote enough there to where I answered most of the questions. It's just too hard to concentrate when people reply like that. But I think I re-said everything less jumbled enough to be readable.

[Lowtech]

What does the OP mean by "accompanied by"? Communistic production is incompatible with capitalism. If the capitalism where in very small pockets. Too small to substantially interfere with the larger global production, its possible that it can physically exist concurrently but in no way systemically compatible. Also the concept of a stateless society is easily confused with an ungoverned one.

[The Modern Prometheus]

How can you have a Proletariat dictatorship if there are Petite and haute bourgeois as part of the dictatorship? That's abit of a contradiction right there in and of itself. The whole point of a Proletariat dictatorship is to replace the existing bourgeois dictatorship which is what we have now with a dictatorship for the Proletarians. This would entail putting political power and the means of production under the control of the workers and I doubt Capitalists would become Socialists overnight just because we welcome them with open arms so i really can't see them giving up their control on political power via the state quite that easily.