Dictatorship/Democracy

[TOMANTOR666]

The issue that has been confusing me for a while is the best way to run a socialist country that intends to reach communism. For example in a socialist state could you still have an elected government or would it have to be a dictatorship? Plus could someone explain if the USSR was a dictatorship as well :)

[tuwix]

Let's clear some things. There is no such thing as socialist country. According to Marx, the revolution must reach whole world to start to talk about socialism.

Besides the word 'socialism' has its origin in Latin word 'societas' which means society and it means that socialism is a political system where whole society which means people rule. And this imply very clearly that there is no room for any dictatorship beside dictatorship of proletariat which is IMHO direct democracy in present technical conditions.

[John Nada]

In Marxist lingo dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean "ruled by a single dictator". Dictatorship of the Proletariat means the workers(proletariat) collectively rule the state until communism is achieved, which is stateless. What we have now is a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, or the rich people run the government. Lenin called democracies like the US "democracy for the rich". The Dictatorship of the Proletariat would be "democracy for the workers" ie nearly everyone else. So long as there's different classes, there is a state to control one class for the ruling class.

As for "socialist countries", socialism is generally synonymous with communism. Sometimes it's used to describe the lower phase of communism or countries working towards it. This is a big source of controversy over how close any of those countries really were to socialism. Generally they became authoritarian because of wars and underdevelopment. In the future I'd hope it'd be more democratic, otherwise it wouldn't be socialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

The question needs to be posed differently, as elected government, or in other words, the political dispossession of the laboring population is a hallmark of the existing democracy as well. In other words, the crucial difference is between the political relations and appropriate structures to the transition to communism (delegation, direct participation on behalf of the majority of laborers*, historically the workers' territorial councils form) and the existing political relations rooted in and functional for the continued exploitation of the working class (representation and liberal democracy, the parliamentary/administrative/military state apparatus).

EDIT: * Just to clarify on possible confusions arising from this formulation, I don't advocate the idea of restricting either a) voting rights (for particular proposed measures during the revolutionary transformation) or b) participation to people who work since that would necessarily disenfranchise people who can't (the elderly, the disabled). On a related note, I don't think that work or previous function in social production (even that of an ex-capitalist) should act as basis for disallowing particular people from participating in the process; on the other hand, what is most definitely to be repressed is bourgeois counter-revolution (e.g. a) political proposals which halt and reverse the revolutionary transformation and b) organized counter-revolutionary propaganda, sabotage, and armed activity).

[Tim Cornelis]

We do not have a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels certainly never spoke of this, and for good reason.

(unfinished text) One myth related to the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat that is commonly advanced by various Marxists is that Marx and Engels considered all states to be in effect dictatorships of one class over another. In this way these Marxists defend the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat as being neither more nor less oppressive than liberal democracy, which supposedly is nothing more than a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or capital. This argument is made in light of the moral dilemma where democracy and dictatorship stand at opposing ends, and democracy being commonly regarded as morally superior to dictatorship. Thus, by representing 'liberal democracy' as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or capital the moral playing field is levelled. By making this argument these Marxists are projecting the current definition and meaning of the word dictatorship on the concept of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. While they correctly note that the function of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to repress the bourgeois insurrection against the revolutionary working class, they, in a sense of reverse engineering, reason that since the task of the bourgeois state is oppressing the working class, it therefore constitutes a dictatorship in the same sense. This is an incorrect reasoning and has no basis in Marx's or Engels' writings on social revolution. When they speak of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat they are referring to the Roman Law concept of dictator.

In Roman Law there were a number of types of 'officials', magistrates, whose respective authorities (potestas) was unlimited within their functions, with only a handful of options to halt their conduct.1 Among the various types of officials, three were the highest, the consul, the dictator, and praetor, whose authority was not limited to their function, their authority was absolute in other words.2 These three types of officials possessed, in addition to their potestas, a category of authority called 'imperium', which accorded to them the position of commander in chief.3 The dictator was an extraordinary magistrate (as opposed to ordinary magistrate), and, as stated, one with 'imperium'. The dictator was appointed by a consul. The consuls in the Roman Empire were the inheritors of the authority and powers of the king, and were elected magistrates who had imperium. Their power was only superseded by a dictator which they installed, as opposed to elected by popular assembly as the consuls were. The authority of the dictator to act was absolute and not restricted by certain rights and checks and balanced which the ordinary magistrates were subject to. The dictator, crucially, was installed in times of crisis and emergency.4 The primary function was the crushing of civil insurrection. The 'dictatorship', then, was a temporary measure where power was concentrated in the hands of an actor who sought to effectively end an insurrection that challenged the power of the state. It is for this reason that Marx referred to Louis-Eugène Cavaignac (1802-1857) as “the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the saber.”5 Cavaignac was accorded the temporary authority to crush the June Days Uprising in 1848 by French workers who rose up against the dismantling of a comparatively primitive welfare system of 'national workshops' which provided the unemployed with a modest means of generating some income. The crushing resulted in the deaths of thousands of workers to preserve the status quo for the bourgeoisie. Cavaignac abandoned his dictatorial powers and pursued presidency through election afterwards, which he lost to Louis Napoleon. To speak of a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie' or a 'dictatorship of capital', at least in the same sense as we speak of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', is therefore incorrect. Dictatorship, in the sense that Marx used it, is essentially synonymous with a government of a state of emergency, and the revolutionary dictatorship of the working class is therefore a revolutionary government of a state of emergency. The so-called 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie' or capital is intended to be durable, indefinite and permanent even, whereas the power of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is temporary by necessity. We are speaking of two separate and distinct categories of systems of government that should not be conflated. Either one of these terms has to be discarded. If it is to be the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which should, as we propose, be reserved for purely theoretical discussions and only minimally, to put Marx's use of the phrase in context, then we nominate 'revolutionary workers' republic' or 'workers' republic' as candidate for its replacement. Use of the word dictatorship, especially today, is unnecessarily confusing. It is nevertheless important to stress the temporary character of a workers' republic.

[Hatshepsut]

...political dispossession of the laboring population is a hallmark of the existing democracy as well.
You may need to ask the contributors above me for theoretical details. The USSR did not operate under a western-style of democracy. It did use the principle of representation, however. There were two parallel systems: the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and a legislative system of Soviets running up to the country's Supreme Soviet, which had two chambers. In practice, the Supreme Soviet usually ratified decisions first made by the Party, while providing representation for the nationalities and republics within the USSR.

The CPSU met periodically in a large Party Congress to elect members of the Party's Central Committee. The latter, in turn, chose the Politburo and the general secretary, who became the country's most powerful decisionmaker.

During most of the formative years and the war, Stalin ran the country. After his death, leadership assumed a more collective style.

Whatever faults attach to this system of governance—it wasn't noted for efficiency—the USSR was not run for profit as many pro-western governments seem to be. The general secretary enjoyed privileges not accorded to ordinary citizens, but was no millionaire. Mikhail Gorbachev's late 1980s salary as general secretary was about 1500 roubles monthly, or less than US$30000 a year (David Remnick in Los Angeles Times, Feb. 1, 1989). This was the country's highest salary and about 7 times that of an average worker.

The USSR made a genuine attempt to live according to its ideals. The sharp class distinctions seen in western countries between management and labor were largely absent. Living standards were low because of low productivity and intense military competition with the West and, to some degree, China. Yet they were level and not so low as in the poor countries of Africa and Asia. The USSR had no unemployment problems, and relatively little street crime or homelessness. The USSR extended basic education and health care to all citizens by constitutional guarantee.

Living standards in the USA are generally high only because the USA is fantastically wealthy overall. Income distribution is very lopsided, with the highest executive salaries, in private firms rather than government, not 7, but more like 700 times that of average workers in those firms. If the capitalist economy in the USA ever stalls in a serious way, social friction will likely endanger its stability. This almost happened during the Great Depression of the 1930s when unemployment reached 25%. The social service system in the USA is limited mostly to the elderly, so that unemployment for young workers can bring real risks of dire poverty or homelessness. Access to full health care also depends on the employer, so that it is lost along with the job.

It's asinine to think the ballot box grants oversight of policy. In elections, choice is between two viable candidates vetted by their parties, with many races effectively uncontested. Political influence in the USA follows the money.

Oddly, one can say that Russia has gone downhill politically since abandoning Communism. Its population and life expectancy have shrunk, wealth accumulates toward cronies near the top of its state capitalist hierarchy, and security problems the new Russia poses to the West arguably exceed those of the later phases of the USSR.

[bropasaran]

Let's clear some things. There is no such thing as socialist country. According to Marx, the revolution must reach whole world to start to talk about socialism.
He still advocated electioneering (saying that the ballot box will be the instrument of the emancipation of the proletariat) and expropriation of the capitalists by gradual nationalization.


Besides the word 'socialism' has its origin in Latin word 'societas' which means society and it means that socialism is a political system where whole society which means people rule.
Then if would be societalism or societarianism. The word socialism doesn't come from "societas", but from the word "socius", which means a collegue, an associate, a comrade, that's why socialists call(ed) themselves comrades.

Word "socialist" was invented as a name for a wing of the cooperative movement, which (based on the ideas first elucidated by Thomas Hodgskin) advocated establishment of a system where all firms would be workers' cooperatives (workers running the firms as collegues, comrades), and where renting stuff (including loaning money on interest) would be abolished.

[John Nada]

We do not have a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels certainly never spoke of this, and for good reason.[..]The so-called 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie' or capital is intended to be durable, indefinite and permanent even, whereas the power of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is temporary by necessity. We are speaking of two separate and distinct categories of systems of government that should not be conflated. Either one of these terms has to be discarded. If it is to be the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which should, as we propose, be reserved for purely theoretical discussions and only minimally, to put Marx's use of the phrase in context, then we nominate 'revolutionary workers' republic' or 'workers' republic' as candidate for its replacement. Use of the word dictatorship, especially today, is unnecessarily confusing. It is nevertheless important to stress the temporary character of a workers' republic.The author seems to unsatisfied with the word dictatorship in any context. Would hegemony be more accurate?

Also where did you copy and paste it from? It'd be nice to know the author's name and his/her citations.

[tuwix]

He still advocated electioneering (saying that the ballot box will be the instrument of the emancipation of the proletariat) and expropriation of the capitalists by gradual nationalization.


The principles of communism and the manifesto says about nationalization of transport. I think he would tolerate cooperatives but his love to state was his disadvantage.



Then if would be societalism or societarianism. The word socialism doesn't come from "societas", but from the word "socius", which means a collegue, an associate, a comrade, that's why socialists call(ed) themselves comrades.

Word "socialist" was invented as a name for a wing of the cooperative movement, which (based on the ideas first elucidated by Thomas Hodgskin) advocated establishment of a system where all firms would be workers' cooperatives (workers running the firms as collegues, comrades), and where renting stuff (including loaning money on interest) would be abolished.

I prefer my version of this words, although you're probably right socialism is rather from socialized form of production.

[Rugged Collectivist]

...

But how many people now still use the term "dictatorship" in the classical Roman sense though? If we're using the term "dictatorship" with it's modern connotations, then "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" makes perfect sense, as does "dictatorship of the proletariat".

[Brutus]

The principles of communism and the manifesto says about nationalization of transport. I think he would tolerate cooperatives but his love to state was his disadvantage.

The demands in the Manifesto were to "increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible", which would serve to develop capitalism further and so increase the size of the proletariat. Marx consistently strove for the emancipation of the proletariat, so why on earth would he tolerate cooperatives? Private property is private property, regardless of who owns it.

[Tim Cornelis]

The author seems to unsatisfied with the word dictatorship in any context. Would hegemony be more accurate?

Also where did you copy and paste it from? It'd be nice to know the author's name and his/her citations.

It's a draft essay-ish text by me. I'm still torn on whether to use dictatorship and for what (hence, why it's an unfinished draft thingy).

Sources: Roman Law: An Historical Introduction
The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850, Part II. From June 1848 to June 13, 1849


But how many people now still use the term "dictatorship" in the classical Roman sense though? If we're using the term "dictatorship" with it's modern connotations, then "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" makes perfect sense, as does "dictatorship of the proletariat".

The modern sense of the word dictatorship is that of an indefinite despotic government whose (absolute) authority is far broader than quelling a crisis or emergency. It doesn't make perfect sense to use 'revolutionary dictatorship' in this context at all. Dictatorship, as used by Marx, had a very specific meaning. This meaning is lost when you refer to bourgeois class rule as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[Blake's Baby]

Marx was also writing in a period when capitalism was still developing in a historic sense. It was still overcoming the remnants of feudalism, still expanding the market to new areas of the globe, still capable of granting meaningful and lasting political reforms that benefited the proletariat. In the mid-late 19th century, it still made sense to talk about the tasks of the proletariat being to finish the development of capitalism.

I'm not sure that's still the case. I'd rather argue that capitalism has finished its necessary development and what we have now is more like cancer, development that is profoundly unhealthy for humanity. The proletariat doesn't need to further develop capitalism and the power of the state, it needs to destroy them before capitalism destroys us all.

Of course, all that falls if one believes in the 'Invariant Programme of Marxism'.

[Rugged Collectivist]

The modern sense of the word dictatorship is that of an indefinite despotic government whose (absolute) authority is far broader than quelling a crisis or emergency. It doesn't make perfect sense to use 'revolutionary dictatorship' in this context at all. Dictatorship, as used by Marx, had a very specific meaning. This meaning is lost when you refer to bourgeois class rule as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

This assumes permanence is an essential quality of modern dictatorship. Dictatorship describes the means, not the end. The regimes we now associate with dictatorship, being bourgeois in nature, must be permanent, but only because they are bourgeois, not because they are dictatorships. A proletarian dictatorship has to be temporary since the end goal is the destruction of classes. If it persists too long it stops being proletarian in nature.

[Tim Cornelis]

This assumes permanence is an essential quality of modern dictatorship. Dictatorship describes the means, not the end. The regimes we now associate with dictatorship, being bourgeois in nature, must be permanent, but only because they are bourgeois, not because they are dictatorships. A proletarian dictatorship has to be temporary since the end goal is the destruction of classes. If it persists too long it stops being proletarian in nature.

It assumes that, in the modern sense, a dictatorship is not tied to the ending of a crisis, which is true. Indeed, the governance of 'bourgeois dictatorships', as in autocratic or despotic governments, is indefinite because of the bourgeois character. But that's my point. The indefinite character of bourgeois rule is incompatible with how Marx used dictatorship. So either one of these phrases has to be discarded. Either we use the modern meaning of the word and reserve the use of 'revolutionary dictatorship' only to put Marx' use of it in context, or we use revolutionary dictatorship but then we can't say dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Again, the reason Marx spoke of a revolutionary dictatorship and not just a revolutionary state or revolutionary government has a very specific reason: to stress the temporary character of this state form, that it will dissolve when the crisis, the reaction, is met. This specific meaning that is being conveyed is lost when you use dictatorship in the modern sense of the word.



Of course, all that falls if one believes in the 'Invariant Programme of Marxism'.

Not necessarily. The invariant programme of Marxism may be interpreted as aiding in the development of the objective conditions and prerequisites for the emancipation of the working class where such conditions are underdeveloped. It would then apply to 'semi-feudalism' but not developed capitalism.

[Hatshepsut]

When they [Marx and Engels] speak of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat they are referring to the Roman Law concept of dictator...

I'm just curious. Roman law isn't cited or taken up in either the Manifesto or The Class Struggles in France, that I can tell. The latter only mentions ancient Rome in its introduction, to mention that Christianity was at one time a revolutionary movement. So, do they connect the phrases "Roman law" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" somewhere else? I can't find any such connections, although have limited knowledge of Marx.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm just curious. Roman law isn't cited or taken up in either the Manifesto or The Class Struggles in France, that I can tell. The latter only mentions ancient Rome in its introduction, to mention that Christianity was at one time a revolutionary movement. So, do they connect the phrases "Roman law" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" somewhere else? I can't find any such connections, although have limited knowledge of Marx.

This can be inferred from how Marx used the word dictatorship to refer to Cavaignac and how his contemporaries used the world dictatorship similarly. In that time period the Roman Law concept was commonly used, and this was not something Marx reinvented.

https://libcom.org/library/dictatorship-proletariat-marx-engels-hal-draper

[Blake's Baby]

... The invariant programme of Marxism may be interpreted as aiding in the development of the objective conditions and prerequisites for the emancipation of the working class where such conditions are underdeveloped. It would then apply to 'semi-feudalism' but not developed capitalism.

The only people I know who refer to the 'Invariant Programme' are Bordigists. Are you claiming that any Bordigists hold what you're describing to be the case? Or just hypothesising? IN which case, are you hypothesising about Bordigists, or non-Bordigists?

[Tim Cornelis]

The only people I know who refer to the 'Invariant Programme' are Bordigists. Are you claiming that any Bordigists hold what you're describing to be the case? Or just hypothesising? IN which case, are you hypothesising about Bordigists, or non-Bordigists?

Hypothesising about what Bordigists may believe.

[Rugged Collectivist]

It assumes that, in the modern sense, a dictatorship is not tied to the ending of a crisis, which is true. Indeed, the governance of 'bourgeois dictatorships', as in autocratic or despotic governments, is indefinite because of the bourgeois character. But that's my point. The indefinite character of bourgeois rule is incompatible with how Marx used dictatorship. So either one of these phrases has to be discarded. Either we use the modern meaning of the word and reserve the use of 'revolutionary dictatorship' only to put Marx' use of it in context, or we use revolutionary dictatorship but then we can't say dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Again, the reason Marx spoke of a revolutionary dictatorship and not just a revolutionary state or revolutionary government has a very specific reason: to stress the temporary character of this state form, that it will dissolve when the crisis, the reaction, is met. This specific meaning that is being conveyed is lost when you use dictatorship in the modern sense of the word.

But dictatorships aren't permanent or temporary by definition. At least not in the modern sense. Bourgeois dictatorships are permanent because they have to be. In a sense, capitalism is constantly in crisis, being unable to resolve class conflict, so the existence of a bourgeois dictatorship can be seen as "temporary", in that it's a response to a crisis, but a crisis that can never end.

It is appropriate to refer to the DOTP as a dictatorship because it will be a dictatorship. It will possess many of the qualities we now associate with dictatorships. Whether or not it's temporary is inconsequential to this.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm sorry but you are ridiculously trying to stretch a definition to have force it to fit a category you want to fit in there.

When you speak of a DOTP you speak of something differently than when Marx spoke of a DOTP. You speak of repressive functions, Marx of a definite temporary government. This is unnecessary. Using two meanings and then using it interchangeably since you kinda see a different meaning to be appropriate as well is not scientifically sound. You superimpose your interpretation on it.

For instance, let's say we have a quote by Engels about socialism. What Engels means by socialism is freely associated producers, but he does not make that explicit in that particular quote. Then a Maoist quotes that part in support of the Maoist concept of socialism (where classes still exist). They are superimposing their definition of socialism on Engel's concept while they speak of two different things. You seem to be doing something similar, justifying it by saying "close enough".

[Thirsty Crow]

But dictatorships aren't permanent or temporary by definition. At least not in the modern sense. Bourgeois dictatorships are permanent because they have to be. In a sense, capitalism is constantly in crisis, being unable to resolve class conflict, so the existence of a bourgeois dictatorship can be seen as "temporary", in that it's a response to a crisis, but a crisis that can never end.

I don't think this "in a sense" actually represents the way capitalism functions; I simply think it is not true, in any possible sense, that capital is constantly in crisis. That would make a specific, well defined and worked out understanding of capitalist crisis superfluous since all there is is crisis. But that is not so as crises are periodical in capitalism and at one particular point in the accumulation cycle class conflict doesn't actually produce structural and large scale disturbance, and can easily be recuperated (and on the other hand, at such periods there is good opportunity for profitable expansion).

[Rugged Collectivist]

I'm sorry but you are ridiculously trying to stretch a definition to have force it to fit a category you want to fit in there.

When you speak of a DOTP you speak of something differently than when Marx spoke of a DOTP. You speak of repressive functions, Marx of a definite temporary government. This is unnecessary. Using two meanings and then using it interchangeably since you kinda see a different meaning to be appropriate as well is not scientifically sound. You superimpose your interpretation on it.

For instance, let's say we have a quote by Engels about socialism. What Engels means by socialism is freely associated producers, but he does not make that explicit in that particular quote. Then a Maoist quotes that part in support of the Maoist concept of socialism (where classes still exist). They are superimposing their definition of socialism on Engel's concept while they speak of two different things. You seem to be doing something similar, justifying it by saying "close enough".

You were the one quoting Marx. I never mentioned Marx. I simply argued that "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" were both acceptable terms that could be used together without confusion or conflict. It should be stressed, however, that the DOTP will be temporary.


I don't think this "in a sense" actually represents the way capitalism functions; I simply think it is not true, in any possible sense, that capital is constantly in crisis. That would make a specific, well defined and worked out understanding of capitalist crisis superfluous since all there is is crisis. But that is not so as crises are periodical in capitalism and at one particular point in the accumulation cycle class conflict doesn't actually produce structural and large scale disturbance, and can easily be recuperated (and on the other hand, at such periods there is good opportunity for profitable expansion).

Perhaps crisis isn't the ideal term, but class struggle is an inherent aspect of class society that capitalism cannot overcome. This is why the capitalist dictatorship is permanent, even if it assumes different forms.

[Tim Cornelis]

You were the one quoting Marx. I never mentioned Marx. I simply argued that "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" were both acceptable terms that could be used together without confusion or conflict. It should be stressed, however, that the DOTP will be temporary.

And I've explained why this is a flawed approach. You take a concept, strip it of its specific meaning, and superimpose your own interpretation on it.

[Rugged Collectivist]

And I've explained why this is a flawed approach. You take a concept, strip it of its specific meaning, and superimpose your own interpretation on it.

It's a concept with multiple meanings. If you ask a modern person to describe a dictatorship they aren't going to bring up an ancient Roman office. I would bet money on it.

That being said, even the Roman definition works if you interpret it loosely.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's a concept with multiple meanings. If you ask a modern person to describe a dictatorship they aren't going to bring up an ancient Roman office. I would bet money on it.

That being said, even the Roman definition works if you interpret it loosely.

The definition of dictatorship is not relevant, nor even Roman Law definition an sich. It's the meaning of the concept of the revolutionary dictatorship as used by the person who coined the term. The Roman Law reference is to underscore how Marx used the concept.

[John Nada]

Here's Marx's use of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie:
For a moment, the army and the peasant class had believed that, simultaneously with the military dictatorship, war abroad and gloire had been placed on the order of the day in France. But Cavaignac was not the dictatorship of the saber over bourgeois society; he was the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the saber. And of the soldier they now required only the gendarme. Under the stern features of antique-republican resignation Cavaignac concealed humdrum submission to the humiliating conditions of his bourgeois office. L’argent n’a pas de maître! Money has no master! He, as well as the Constituent Assembly in general, idealized this old election cry of the Third Estate by translating it into political speech: The bourgeoisie has no king; the true form of its rule is the republic. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch02.htm

And here's Lenin's:
The bourgeoisie are compelled to be hypocritical and to describe as "popular government", democracy in general, or pure democracy, the ( bourgeois ) democratic republic which is, in practice, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the exploiters over the working people. The Scheidemanns and Kautskys, the Austerlitzes and Renners (and now, to our regret, with the help of Friedrich Adler) fall in line with this falsehood and hypocrisy. But Marxists, Communists, expose this hypocrisy, and tell the workers and the working people in general this frank and straightforward truth: the democratic republic, the Constituent Assembly, general elections, etc., are, in practice, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and for the emancipation of labor from the yoke of capital there is no other way but to replace this dictatorship with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat alone can emancipate humanity from the oppression of capital, from the lies, falsehood and hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy — democracy for the rich — and establish democracy for the poor, that is, make the blessings of democracy really accessible to the workers and poor peasants, whereas now (even in the most democratic — bourgeois — republic) the blessings of democracy are, in fact, inaccessible to the vast majority of working people.http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/dec/23.htm It does seem that Marx meant dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as a temporary thing. Lenin seems to use it for any bourgeois government.

It might have to do with his theory of imperialism. I think Roman dictators were usually appointed during war. When Lenin wrote "'Democracy' and Dictatorship", WWI just ended. Lenin thought that capitalism had reached it's imperialist stage and conflicts were bound to arise because of it. He didn't think there could be lasting peace under capitalism, because war was needed to acquire and maintain colonies and neo-colonies.

Around the turn of the 19th century, there was many advances in science, such as chemistry, metallurgy, and industrial engineering, that lent itself to the development of various trust, cartels and monopolies. This was usually promoted by the government. Stuff like this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_National_Defense though the US was a little behind the rest of the world at the time. A large part of modern capitalist development is due to war efforts. So much so that some think the act of war itself will improve the economy! A name for it is military-industrial complex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex) . Look at all the US wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations) in the 20th and 21st century.

[Rugged Collectivist]

The definition of dictatorship is not relevant, nor even Roman Law definition an sich. It's the meaning of the concept of the revolutionary dictatorship as used by the person who coined the term. The Roman Law reference is to underscore how Marx used the concept.

I know damn well what Marx meant when he spoke of a "revolutionary dictatorship". What I said doesn't contradict his meaning. You're arguing that we shouldn't use the term "dictatorship" in regards to the bourgeois state and it's faux-democratic institutions because the DOTP is meant to be temporary. I explained why I don't think a distinction is necessary.

We're going in circles.

[GanzEgal]

The best way to run a socialist country that intends to reach communism. For example in a socialist state could you still have an elected government or would it have to be a dictatorship?
Majority rule vote, which is traditionally perceived as _the_ democracy that everyone should strive for, ensures that at least 51% of population are happy with the decision.

Representative democracy does not ensure even that much, because a politician elected by more than 51% of population can make a decision which less than 51% of population agrees with.

Unelected dictatorship ensures yet less than that, because politicians don't need to even promise that they will make decisions which more than 51% of people will like.

The optimal solution would be something else than any of these. To make maximally many citizens happy, we should calculate the votes and implement all the major solutions at the same time, instead of implementing only one most popular solution. This way it would be possible to make the political happiness of population closer to 100% than 50%, which majority rule democracy typically achieves, and seldom much more than that.