Economic participation in the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat

[RedWorker]

What will be the first policies directed towards increasing the working class' control over and participation in the economy once the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is achieved?

How will this participation take place?

[Hatshepsut]

Is there any way to know? There's no new revolutionary party or revolution; policy is situationally specific. The term, "participation in the economy," is theoretical in nature. Marx pointed out that money is not the same thing as capital. When money is circulating to buy commodities, it's not capital. It becomes capital when there is a middle player trading in two different commodities, or in one commodity at a markup.

Often, one of those two commodities happens to be proletarianized labor. Eliminating the commodity status of labor is a goal in Marxist economic policy, although I'm not clear how it is to be achieved, because it likely must be brought about by political acts of some kind, rather than simply in a context of the withering away of the state. I admit I don't know what those acts would be. Two partial steps must be limiting individual accumulation of money or assets to that which meets immediate needs, and abolishing the incorporation of assets as "legal persons."

There's a related thread, "Dictatorship vs. Democracy", on "Learning." :star2:

[Tim Cornelis]

What this suggests to me is that you think a revolutionary dictatorship will be established and then policies will be enacted to empower workers. Which kind of implies reforms from above.

Economic participation is not separate from the social transformation. Workers will begin by seizing means of production and form organs to administer them. This will be expanded until all economic conduct is under the association of producers.

[RedWorker]

Well, socialism cannot be designed from above nor established through law. But the working class will seize state power and make some changes in laws too. The question is, what are some of these which will deal with the increased control by workers in the economy? Or can no law interfere with that?

[Blake's Baby]

I think the control of the factories begins before the seizure of state power. Russia, really, is the best model we have here. Factory committees were formed during strikes, factories were occupied, workers councils (soviets) were formed, workers decided to transfer management of the factories to the committees and the distribution of goods to the soviets and hey presto the economy is in the hands of the working class.

[Hatshepsut]

What this suggests to me is that you think a revolutionary dictatorship will be established and then policies will be enacted to empower workers. Which kind of implies reforms from above.

Economic participation is not separate from the social transformation. Workers will begin by seizing means of production and form organs to administer them. This will be expanded until all economic conduct is under the association of producers.
I agree it's a tough problem. Once workers seize production plants and form organs, however, you've got politics. The word "organs" means someone or some group is in charge, to do the administration. These administrators or administrative groups will consist of members of the proletariat. That still doesn't eliminate politics. Whenever two people disagree about anything, you've got politics. I don't see why workers will suddenly start agreeing on everything after a revolution takes place, and even if policies are chosen by a democratic process, they still have to be enforced. Then you have police again.

While I'm new to Marxist theory, I've read enough to know that this problem bedeviled the historical revolutions, most of which didn't solve it. That includes revolutionary dictatorships as well. I believe the social transformation to higher communism as predicted by Marx is possible. I don't think it happens right away, though--it probably takes many generations of education and learning about how to behave cooperatively before it can become reality.

I also agree with Cornelis that putting a single leader in charge is a bad idea; that's been tried already. But I doubt a leaderless collective can do it, either. So, any revolution will need to write a constitution and choose or elect leaders who can implement it, before going into action. These leaders need to be committed to revolutionary principles, but they won't be perfect or free from human vulnerability to corruption. So, at least a substantial minority of the workforce must be committed to revolution, and agree on a platform, as minimum precondition for success.

Which returns full circle to the fact that the revolutionary left hasn't come to consensus yet on a single set of principles. I don't claim to know exactly what principles are best; although they must include the elimination of rents, usury, and profit from the economy's productive plant. It may turn out that the revolutionary process will have to be tried over and over again, until the correct practices are discovered.


I think the control of the factories begins before the seizure of state power. Russia, really, is the best model we have here.
Factories first may be correct. Yet globalization has brought on new complications since the time of the Russian Revolution. Many of the factories now integrated into the U.S. economy, for example, are in China. This suggests a worldwide revolution, but taking over the globe in a single revolution is pretty difficult--it's never been done. Lenin and his followers realized that in their day, available power only allowed one country to be taken over, and he chose Russia as having the weakest government, and perhaps because of its extensive territory and natural resources. Not to mention his contacts were there. Things might be different now, so I'm not saying it has to be done that way again. I don't know how it's done. The farmers who feed the factory workers can't be ignored--though many modern farms are factories anyway. There's still a lot of homework to do.

[RedWorker]

In reply to the previous post: Well, Marxism has always held that the dictatorship of the proletariat can, will and must be democratic in nature, not entrusted to one person or one group (for that would be a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense).

"Against this transformation of the state and the organs of the state from servants of society into masters of society – an inevitable transformation in all previous states – the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts – administrative, judicial, and educational – by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion. [...] Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." - Friedrich Engels

[Slavic]

For a DotP to even exist its engineers, the proletariat, would need to be in a power position to contest and overtake the current state. Such a position is only possible if the workers were to take control of the means of production.

That is where the proletariat's power lies. There is no such thing as a DotP that is established top-down.

[Hatshepsut]

Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." - Friedrich Engels
Which lasted two and a half months.


There is no such thing as a DotP that is established top-down.
I agree with both of you that it's not coming top down, from plutocrats and their legislative cronies. The Paris Commune had high ideals but was no match for a French army. Lenin said of it, "Combining contradictory tasks—patriotism and socialism—was the fatal mistake of the French socialists. In the Manifesto of the International...Marx had warned the French proletariat against being misled by a false national idea" (Lessons of the Commune, 1908, Marxist Org Archive (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mar/23.htm)). A little later, Lenin wasn't for democracy outside the vanguard party, although I don't think he favored one-man rule either. It seems that in revolutionary socialism, efforts to democratize things always derail the chances for successful revolution.

So all I have are questions that don't have easy answers:

In the West we already have elections and working classes large enough to outvote the rich. So, why don't we have socialism? In the USA, which doesn't have a parliamentary system or slates, but elects districtwise, the two-party system screens candidates, so you can vote only for the Democrat or the Republican, both of whom are firmly in the capitalist camp. (You can vote for a minor party, but their candidate rarely wins, and USA politics is winner-take-all with little power sharing.) Another reason is that the USA working class is satisfied with capitalism and won't support more than incremental reforms. They won't be persuaded to want abolition of private property, for instance. I guess this is what reactionary means. The USA proletariat is of course intensely patriotic as well. This system prevents outright thugs (a Hitler) from taking power, but allows "moderate" politicians to preside over a country that nonetheless acts like a thug on the world stage in many of its affairs.

There's a real dilemma: If a revolution is dictatorial, it may win, but it won't achieve communist ideals of political participation for workers. If a revolution tries to be democratic, then it either loses or folds back into the capitalist system.

[Slavic]

There's a real dilemma: If a revolution is dictatorial, it may win, but it won't achieve communist ideals of political participation for workers. If a revolution tries to be democratic, then it either loses or folds back into the capitalist system.

I am a little bit confused about what your revolution entails. With regards to the "dictatorial revolution" are you envisioning some kind of minority militant group that perform a coup?

The revolution in Russia failed not because it tried to be democratic, it failed because "it was a revolution in Russia". Socialist revolutions were crushed all throughout Europe and Russia was left isolated.

[Hit The North]

The first act of the revolutionary authority will be the formal abolition of bourgeois private property which will have already been more or less appropriated by the workers in reality.

[Hatshepsut]

I am a little bit confused about what your revolution entails. With regards to the "dictatorial revolution" are you envisioning some kind of minority militant group that perform a coup? The revolution in Russia failed not because it tried to be democratic, it failed because "it was a revolution in Russia". Socialist revolutions were crushed all throughout Europe and Russia was left isolated.
No, it was the Paris Commune that tried to be democratic, and lasted only 2 months. This was in 1870.

The USSR lasted 69 years. Lenin had roughly 20 people in his innermost circle and perhaps 20,000 workers organized for the 1917 October Revolution's initial outbreak in Petrograd. A civil war followed, so the USSR wasn't formed until the end of 1922. Its policy can loosely be described as dictatorship with a command economy, although that actually varied quite a bit over its history. The earliest and latest periods of the USSR were less dictatorial than the Stalin period. It's possible that Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost reforms, which loosened earlier command economy policies, figured in the Soviet breakup. You recall the coup attempt against Gorbachev and the Baltic Republic's secession crises in 1990-1991.

The 1959 Cuban Revolution is worth a look, too. It was done along Soviet lines, but with less violence and no major wars. Of course, Cuba is an island with fewer people and fewer internal divisions than Russia faced. It was also isolated from most outside threats, except the USA and its exile Cuban community in Florida. Cuba had a dictator, Fidel Castro, but followed relatively progressive policies despite poverty and the U.S. economic embargo. Life expectancy in Cuba, at 77 years, is similar to the USA. It hasn't failed yet.

I admit the history is confusing, and I don't understand much of it. :)

I haven't envisioned clearly what a future revolution will be like. I don't think it can be a free-for-all democracy, because we already have democracy now and democracy can't eliminate capitalism, if that's the goal. But I don't think it has to be excessively brutal, either. There's no excuse for mass slaughter. It's also important to remember that personal freedom in daily living is a whole different beast than democracy. In a well-run proletarian dictatorship, people still have freedom to go to school, look for jobs, and travel. Workers will have unions and participate by voting and discussion in workplace management, and vote in local elections in their towns. It's the big-money decisions and the foreign policy that are regulated by the authorities, and of course, forming opposition parties isn't allowed.

The Revolutionary "dictator" isn't just somebody who can do whatever they want, either. There's a Party constitution, general secretary, president, politburo, central committee, and soviets charged with responsibility to follow this constitution. The central committee will regularly admit new people into the Party from the general population based on proletarian ideology and demonstrated ability or talent. History shows it is difficult to keep corruption and cronyism out of such a system, so some changes from past practice will be needed.

For instance, although forming a national opposition party won't be allowed, public dissent is welcome. There should be a free press where any opinion, including a reactionary one, can be expressed. Leaders need feedback. The budget and the courts will also be in full public view. There will have to be rules against nepotism or nominating personal friends for offices, with rotating, ad-hoc committees probably reviewing applications to join the Party. But expressing dissenting opinion doesn't mean the leaders will do what the dissenters wish. It means they will listen to them, and take their side of things into account.

[RedWorker]

The Cuban revolution wasn't like the October revolution. The October revolution transferred power to the soviets and then progressively degenerated, the Cuban revolution was populist and then just established a Stalinist dictatorship. It fails, it has been failing every single day; disappearance and failure are different concepts. Cuba has always been a bourgeois state, under the capitalist mode of production. It is inefficient, corrupt, ruled by bureaucrats, and it is now undertaking market reforms. Has the government there, however, applied policies to improve living standards? Yes. So has Sweden.

What you describe is not a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. It is a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense, with a bourgeois state, and would have no chance at all to in any way surpass the capitalist mode of production. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the proletariat.


we already have democracy now and democracy can't eliminate capitalism

Because capitalism can't be eliminated by law, can't be eliminated top down, and because the class content of the current state is bourgeois.


Workers will have unions and participate by voting and discussion in workplace management

Worker-managed capital is still capital. "Market socialism" is bullshit.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Factories first may be correct. Yet globalization has brought on new complications since the time of the Russian Revolution. Many of the factories now integrated into the U.S. economy, for example, are in China. This suggests a worldwide revolution, but taking over the globe in a single revolution is pretty difficult--it's never been done. Lenin and his followers realized that in their day, available power only allowed one country to be taken over, and he chose Russia as having the weakest government, and perhaps because of its extensive territory and natural resources. Not to mention his contacts were there. Things might be different now, so I'm not saying it has to be done that way again. I don't know how it's done. The farmers who feed the factory workers can't be ignored--though many modern farms are factories anyway. There's still a lot of homework to do.

Of course it not only 'suggests' but demands a worldwide revolution. Capitalism is worldwide, it must be overthrown worldwide. Engels worked this out in 1847. I don't why there's anyone left on the planet that is 170 years behind the times.

And, yes, I had noticed 'it's never been done'. We're not now living in a communist society. Therefore, necessarily, the revolution has failed. So? Everything fails until the first time it succeeds. Until Yuri Gagarin went into space, no-one had gone into space. Until Wilbur Wright flew the plane, no-one had flown a plane. Until Columbus went to Cuba, no Italians had ever been to Cuba.

Wow, what are the chances of Lenin 'choosing' Russia - and him being the leader of the RSDLP(B) and all! What a coincidence! All I can say is, he was really really lucky he worked out it was his own country he had to go and become the new Comrade First Secretary of. Imagine if he had been right at first, and the revolutionaries of his age would likely not see the revolution in Russia, but instead, Switzerland was the most revolutionary country on earth. Imagine how difficult it would have been for the Bolsheviks to take over there! Good job on the incredible and amazing co-incidence that Lenin happened to be from Russia and Russia happened to be the best country Lenin could choose for his revolutionary experiment.

Or, you know, the working class and whatever.

[Hatshepsut]

It is a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense...Worker-managed capital is still capital. "Market socialism" is bullshit.


Of course it not only 'suggests' but demands a worldwide revolution. Capitalism is worldwide, it must be overthrown worldwide. Engels worked this out in 1847.....

Duly noted, and thanks for both replies. I'm probably out of answers, and now reading The State & Revolution. Lots of folks don't like Lenin, but I need something that has it all in one place, with references back to Marx.

Cuba is bureaucratic, inefficient, and corrupt, but it does take care of its population. Life expectancy nearly matches the USA, all children are educated, and no one is going hungry. This never happened under Batista. Sweden didn't have to get out from being a plantation for foreign owners.

[Blake's Baby]

But neither Sweden nor Cuba are socialist. Nor are China or North Korea or France or Zimbabwe or anywhere else where someone who might call themselves a socialist is head of state or head of the executive or both.

Barak Obama is a 'Democrat'. Doesn't mean the the people rule the USA, does it? It's still the rule of capital.

[Hatshepsut]

But neither Sweden nor Cuba are socialist. Nor are China or North Korea or France or Zimbabwe or anywhere else where someone who might call themselves a socialist is head of state or head of the executive or both. Barak Obama is a 'Democrat'. Doesn't mean the the people rule the USA, does it? It's still the rule of capital.

There's really nothing to be done about it, right now. North Korea and Zimbabwe simply have autocracy without participation in the world system. People live to age 50 or so in these two countries, if they're lucky. Sweden and Cuba cannot ignore the world system because they wish to take care of their citizens. People live to be 75 to 80 on average in these two countries. Insisting on theoretically perfect socialism won't help them, so they don't try. It's possible that perfect socialism is not even a possible form of government for human beings, although I don't have the answer to that question.

I would like to see capitalism go kaput as soon as possible, but I don't think it's going away soon, despite my wish. Meanwhile, both Sweden and Cuba are better than the systems they replaced, while many countries where western international finance has forced the laissez faire have gotten worse, or have produced wealth only for privileged segments of the population, as in China and India.

I dunno...I do put an emphasis on life expectancy since I'm not young! :marx:

[Blake's Baby]

You also live in the US which has shit healthcare by all accounts. So you're impressed by poorer countries that have better healthcare, I guess.

Sweden - a monarchy - is better than the system it replaced? As Sweden has been a capitalist country since about 1630, I'd hope it is 'better' as people had only fairly recently given up being Vikings.

Cuba... don't get me started. A family dictatorship with a red flag. I don't think one organisation of capitalism is better than another for the working class.

Illusions in 'better capitalism' are one of the reasons the working class isn't overthrowing capitalism. Stop being part of the problem.

[Raquin]

You also live in the US which has shit healthcare by all accounts. So you're impressed by poorer countries that have better healthcare, I guess.

Sweden - a monarchy - is better than the system it replaced? As Sweden has been a capitalist country since about 1630, I'd hope it is 'better' as people had only fairly recently given up being Vikings.

Cuba... don't get me started. A family dictatorship with a red flag. I don't think one organisation of capitalism is better than another for the working class.

Illusions in 'better capitalism' are one of the reasons the working class isn't overthrowing capitalism. Stop being part of the problem.
That's complete and utter bullshit. Swedes tend to live richer, longer, healthier, more secure lives than Egyptians or South Africans. That makes the Swedish capitalist social order many magnitudes better than the capitalist social order in Egypt or South Africa from the point of view of the proletariat. That's just an objective fact.

[Skyhilist]

This isn't really something that we can predict at this point to be honest. But I will agree with many others that workers having direct control is the best option to avoid bureaucracy and that the idea of empowerment of workers coming from above is unlikely to come to fruition.

[Blake's Baby]

That's complete and utter bullshit. Swedes tend to live richer, longer, healthier, more secure lives than Egyptians or South Africans. That makes the Swedish capitalist social order many magnitudes better than the capitalist social order in Egypt or South Africa from the point of view of the proletariat. That's just an objective fact.

Ooh, great, let's all vote for constitutional monarchies with institutionalised social-democratic parties with decades-long racist policies such as sterilisation of Gypsies, then the lot of the working class will be better!

It's OK guys, we can call off the revolution, Raquin's solved it all. I'm surprised we didn't notice sooner that all we need is socially-liberal capitalism.

[Slavic]

Ooh, great, let's all vote for constitutional monarchies with institutionalised social-democratic parties with decades-long racist policies such as sterilisation of Gypsies, then the lot of the working class will be better!

It's OK guys, we can call off the revolution, Raquin's solved it all. I'm surprised we didn't notice sooner that all we need is socially-liberal capitalism.

Way to completely miss the point. He is saying that there is a significant difference in quality of life between the aforementioned countries, not that social democratic governments are preferred over socialism.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, maybe. At least, I hope there is a point, and I hope the point isn't that racist monarchies are to be preferred over military republics or corrupt oligarchies.

So; if Sweden is so much better than Egypt, as you and Raquin seem to accept it is, why aren't we agitating for Sweden as a transitional society?

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah, maybe. At least, I hope there is a point, and I hope the point isn't that racist monarchies are to be preferred over military republics or corrupt oligarchies.

So; if Sweden is so much better than Egypt, as you and Raquin seem to accept it is, why aren't we agitating for Sweden as a transitional society?

How does it follow from the observation that the working class is more affluent in some areas than others that therefore those areas are transitional societies?

[Blake's Baby]

I didn't say they were. I was asking Slavic and Raquin why, if these places are 'better' for the working class as they believe, why it isn't in the interests of the working class to make Egypt and South Africa more like Sweden.

[Slavic]

I didn't say they were. I was asking Slavic and Raquin why, if these places are 'better' for the working class as they believe, why it isn't in the interests of the working class to make Egypt and South Africa more like Sweden.

Ugh, the interest of the working class is to abolish capital. I'm not pushing for Egypt to be the next Sweden, I'd prefer the Egyptians to to kick out their rulers and seize their industries.

How did you get from;

Quality of life in Sweden and Egypt are different

to

Socialists should fight to make Egypt more like Sweden

I don't want better, I want capital out. That doesn't detract from the fact that I'd rather be treated at a Hospital in Sweden then in Egypt, and if you can't understand that then you are just dense.

[Blake's Baby]

What about if what you're being treated for is being sterilised because you're a Gypsy and the Swedish government doesn't want you to breed?

If you think that that that's OK then you're not just dense, you're sociopathic.