dictatorship of the proletariat

[DK_revolutionary]

when was the idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat" born? And who came up with the idea?

As i remember it, it was Lenin who was the first to use the term during the revolution in russia. And was the communism that Marx described not democratic? :unsure:

[Bolshevist]

It was Marx' idea. Lenin just developed the idea about the dictatorship of the proletariat.

And yes, communism is democratic.

http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[redstar2000]

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.

The Critique of the Gotha Programme, Section IV, by Karl Marx (http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)

You will find that this simple phrase is one of the most controversial ones ever written.

What did Marx really mean by that?

And what should we mean by it?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a period in which the working class adopts a state apparatus which is used to suppress the bourgeoisie. It is not a dictatorship of one leader oppressing the masses, but instead the masses oppressing the bourgeoisie.

We call it a dictatorship because in this period, there will still exist an aspiring ruling class. Individuals with goals of accumulating power. And as long as this inequality of classes exist, there will be oppression exercised upon one class by the other. In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat will be the one in the position of oppressor. Hence the name of this transition.

[Essential Insignificance]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is one of those indistinct and tentative "formalities" of Marxism; as redstar2000 makes apparent, in other words.

However, The Critique of the Gotha Program illuminates some of the "hazy features" of Marx’s "account" of the Dictatorship of the Proletarian.

For other "versions" and realties of the dictatorship of the proletariat; refer to 20th century history books, look particularly under the Russian, Chinese and Eastern European sections.

One the polemics imperative innovations is that it draws an division between two phrases of communist society; where up until then (1875) he had only written minimally about "communism". At times Marx’s terminology is a little unclear; however, he sometimes called the second stage "the higher phase" of communism, which contrasts the with what he referred to as "the first phase"; sometimes however; he simply called the former "communism".

The crucial characteristic of the "first stage" is that it is a transitory society; one which is post-capitalism but not yet communism. But how long is this temporary society "supposed" to last?

Marx’s whole notion of the transient period was very anti-utopian; he doesn’t think that capitalism will replaced by the higher stage of society--communism with one "revolutionary stoke".

Marx didn’t envisage that the transition would be inevitably made, nor, if it in fact would be made, or that it would be a "smooth" process; but on the contrary, it would be a interlude of "revolutionary transformation".

--------------------
I think what should be looked at, and perhaps discussed at some length; is the questions about the economic aspects of this transitory period and the characteristics of the mode of production, circulation and distribution.

If the above matters were some how "worked out"; the question of the dictatorship would be subsequently formulated—following with Marxian tradition.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 08:19 PM
when was the idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat" born? And who came up with the idea?

As i remember it, it was Lenin who was the first to use the term during the revolution in russia. And was the communism that Marx described not democratic? :unsure:
"when was the idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat" born? And who came up with the idea?"

Marx took the term from Blanqui, but gave it another essence, so to speak.
Marx rarely used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" though,
only in a few letters to Engels as far as I know. Lenin used it more often, but did not really mean the same thing with it as Marx.

"And was the communism that Marx described not democratic? :unsure:"

That depends on what you mean with "democratic". Communism have nothing to do with bourgeoisie democracy, nor does the dictatorship of the proletariat.
But ofcource, neither communism or the dictatorship of the proletariat is any dictatorship (well, the dictatorship of the proletariat is as the name says a class dictatorship, just as todays society is the bourgeoisie class dictatorship), no dictator, no ruling party, etc. So, we can say that communism is democratic, if not in the same way as the bourgeoise democracy.

[Essential Insignificance]

That depends on what you mean with "democratic". Communism have nothing to do with bourgeoisie democracy, nor does the dictatorship of the proletariat.

And this is "something"; I have credence a lot of people find extremely durable to comprehend.

The ruling class governments are relentlessly "pumping" all sorts of notions that the "free-world" we live in today is "perfectly" ultra-democratic; and you're not going to get any more democratic then what you've got now--eternally; that we have reached the absolute synthesis of the structure of society.

And people, generally, accept this as truism.

Especially when they compare themselves to those "poor unfortunates" living in Afghanistan, Botswana and Cuba!

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 08:19 PM
"dictatorship of the proletariat"




it's what lost communism.



and democratie should only be direct.that,s why it doesnt work now,and then

[Essential Insignificance]

That's right.

Its imperative; not only imperative but necessary and, more importantly--too be expected for a communist society to be really ultra-democratic and to have direct democracy for all of the populace.

But how will it function?

[Morpheus]

The idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" was invented by Babeuf. He was a French communist in the late 18th century (before Marx was born). During the French Revolution he formed a "conspiracy of equals" which aimed to overthrow the French government and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. He claimed that what went wrong in the French revolution is that it didn't bring economic inequality, and wanted to bring about this dictatorship to fix that. His conspiracy was discovered before they could overthrow the government and they were beheaded. Later, other revolutionaries would pick up the idea and use it themselves, sometimes introducing their own modifications. This included Blanqui and eventually Marx.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 07:07 PM
it's what lost communism.



and democratie should only be direct.that,s why it doesnt work now,and then
Eh..what? The dictatorship of the proletariat is a classdictatorship, a state.
Its purpose is the defence of the revolution. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the organized defence of the proletarian revolution.

The Sovjetunion and states like that was never a dictatorship of the proletariat, or even close. It was a dictatorship of the party, (maybe for the proletarians, but that is not the same) not of the proletarians. A party dictatorship, not a class dictatorship.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is absolutly necessary, the proletarians will need to defend their revolution. I think you understand that to.

Todays society is a (class) dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, not an open ultrarepressive dictatorship, but a democratic dictatorship. The dictatorship of the proletariat can also be democratic, but its still a class dictatorship.

[DK_revolutionary]

okay, thanks for the informaton, i guess the concept of democracy can be defined in many different ways...the way i see it, a democracy is where everybody have an equal amount of participation in decision making...

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 05:57 PM
okay, thanks for the informaton, i guess the concept of democracy can be defined in many different ways...the way i see it, a democracy is where everybody have an equal amount of participation in decision making...
it' s not wat it is now

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 12:04 AM
Eh..what? The dictatorship of the proletariat is a classdictatorship, a state.
Its purpose is the defence of the revolution. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the organized defence of the proletarian revolution.

The Sovjetunion and states like that was never a dictatorship of the proletariat, or even close. It was a dictatorship of the party, (maybe for the proletarians, but that is not the same) not of the proletarians. A party dictatorship, not a class dictatorship.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is absolutly necessary, the proletarians will need to defend their revolution. I think you understand that to.

Todays society is a (class) dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, not an open ultrarepressive dictatorship, but a democratic dictatorship. The dictatorship of the proletariat can also be democratic, but its still a class dictatorship.
hence open dictatorship...please

[Guest1]

You will find that this simple phrase is one of the most controversial ones ever written.

What did Marx really mean by that?

And what should we mean by it?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
My question is, can one define a dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the majority, without a state and still be considered a Marxist?

I'm coming up against questions on my belief that I am both an Anarchist and a Marxist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Libertarian Marxism is what it's called, CyM

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 30 2004, 07:42 AM
Libertarian Marxism is what it's called, CyM
There is no such thing. You cant just add names to other terms.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 29 2004, 06:42 PM
My question is, can one define a dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the majority, without a state and still be considered a Marxist?

I'm coming up against questions on my belief that I am both an Anarchist and a Marxist.
My question is, can one define a dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the majority

The proletariat is in majority, so you could say so. But it is bether simply to say the dictatorship of the proletariat.

without a state and still be considered a Marxist

The dictatorship of the proletariat IS the state, it is the same thing.
In this case, the state takes the form of the organized defence of the proletarian revolution. And that is ofcource needed and inevitable.

But marxists does not support states like the USSR for example, where the state is...more then just the PD, and not even the PD. The USSR was a capitalist state.
And communism is still a stateless society.

So, you can be anti big oppresive state that controlls everything and still be a marxist, rather you have to be "anti big oppresive state that controlls everything" if you are a marxist.

I myself feel that i have more in common with class struggle anarchists/anarcho communists in general, than I have with leninists, for an example. But i do not refer to myself as an anarchist.