Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[Galatian 6:2]

As I understand it, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is supposed to dissolve once the community can function under "communism." Does that mean it would have to wait for the whole world to convert to communism? I live in the US and if we became communists and even if we eliminated all internal reactionaries we would still have most of the world wanting to invade. I would think this would be true of most nations once they eliminated their "dictatorship." So it stands to reason that no nation can truly reach communism until the rest of the world is there. I mean, a 'nation' of communes trying to fend off a highly organized, funded and technologically andvanced army wouldn't do so well (In true communism, I doubt each commune is allowed to hold 'x' amt. of nukes, tomahawks, etc.)

And let's assume that the whole world is in their respective dicatorships of the proletariat then wouldn't there be nations waiting to pounce on other nations that reach true communism? For instance, I heard that China was at odds with the USSR and assuming that China relinquished state power in favor of communism then wouldn't the USSR be extremely tempted to come in and impose their version of 'true' communism. I mean, is it possible to reach true communism through the dictatorship of the proletariat. By the way, I lean more towards socialistic reform (I know it's a long shot but with this being the other option...)

Please answer these 2 questions:
1. Does the whole world have to be in a communist state before anyone can relinquish their own state (dicatorship of the proletariat)?
2. Is it even possible to eliminate the 'dictatorship' stage b/c there will always be someone else who wants to impose their version of communism or just their own will on your communes (after you end the dicatorship stage).

[Galatian 6:2]

Could you please move this to Opposing Ideologies, admin.? Thanks

[Frederick_Engles]

you are correct, true communism can only be obtained globally, untill then it is socialism

[LSD]

Is it even possible to eliminate the 'dictatorship' stage b/c there will always be someone else who wants to impose their version of communism or just their own will on your communes (after you end the dicatorship stage).

If history has shown us anything it is that it once a "dictatorship" of any form has been established it rarely "disolves" on its own.

That is why many of us have abandoned this concept of a "dictatorship of the proletariot".

I would suggest that you research anarchism / anarcho-communism.


you are correct, true communism can only be obtained globally, untill then it is socialism

Well, that is yet to be determined.

I am by no means convinced that communism could not stably exist locally.

[Subversive Pessimist]

As I understand it, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is supposed to dissolve once the community can function under "communism."


Yes.


Does that mean it would have to wait for the whole world to convert to communism?


Some would say yes, I say 'no'. I think it depends on the circumstances, for example, how strong the capitalist nations are, if you have any alliance with other countries, the general atmosphere in the world, etc.

[Essential Insignificance]

Please answer these 2 questions:
1. Does the whole world have to be in a communist state before anyone can relinquish their own state (dicatorship of the proletariat)?

First, you made a little but important "mistake" in your well formulated question: a communist society will function and regulate itself -- without a state machine!

The capitalist mode of production that prevails athwart the globe has created through navigation, technological advances, and communication, a world-market,-- where no counties are "self-sustaining" -- each relying heavily on imports and indeed, therefore, exports to "prolong" income used to import "goods".

So each country functions, in accordance, with the amount of "congealed commodities" or raw materials, which have been imported from different corners of the globe. Thus, as you can see each county is on the whim of the other and therefore dependent; and very few, to wit, would be able to fully protract itself, and comply with today's "expected" social and cultural, material basis.

Now, this creates a major dilemma: and solicits the question: "can a country live off its own resources?"

And I would say that same could, but the vast majority of nations would not be able too.

But the good thing about capitalsim, if I may be so straightforward -- is that it has created a universal character -- the proletariat, whose "wants and needs" are matching, the world-over. What I connote by this, is that, if proletariats in one country revolt against the bourgeoisie, and overthrow the existing "social order", then it's very likely, since capitalism has created a world market, that countries, particularly countries in close proximity, will follow suit with revolution. And this would enable countries to share equally each others prominent resources.

A bit idealistic and perhaps optimistic; but it's still a "dollop" truthfulness.

So, I think it will be quite difficult, if a single -- landmass, group of people -- to function just with their own resources. History has taught us that capitalist's aren't going to want to trade with communist's -- and dammit, we don't want to do "business" with them!


2. Is it even possible to eliminate the 'dictatorship' stage b/c there will always be someone else who wants to impose their version of communism or just their own will on your communes (after you end the dicatorship stage).

Well, that's the thing, Marx never thought that the newly formed state would "eradicate" itself over night, instead it would "wither away" over time, until it was superfluous to requirements.

Now, following with experience, you might ask: "how long will it take to wither way, what did Marx think?" Like with anything to do with "utopian fantasying" about communism or the dictatorship, he was very vague and formless, and wrote very little about the subject. I myself have not come across, in Marx's writings, anywhere where he explicitly, says how long the dictatorship would last.

However recently, I read in biography on Marx, which said, that he thought the dictatorship would last for "about a generation" -- gradually progressing to communism.

I'd say that, the "general consensus" would triumph. If the people want to something, and the majority agrees with it, then it would be done.

[enigma2517]

Yes, the global character of capitalism...I like that. It's very important that you take note of that. I read somewhere in an anarchist FAQ almost the same exact question you posed here. Too bad I can't find it again :/ Oh well I'll try to give you a brief answer anyway.

Revolution is not a national movement. It is international. The proletariat is now becoming more and more intertwined then ever. Globalization leads to economic ties being formed, and resources such as the Internet help us facilitate and expand our ideas. Given that any country would have a serious MASS movement (not like some Marxist-Leninist bs) it would probably spread to other countries as well. If England began to experience civil unrest and France tried to take advantage of it by invading, they couldn't, because by a certain point they would begin to experience resistance from their own revolutionary groups.

Believe it or not, class consciousness is developing. Noam Chomsky called upon this example, I see it to be very fitting. Remember Vietnam? Sure we saw some radical, well-substantiated peace protests against it. But these movements only picked up speed by the end of the war, when all of our boys were coming back in body bags. It took several years to develop our sense of indignance and do something about it. Now look at the Iraq war. 11 million people all across the globe particpated in the world's largest peace protest ever. BEFORE THE WAR EVEN GOT STARTED! Certaintely, people are becoming much more disillusioned with the things they see on TV and have begun to think for themselves. Its still quite the uphill battle from here, but hey what the heck lets keep trying ;)

[The Weather Underground]

Hey Galatians 6:2, so you like the Bible? Can't say that I like the Bible much but the verse of your namesake is pretty good.

Galatians 6:2

Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by The Weather [email protected] 22 2004, 10:30 AM
Hey Galatians 6:2, so you like the Bible? Can't say that I like the Bible much but the verse of your namesake is pretty good.

Galatians 6:2

Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
aw, that's an appropriate bible verse. I was kind of thinking "right winger for sure" when i saw Galatians 6:2 listed as the thread title.

[Galatian 6:2]

Thanks. There's actually quite a few leftist Christians in America. There was an article about it a couple (?) months back in "Newsweek."

[Essential Insignificance]

There's actually quite a few leftist Christians in America

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't believe what they say!

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by Galatian 6:[email protected] 22 2004, 07:55 PM
Thanks. There's actually quite a few leftist Christians in America. There was an article about it a couple (?) months back in "Newsweek."
if you ever decide to take the rest of these guys on in a thread argueing whether communism and religion can peacefully co-exist, you can be rest assured that I will have your back.

I think that, no matter what anyone says, or no matter how foolish or superstisious other Communists think religion is, the fact is that most people want some reassurance that life just doesn't end when you die. The thought of spending the rest of eternity rotting in a wooden box is hardly comforting to most people. They want reassurance that their lives mean something, that there is a point to their existence. Some would call it a curse of our higher state of awareness, of conciousness (my dog never wonders what the point of it all is), but, no matter how you view it, it's just the way it is.

Trying to take on Capitalism, as wide spread and as powerful as it is, is difficult enough, but trying to take on religion, with as major a goal it plays in the world, is too grand a goal. And it also serves merely to alienate many people who would readily join the movement otherwise.