Dictatorship of the Prolitariat

[Entrails Konfetti]

On this subject I haven't done much research.

But,if you just think about the lower-classes taking over the country, they will have to surpress the Capitalists.Therefore it is a dictatorship. It is an inevitable dictatorship . I would like to hear an opposing view on how the working-class can rise up without surpressing the Capitalists.

Also,I would like to know how a dictatorship can turn into stateless Communism with a gift economy.

[T_SP]

I have always agreed with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and like yourself see little or no other option. Others here sorely dis-agree, as you will doubtless find out.

Marx spoke of the 'withering away' of the state and although we have no idea about what will really happen after the revolution we can be prety sure that the need for a state will slowly become unnecessary; and so into stateless communism.

[Lamanov]

Some theory-for-practice works concerning the DOP:

Lenin - State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)
Luxemburg - What does the Spartacus League want? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/14.htm)
Kollontai - Workers' Opposition (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/works/1921/workers-opposition/index.htm)

[OleMarxco]

Anyone who believe the state will just "wither away" should be taken out and whipped with a broom (Not shot senseless, as RedStarOverChina would've thought of me!) - Heck, even if MARX said it, I'm not lickin' 'is tomb either, so the point is to make Communism practical enough and not pay homeage to ol'lords by doin' it 100% their way DESPITE previous faults and errors of our ways? BAH! Screw quoting ol'texts, I say, make up your OWN text, goddamnit! :)

Sorry for not really arguing in this thread, but, as it stands, I don't REALLY care 'bout threads who take up such silly themes. We can't let a state "wither away", because, it would be like giving someone less and less beer for each day, and then suddently stop givin' 'em it, they would notice the difference, and "gradual go-away" would not just work, because people would be used to have a state and when it suddently "fades" away into decantralized commune-power (HENCHE THE NAME, Communism!) they would "miss" the state 'cuz it was a "cool" - albeit centrual - power, 'tho...and reinsert it :rolleyes:

[NovelGentry]

Anyone who believe the state will just "wither away" should be taken out and whipped with a broom (Not shot senseless, as RedStarOverChina would've thought of me!) - Heck, even if MARX said it, I'm not lickin' 'is tomb either, so the point is to make Communism practical enough and not pay homeage to ol'lords by doin' it 100% their way DESPITE previous faults and errors of our ways? BAH! Screw quoting ol'texts, I say, make up your OWN text, goddamnit!

Marx doesn't just assert things without anything to back it up -- unlike a vast majority of anarchists around these parts who essentially would like us to believe, "the state is evil," rather than ask questions about it's nature.

Here's some questions Marx answers quite in depth which seem to have single line assertions from anarchist perspective (if any anarchist wants to explain the anarchist view more in depth, go ahead):

Why does the state exist?

What is the state comprised of?

Is the state necessary under capitalism, why? Feudalism, why?


they would notice the difference... because people would be used to have a state and when it suddently "fades" away into decantralized commune-power (HENCHE THE NAME, Communism!) they would "miss" the state 'cuz it was a "cool" - albeit centrual - power, 'tho...and reinsert it

Oh yeah, and they won't do this if it's just abolished in one swift blow....

[CEWS]

I am an anarchist.


Why does the state exist?

Because it tries to keep itself alive.

It probly started with some sort of private property.


Is the state necessary under capitalism, why? Feudalism, why?

A state, or state like entitiy, is necessary for concentrating power in the hands of a few.
And that is what a state is, a concentration of power.

It really doesn't matter if the people who control the state were prols or caps or vegatarians. They will act in generally the same way, they will preserve their power and try to increase it. Even if individuals do not, others do, and the state still has power.

The state will not wither, at least not without a fight.

[danny android]

the state exists to create order and make law. atleast that is what it should exist for. corruption however is inevitable. as for a ditatorship i do not agree. socialism should always be democratic in my opinion by pure nature of the ideal i believe it should be democratic. vis virsa democracy should be a socialism if it is a true democracy. the state should control the economy and the people should control the state

[Zingu]

A Quote from "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Engels


The state was the offical representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slaveowning citizens, in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords, in our time, the bourgeoisie.

When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be in held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existance based upon our present anarchy of production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer nessecary.

The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society-this is, at the same time, its last independant act of as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superflous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production.

The state is "not abolished", it dies out. This gives measure of the vaule of the phrase "a free state", both as to its justifable use at times by agiatators, and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand.

Answers some questions?

[kurt]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 5 2005, 12:40 AM
On this subject I haven't done much research.

But,if you just think about the lower-classes taking over the country, they will have to surpress the Capitalists.Therefore it is a dictatorship. It is an inevitable dictatorship . I would like to hear an opposing view on how the working-class can rise up without surpressing the Capitalists.

Also,I would like to know how a dictatorship can turn into stateless Communism with a gift economy.
dictatorship (n.) Absolute or despotic control or power.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is literally that; it's the dictatorship of the class (proletariat). This so called dictatorship does not constitute of a corrupt, minority in power, imposing it's will upon exploited subjects. In fact, it's meaning is the exact opposite. The dictatorship of the proletariat is actually a highly democratic class society run by the largest class, the proletariat.

This society is run by the largest class, in the interests of this class (as with all class societies), simply because the proletariat is the only class that can lead us to communism.

[CrazyModerate]

Does this mean that all wealthy and middle-class people are to become the oppressed?

[Clarksist]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat doesn't have to mean an exact dictator. It could mean a democratically elected Republic, or a Prime Minister of some sort. It is my belief we could go right to worker-ran councils and what-not, because if revolutionary means is the way we do it we will automatically have a large group of fanatical communists (from the resolve of guerilla warfare).

[Abstrakt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:28 PM
Does this mean that all wealthy and middle-class people are to become the oppressed?
I'm thinking...No. We are against oppression, I don't see why would support it in just a different way.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by comradekurt+Jun 7 2005, 11:16 PM--> (comradekurt @ Jun 7 2005, 11:16 PM)
EL [email protected] 5 2005, 12:40 AM
On this subject I haven't done much research.

But,if you just think about the lower-classes taking over the country, they will have to surpress the Capitalists.Therefore it is a dictatorship. It is an inevitable dictatorship . I would like to hear an opposing view on how the working-class can rise up without surpressing the Capitalists.

Also,I would like to know how a dictatorship can turn into stateless Communism with a gift economy.
dictatorship (n.) Absolute or despotic control or power.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is literally that; it's the dictatorship of the class (proletariat). This so called dictatorship does not constitute of a corrupt, minority in power, imposing it's will upon exploited subjects. In fact, it's meaning is the exact opposite. The dictatorship of the proletariat is actually a highly democratic class society run by the largest class, the proletariat.

This society is run by the largest class, in the interests of this class (as with all class societies), simply because the proletariat is the only class that can lead us to communism. [/b]
well,thanks I already knew the definitions.

What I'm asking is if the working-classes were to take power,would it inevitably a dictatorship of the class ?

Suppose Anarchist spea-headed the revolution, and they wanted the working class to seize the means of production,how is this NOT a dictatorship,the Capitalist class is supressed .

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Abstrakt+Jun 8 2005, 01:33 AM--> (Abstrakt @ Jun 8 2005, 01:33 AM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 11:28 PM
Does this mean that all wealthy and middle-class people are to become the oppressed?
I'm thinking...No. We are against oppression, I don't see why would support it in just a different way. [/b]
To me it depends if any of them own the means of production,if the working-classes seize the factories,that would make the Capitalists disseident,and therefore they are being oppressed.

[kurt]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 8 2005, 01:37 AM
What I'm asking is if the working-classes were to take power,would it inevitably a dictatorship of the class ?

Yes, that is what the term implies, a dictatorship of the proletariat. Rule by the majority, in the interests of the majority.


Suppose Anarchist spea-headed the revolution, and they wanted the working class to seize the means of production,how is this NOT a dictatorship,the Capitalist class is supressed .

Once again, it is a dictatorship, by the proletariat, for the proletariat. Capitalists and capitalism will be suppressed of course, but not oppressed.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:28 PM
Does this mean that all wealthy and middle-class people are to become the oppressed?
Personally I don't believe so, but I don't believe in the state, especially not a "dictatorship of the proletariat". And in my view marx was in fact suggesting subjugation of the former capitalist classes instead of voluntary integration (as would be caused by a social revolution, note not violent revolution)

I think the "dictatorship" is one of the most abused concepts that he created.

[CEWS]

If the working class sieze the means of production and do not excersize authority over others, as anarchists would do it, then no one is oppressed.


that would make the Capitalists disseident,and therefore they are being oppressed.

Dissident is not defined as being oppressed. Your logic does not follow.

Also, capitalists may choose not to dissent.

[Entrails Konfetti]

"If the working class sieze the means of production and do not excersize authority over others, as anarchists would do it, then no one is oppressed."

Then what about suppressed ? wouldn't suppression of sorts be un-ethical of anarchists?

"
that would make the Capitalists disseident,and therefore they are being oppressed.

Dissident is not defined as being oppressed. Your logic does not follow."

Oops my bad.Sorry. I mean't suppressed. But, disallowing certain peoples is a bit un-democratic.And if you'd allow Capitalists to participate in a democratic organization of some sort,you could be endangering yourself and others to be exploited again.Unless the masses are well educated on true democracy,they/you/me could over-rule that mad cappie.

"Also, capitalists may choose not to dissent."

Is that very likely ?

[CEWS]

Then what about suppressed ? wouldn't suppression of sorts be un-ethical of anarchists?

Depends what you mean by suppressed.

Well, we would not dissallow anyone from democratic decision making, we might ignore them though. Besides, none of the decisions would be binding, if you don't like it don't obey it. Thats the beauty of anarchy.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 10:49 PM

Well, we would not dissallow anyone from democratic decision making, we might ignore them though. Besides, none of the decisions would be binding, if you don't like it don't obey it. Thats the beauty of anarchy.
But, it would be binding if the majority agrees to it,it may not be on a affidavit.
In some senses the minority is choosed to obey.

For instance, say if the majority of the town of Suddsville votes on a new hospital to be built and the minority wanted a fishing pond.Well,tough titters for the minority theres a hospital there.

However,the minority could choose to blow up the hospital,but,they would have to expect some sort of punishment by society.

You can see,the minority are forced to obey,if not,they are punished. I will keep in mind though,that this is an extreme scenerio.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

With regard to the dictatorship of the proletariat I agree as well it is an inevitable first step to a complete classless communist society. By expropriating the capitalist ruling class and the working class taking the means of protection the majority of the population gets to have democratic control of the economy. No matter is the term used is dictatorship: a dictatorship of a majority over a minority (and not even indefinitely) is way more democratic that the current dictatorship (which is disguised by the parliamentary system and the division of power) that keeps the minority ruling class in economic power over the majority.

It's not like former capitalists will have to killed after the revolution. They just won't be capitalists any more because the means of production are no longer in their hands. They off course would get the opportunity to spread their propaganda: this would be financed as well on the basis off the size of their organisation. Every party, organisation and group would get a certain (depending on size) amount of media coverage which would be paid for for them. We would respect the right to spread other ideas, capitalist ideas won't be a big hit anyway in a socialist society, which makes sure everyone's needs are met.