Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[Delirium]

To answer the question of why i placed this in OI, even though most restricted members are economicly on the right, my problem is with civil liberties. Just as much as i am a leftist i am also a social libertarian. This is likley so with those i disagree with economically. Therefore they should have a say in it.

On the actual topic of Dictatorship of the Proletariat, i think that the necessary curbing of civil liberties required to impliment this plan is unacceptable.

The ends do not justify the means

Absolute power corrupts absolutly (this i have been told since i was literally two)

It also in my observations that all of the communistic experiments have gone wrong at this point.

Nor do i believe that we can have a sucessuful transition to Anarchy as is called for by those who support it.

Therefore i am left with nowhere to go. Reformism is the only other option that i see, And that seem almost just as impossible.

I am sure some of you have critisism and hopefully another means of transformation of government.

[Bolshevist]

On the actual topic of Dictatorship of the Proletariat, i think that the necessary curbing of civil liberties required to impliment this plan is unacceptable.


The "civil liberties" we have today is nothing more than the result of capitalism which has by its very existance created them. Socialism, or the lower stage of communism (whatever you prefer), will naturally add on these to fit the need of the proletariat in much a similar way that capitalism has created "civil liberties" for the bourgeoise to enjoy and of course remove some of the political freedoms that the bourgeoise is currently using to bend the will of the working class. Parlamentarism is a good example to illustrate my point here.

Did you know that after the 1917 revolution, the political power was concentrated in the Soviets? And these were naturally organized at workplaces, thus giving the Soviet working class de facto political power. This is what the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat means in its very essence, the working class holding the political power and liquidation of the class system, moving the productive forces beyond what is imaginable today. The dictatorship of the proletariat means progress, while capitalism with its "freedoms" will stand in its way, and will eventually slow down, or directly hinder the development of the productive forces. This is when capitalism will become obliterated, as history shows us that when a given socio-economic system is no longer able to develop the productive forces it is ripe for a revolutionary overturn. And what way is better to reach communism than to take advantage of the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[violencia.Proletariat]

On the actual topic of Dictatorship of the Proletariat, i think that the necessary curbing of civil liberties required to impliment this plan is unacceptable.

who said anything about curbing civil liberties?

how do you define the DOP? you might have it stereotyped.


It also in my observations that all of the communistic experiments have gone wrong at this point.

idk what exactly your referring to here but the countries labeled "communist" did NOT have the material conditions apporiate for communism. therfore, its not a suprise they didnt achieve it.


Nor do i believe that we can have a sucessuful transition to Anarchy as is called for by those who support it.

i think you have the theory all wrong here. you dont "transition" into anarchism you transition into communism.


Therefore i am left with nowhere to go

i think it would do you good to stick around a bit longer and clear up your confusion when it comes to theory. try reading books on the subjects too. :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

After the 1917 revolution people won more freedoms than workers in the US or many other countries; women could vote, for example, national minorities like jewish people we no longer persacuted and were able to hold important positions in society.

How long did reformism take to accomplish these same tasks in the US? How long had there been a sufferage movement? How long until blacks were able to vote and hold political office without harassment (tell me once this has been accomplished)?

I'm not saying that reforms shouldn't be fought for, but that a worker's revolution where workers take power into their own hands will almost immediately give workers more freedoms and allow workers to reform a whole slew of problems in society. This is because reforms only tackle the symptoms of an unjust system which is that the people who are the majority and do the labor that makes society run are not the ones in charge and in power; as long as they are not, thoes who are in power will want to keep workers divided and powerless.

Of corse we all know that after only a few short years, the revolutionary gains were lost in Russia. So it would seem to me that if you think that induvidual freedoms are important, you should be for the revolution, the problem is what happens once workers take power and how do they hold onto that and ensure that a counter-revolution from either within or without dosn't strip workers of the freedoms they've won.

It seems to me that your argument isn't about the "DOP" but is about "what made the USSR beome a totalitarian nightmare".

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:51 PM


On the actual topic of Dictatorship of the Proletariat, i think that the necessary curbing of civil liberties required to impliment this plan is unacceptable.


The "civil liberties" we have today is nothing more than the result of capitalism which has by its very existance created them. Socialism, or the lower stage of communism (whatever you prefer), will naturally add on these to fit the need of the proletariat in much a similar way that capitalism has created "civil liberties" for the bourgeoise to enjoy and of course remove some of the political freedoms that the bourgeoise is currently using to bend the will of the working class. Parlamentarism is a good example to illustrate my point here.

Did you know that after the 1917 revolution, the political power was concentrated in the Soviets? And these were naturally organized at workplaces, thus giving the Soviet working class de facto political power. This is what the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat means in its very essence, the working class holding the political power and liquidation of the class system, moving the productive forces beyond what is imaginable today. The dictatorship of the proletariat means progress, while capitalism with its "freedoms" will stand in its way, and will eventually slow down, or directly hinder the development of the productive forces. This is when capitalism will become obliterated, as history shows us that when a given socio-economic system is no longer able to develop the productive forces it is ripe for a revolutionary overturn. And what way is better to reach communism than to take advantage of the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat?
But.

The Soviet system didn't reach communism or even try to approach it after it all went horribly wrong. At some point the dictatorship of the protelariat went horribly wrong. I don't the Soviet model was a good idea. There is something not quite right with the Soviet model fitting into a dictatorship of a protelariat.

[Zingu]

Yes, lets see, when the Communards went lenient with the burgeoisie in 1871, the result was 40,000 working class men, women and children raped and massacured. Burgeoisie acted as spies as well for the French National Army. The Communards also let alot of the army and government flee Paris, only to organize and come marching right back with murderous revenge.

Now, imagine that with the CIA, fascists, Neo-Nazis and reactionaries thrown in as well.

Now, you don't want us to repress them?

[Floyce White]

Datura inoxia: "If you give me a way to create a communism without dictatorship of the proletariat, you can call me communist. Until then i'm a believer in socialism."

Well DI, this is your lucky day! You are going to enjoy reading my Antiproperty articles at

http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty

Here's an example you'll like from Alphabet Soup Spells Capitalism:

Is the purpose of working-class organization to get state power? No. The reverse is true. Governments are the armed thugs who defend the right of the propertied to exploit the dispossessed. The working class has every reason to smash all governments and to prevent their return. Socialists claim that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is a necessary transition from capitalism to communism. They assert that a “workers’ state” is an essential part of a “lower stage” when ever-smaller businesses gradually get nationalized. Eventually the state should “wither away” when “everybody owns everything.” Hah! Why not “nobody owns anything,” which is already a fact of life for the vast working-class majority? All that is needed is to immediately dispossess the rich through a revolution that abolishes all forms of property, public and private.

[KC]

On the actual topic of Dictatorship of the Proletariat, i think that the necessary curbing of civil liberties required to impliment this plan is unacceptable.

The ends do not justify the means

Absolute power corrupts absolutly (this i have been told since i was literally two)

But how could the proletariat as a class become corrupt? There is no power for them to take. A certain few might take power, but then it is no longer a communist revolution. The proletariat as a whole can't become corrupt for power like you say, as there isn't enough for the whole class to benefit (as the proletariat is a very large portion of the world's population).



It also in my observations that all of the communistic experiments have gone wrong at this point.

Which ones would those be?



Nor do i believe that we can have a sucessuful transition to Anarchy as is called for by those who support it.

Why not?



Therefore i am left with nowhere to go. Reformism is the only other option that i see, And that seem almost just as impossible.

You don't seem to understand dictatorship of the proletariat that well. Don't get hung up on the word "dictatorship" as it is a class dictatorship and not a bureaucratic one.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:59 PM

Nor do i believe that we can have a sucessuful transition to Anarchy as is called for by those who support it.

i think you have the theory all wrong here. you dont "transition" into anarchism you transition into communism.
Arg; don't confuse the guy more. Communism and anarchism are both classless societies and as far as I know, are the same thing.

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Nov 30 2005, 09:49 AM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Nov 30 2005, 09:49 AM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 04:59 PM

Nor do i believe that we can have a sucessuful transition to Anarchy as is called for by those who support it.

i think you have the theory all wrong here. you dont "transition" into anarchism you transition into communism.
Arg; don't confuse the guy more. Communism and anarchism are both classless societies and as far as I know, are the same thing. [/b]
I've been reading up on several different threads. One thing I'm convinced, no one on this site knows what the heck they are talking about. Check and see the philosophy section. Geeze I don't even know where to begin there that I never even bothered posting. Everyone here just likes to use big words they don't even know what they mean. This is all Star Trek. Good bye.

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:18 AM
But.

The Soviet system didn't reach communism or even try to approach it after it all went horribly wrong. At some point the dictatorship of the protelariat went horribly wrong. I don't the Soviet model was a good idea. There is something not quite right with the Soviet model fitting into a dictatorship of a protelariat.
Indeed, but you must recognize that the material conditions are all very different. Pre-revolutionary Russia was more backwards than what Pakistan is today, and add to that a bloody civil war and it becomes quite obvious that under these conditions socialism cannot exist, since the material conditions for socialism was lacking. After the industrialization of the Soviet Union, the material conditions were there, but due to the isolated characther of the 1917 revolution, the leadership had been completely corrupt. A political revolution could have fixed this, but obviously it did not occur.

Lesson one from the Soviet Union: Never attempt a one-party state solution.

[Forward Union]

Your profile states

If you give me a way to create a communism without dictatorship of the proletariat, you can call me communist. Until then i'm a believer in socialism.

Communism without dictatorship of the proletariat is called Anarchism, or Anarchist Communism.

m'kay?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 12:47 PM
Dictatorship of the proletariat literally means that the working class rules society.

Communism without the dictatorship of the proletariat is called impossible.

If the working class doesn't become the rulling class, there'll be no communism.
Wouldn't that be called "Dictatorship By The Proletariat"?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by jambajuice+Nov 30 2005, 10:20 AM--> (jambajuice @ Nov 30 2005, 10:20 AM)
Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 30 2005, 09:49 AM

[email protected] 29 2005, 04:59 PM

Nor do i believe that we can have a sucessuful transition to Anarchy as is called for by those who support it.

i think you have the theory all wrong here. you dont "transition" into anarchism you transition into communism.
Arg; don't confuse the guy more. Communism and anarchism are both classless societies and as far as I know, are the same thing.
I've been reading up on several different threads. One thing I'm convinced, no one on this site knows what the heck they are talking about. Check and see the philosophy section. Geeze I don't even know where to begin there that I never even bothered posting. Everyone here just likes to use big words they don't even know what they mean. This is all Star Trek. Good bye. [/b]
Well, how very elitist of you. I didn't say I was an authority on the issue, just that I got that impression. Anyway, don't forget to first thank yourself for people being so damn ignorant. Thanks for wasting space.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 30 2005, 01:33 PM

Communism without dictatorship of the proletariat is called Anarchism, or Anarchist Communism.

m'kay?
i dont agree with you there. under anarchism suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat class is still necessary for a period of time. we just wont use a "state" to do this.

[Guest1]

Since no cappies have responded, and this is an important thread addressing a pressing issue, I'm going to move it to the learning section. There it will receive more attention, and particularly answers from people with clear and coherent ideas.

[Lev]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is perhaps the most unfortunate and mis-understood phrase in marxist terminology... though i doubt changing it to the democratic rule of lovely people who only want good things to happen is accurate or will actually help the debate in any way....

The only freedom of existing society is "free" trade, all other freedom is subordinated to that....
under the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat (not by a party or a leader etc.) "free trade", or the freedom for capitalists to exploit their workers, propagate their ideas through mediums like newspapers, fox news etc., is subordinated to absolute democratic and economic freedom and equality.

I'm sure no-one would disagree that murdoch's empire should be destroyed and brought under the democratic control of the media workers who produce, write, type and all the other nescessary tasks of producing the news.

Coercion in the dictatorship is simply securing the will of the immense majority and suppressing the dying power of people who want the "right" to own a newspaper or own a factory or whatever.

Its still coercion but its exerted democratically against a formerly tyranical rich minority.

Because of this justified, democratic and accountable coercion against an absolute minority socialists call this stage the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as class antagonisms have not been obliterated. This doesn't mean that it will include repression and destruction of liberties, oppression is a daily reality for people under Capitalism and the dictatorship is merely the process of turning that situation on its head

[ComTom]

Yes I agree, what many people don't realize is that we can call democratic insitutions in US and Western Europe, Dictatorship of the Borgeoisis, for that is what the dictatorship of the prolateriat is. Its complete prolateriat control of the state in order to make a classless soceity.

[Storming Heaven]

I'm not an absolute expert on the theory, but to me the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' sounds ridiculous.

For example:

Dictatorship of the proletariat literally means that the working class rules society.


Doesn't communism aim for a classless society? How can one 'class' hold power if there are no classes? I think that it if revolution is broken down into a number of distinct steps, then we are in danger of sliding into a (perhaps mitigated) version of reformism.

Furthermore, a 'dictatorship' of any form requires a ruler (or perhaps a group of them). A ruler will create a ruling class. This ruling class will likely manipulate power to their own ends...I don't think any such system would destroy itself once it has reached a certain stage of development, simply because relinquishing power is seldom in the interest of the power-holder. And so the cycle of exploitation will begin all over again.

Indeed, power does corrupt, and one can only guess that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[KC]

Doesn't communism aim for a classless society?

Yes. It most certainly does.


How can one 'class' hold power if there are no classes? I think that it if revolution is broken down into a number of distinct steps, then we are in danger of sliding into a (perhaps mitigated) version of reformism.

Furthermore, a 'dictatorship' of any form requires a ruler (or perhaps a group of them). A ruler will create a ruling class. This ruling class will likely manipulate power to their own ends...I don't think any such system would destroy itself once it has reached a certain stage of development, simply because relinquishing power is seldom in the interest of the power-holder. And so the cycle of exploitation will begin all over again.

Socialism is basically the "phasing out of the state". It is time right after revolution when the proletariat takes control of society (this is, after all what happens after a proletarian revolution wins). Since the bourgeois class is an extreme minority of society in general, the majority of society (i.e. the proletariat) are in control of society. The proletarian class has control of society.

This can degenerate back to capitalism if (and ONLY if) a new minority arises to take power. Since the proletariat as a class has the "power", the proletariat will not abuse their supposed "power" to exploit other members of the proletariat (this is actually impossible, as no proletarian has more power than the next). The proletarian class won't use it's class powers against itself, and since there is no other class in existence, the proletariat will phase out the state and classes (and states) will cease to be. The former proletariat will then be known as society.

Dictatorship, in contemporary usage, refers to absolute rule by a leadership (usually one dictator) unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state. (Wikipedia)

Of course, we aren't talking about one dictator, but the class as a whole being the dictator. This means absolute rule by the proletarian class unrestricted by law, constitutions or other social and political factors within the "state" (state is in quotes because it doesn't really apply to the usage of dicator in "dicatorship of the proletariat"). So the ruler you speak of when you say "a dictatorship requires a ruler" the ruler you speak of is actually the whole proletarian class. The ruler will create a ruling class, but since it is the whole class as the ruler, it is the ruling class. The ruling class (the proletariat) will most certainly manipulate power to its own ends (the abolition of the state and classes).



Indeed, power does corrupt, and one can only guess that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When power is distributed evenly without a chance of people to gain more (or a will, for that matter), the concept of power (over others) is basically destroyed.

[Lev]

Lazar's comments are spot on.

Found it unussual that someone whos name is taken from the Paris Commune should want to reject the dictatorship of the proletariat?!

Storming Heaven was marx's description o the parisian workers who made the first attempt to build the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or a workers state in 1871 (i think)

[Seeker]

The DotP must not be allowed to be administered by a Party. The State Capitalist clusterfuck that was the USSR provides a fine example of why this is so. Private property was not abolished - ownership was merely transfered from one ruling class to another. Orwell's 1984 provides a second fine example.

Reformism is not a solution either. See Huxley's Brave New World. Without the capitalisim that society would be damn near perfect, and the experimental pure-Alpha island would have thrived, but the drive to consume resources to keep the economey chugging and the hierarchy that stems from that drive is just as suicidal in that world as it is in our own.


The DotP would then be what was left in the absence of exploitation of the proles. It is not a dictatorship at all, in the classic sense of the term, but the state of things when no individual has more "power" than another individual.

[enigma2517]

geez another one of these threads.

DotP is what happens when the proletariats run society, not the bourgeoise.

Where this happens with our without a socialist state is something we debate often but...DotP is literally what communism is formed out of. Anything less would be considered idealism at best.

Honestly, most people here just have no clue what the term actually means.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:00 AM
When power is distributed evenly without a chance of people to gain more (or a will, for that matter), the concept of power (over others) is basically destroyed.
Indeed, you explained it quite well. I would summarize thought: that the ruling class ceases to exist as illegitimate authority no longer plays a social role. When certain members of society no longer have exempt/special status, then an oppressor class no longer exists. This is as much a change of oppressive conditions as a change in public mentality/worldview (self-determination, as opposed to the coercive infringement of others).

[Djehuti]

The ends do not justify the means

That depends on what end and what means we are talking about.

Absolute power corrupts absolutly (this i have been told since i was literally two)

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not about giving absolute power to the few. It is about giving absolute power to the proletariat as a class.

It also in my observations that all of the communistic experiments have gone wrong at this point.

We have never seen any examples of the dictatorship of the proletariat. One of the reasons why states such as the Sovjet Union failed to develop communism is that they never developed the dictatorship of the proletariat, instead all power were centralized to the hands of the party, a small elite.

Therefore i am left with nowhere to go. Reformism is the only other option that i see, And that seem almost just as impossible.

Reformism has been proven failed a thousand times over.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:44 PM

It also in my observations that all of the communistic experiments have gone wrong at this point.

We have never seen any examples of the dictatorship of the proletariat. One of the reasons why states such as the Sovjet Union failed to develop communism is that they never developed the dictatorship of the proletariat, instead all power were centralized to the hands of the party, a small elite.



How do we prevent this from happening then, how can we keep such a promising idea alive without it being twisted into the authoritarian states that are the examples of "communism" today?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 5 2005, 03:00 PM
How do we prevent this from happening then, how can we keep such a promising idea alive without it being twisted into the authoritarian states that are the examples of "communism" today?

I see the answer as empowering individuals in the community. We need education for everyone and inclusion (democracy) of everyone in social decisions.
Just look at the failure of past movements (any movements) to reach out to children and liberate them from the process of indoctrination, this is what we need. These kinds of social problems cannot just "deal with themselves." We must make a cohesive effort to root out oppression and generally social predation.

In this way, we must stop individuals from taking control, and to come full circle, this means empowering everyone to the point where they can stop this. The stronger the community, the less likely that anyone can step on it and climb to the top. So the greatest opportunity to empower this movement, is with the children socializing now!

[KC]

It also in my observations that all of the communistic experiments have gone wrong at this point.

We have never seen any examples of the dictatorship of the proletariat. One of the reasons why states such as the Sovjet Union failed to develop communism is that they never developed the dictatorship of the proletariat, instead all power were centralized to the hands of the party, a small elite.

There actually was a dictatorship of the proletariat for a short while after the October Revolution. This was quickly dissolved, however, when the Soviets handed power over to the Bolsheviks.



How do we prevent this from happening then, how can we keep such a promising idea alive without it being twisted into the authoritarian states that are the examples of "communism" today?


A consolidated socialist state is Leninist idealism. Socialism is a process, not a state that a state can be in indefinitely. We prevent this from happening by revolting when material conditions are right. When material conditions are right, state revolutions will happen simultaneously. The proletariat must do this themselves without the leadership of a party. A party is a great tool to use to organize, to spread propaganda and to coordinate, but the party must never be placed above the proletariat. In fact, the party should be placed in the hands of the proletariat. They should have control of the party. This is how we keep the revolution from degenerating.



I see the answer as empowering individuals in the community. We need education for everyone and inclusion (democracy) of everyone in social decisions.
Just look at the failure of past movements (any movements) to reach out to children and liberate them from the process of indoctrination, this is what we need. These kinds of social problems cannot just "deal with themselves." We must make a cohesive effort to root out oppression and generally social predation.

In this way, we must stop individuals from taking control, and to come full circle, this means empowering everyone to the point where they can stop this. The stronger the community, the less likely that anyone can step on it and climb to the top. So the greatest opportunity to empower this movement, is with the children socializing now!


Yes. Right now the most important thing to do is educate. Educate!!! That is what will help the movement the most of all right now. Coordinate with parties in your area, or even just get a bunch of friends together, and perhaps hand out flyers or print a newspaper or organize a discussion on communism and leave it open for everyone. We're organizing something called an Ice Cream Social(ism) where we're going to serve ice cream and educate people on communism. Do something like that; it will help the movement the most. Educate!!!

[Delirium]

So the soviets and the collectives during the spanish civil war were a more accurate representation of dictatorship of the proletariot than anything else?

[Magraheed]

You guys have got some nerve i swear lol

Most of you dont even know what the hell your talking about, who here is a proletarian? Damm just shut up, yall probally some richs kids who read a couple of books and who have never taken part in any revolutionary action!! Fucking Armchair revolutionarys


Anyway i agree that the dictatorship of the proletariat is unacceptable.


Peace :D

[Guest1]

Uhh... What are you talking about?

[ComradeRed]

I am sorry, but there are a number of long quotes in this reply. And for some reason the quote indentations won't work :(

It was actually Lenin who put the dictatorship back in the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Consider these quotes:

When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party . . . we say, 'Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position . . .' (Lenin The Collected Works, vol. 29, p. 535)


in all capitalist countries . . . the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian organisation. It can be exercised only by a vanguard. (Trade Unions, the Present Situation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm) by Lenin)


the correct understanding of a Communist of his tasks[/i]" lies in "correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully seize power, when it will be able during and after this seizure of power to obtain support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian toiling masses, and when, thereafter, it will be able to maintain, consolidate, and extend its rule, educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the toilers." Note, the vanguard (the party) seizes power, not the masses. Indeed, he stressed that the "very presentation of the question -- 'dictatorship of the Party or dictatorship of the class, dictatorship (Party) of the leaders or dictatorship (Party) of the masses?' is evidence of the most incredible and hopeless confusion of mind" and "[t]o go so far . . . as to draw a contrast in general between the dictatorship of the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders, is ridiculously absurd and stupid. (Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, p. 35, p. 27 and p. 25)

And in 1920


"the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts . . . that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard . . . Such is the basic mechanism of the dictatorship of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the essentials of transitions from capitalism to communism . . . for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian organisation. (Collected Works, vol. 32, p. 21)

It should be noted that Lenin does not represent Marx's thoughts on the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx and Engels actually criticized such idiocy.


If conditions have changed in the case of war between nations, this is no less true in the case of the class struggle. The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul.
Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm) by Engels


The Blanquists [in the Paris Commune] fared no better. Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only to seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. This conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government.
On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm) by Engels.


All revolutions up to the present day have resulted in the displacement of the rule of one class by the rule of another; but all ruling classes up to now have been only small minorities in relation to the ruled mass of the people.

As a rule, after the first great success, the victorious minority split; one half was satisfied with what had been gained, the other wanted to go still further, and put forward new demands, which, partly at least, were also in the real or apparent interest of the great mass of the people. In isolated cases these more radical demands were actually forced through, but often only for the moment; the more moderate party would regain the upper hand, and what had been won most recently would wholly or partly be lost again; the vanquished would then cry treachery or ascribe their defeat to accident.
Introduction to Karl Marx's The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm) by Engels


Incidentally, if the bourgeoisie is politically, that is, by its state power, “maintaining injustice in property relations”, it is not creating it. The “injustice in property relations” which is determined by the modern division of labour, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws. If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie. The terror in France could thus by its mighty hammer-blows only serve to spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism from French soil. The timidly considerate bourgeoisie would not have accomplished this task in decades. The bloody action of the people thus only prepared the way for it. In the same way, the overthrow of the absolute monarchy would be merely temporary if the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeois class had not yet become ripe. Men build a new world for themselves...from the historical achievements of their declining world. In the course of their development they first have to produce the material conditions of a new society itself, and no exertion of mind or will can free them from this fate.
Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality 1847 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm) by Marx

[Guest1]

Fixed, you closed, but didn't open the quotation for "and in 1920".

[KC]

You guys have got some nerve i swear lol

Most of you dont even know what the hell your talking about, who here is a proletarian? Damm just shut up, yall probally some richs kids who read a couple of books and who have never taken part in any revolutionary action!! Fucking Armchair revolutionarys


Anyway i agree that the dictatorship of the proletariat is unacceptable.


Peace

Instead of criticizing everyone, why don't you post an intelligent response? Why don't you explain your reasoning behind your position so we can continue this debate?

[Axel1917]

For people interested in learning about the Marxist theory of the state and such, I would highly recommend Lenin's The State and Revolution. Online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...terev/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)

[KC]

For people interested in learning about the Marxist theory of the state and such, I would highly recommend Lenin's The State and Revolution. Online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...terev/index.htm

No, that isn't Marxist theory. That is Leninist theory.

[Bolshevist]

The State and the Revolution is nothing more than a summarization of what Marx and Engels position on the state was in the aftermath of capitalism, ie. the transitional period between capitalism and socialism. After that, the state is transformed to a merely administrative organ, and as a result of class society fading away the need for a state to have a monopoly on organized violence will cease to be. This is what we describe as the "higher stage of communism", as Marx put it in his "Critique of the Gotha Program". How is this only Leninist (as if Leninism something apart from Marxism...), but not Marxist theory aswell?

[Storming Heaven]

I'm backtracking a little here, but why have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the first place? Why not abolish the relations of property (and so the capitalist class) etc. as part of the revolution. Why is there the need for some sort of state to do this?

[Bolshevist]

History is not written over night..

Class society, which has existed for as long as the humans settled down from a nomadic lifestyle to a more stationary one (cultivating the land, herding cattle to developing industry and so on), does not happen over night. The contradictions within society needs to be smoothed out so to speak. This is the task of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

If what you write are correct, ie. the people liquidating the entire property-class during the course of the revolution, then we could go straight to communism. Unfortunately, this is not the case - If it were, why did the Russian civil war break out? (To use one example of the bourgeoisie surviving the revolution)

[rebelworker]

I cant stand lenninist who dont get it.

The working Class must take power.
When we do we must defend ourselves from reactionaries(in this i include lenninists along with all pother breeds of authoritarians)

The Russian revolutin failed the moment workers trusted the bolshevik party and let workers direct democracy fall into the hands of an eleit band of petty burgeoise intellectuals.

At theend of the Russian revolution anarchists in exile learned from this experience and wrote"The organizational platform of libertarian communists".
It criticised both the Bolshevik Dictatorship(not dic of the prol) and the disorganization of anarchist and other "true" revolutionaries who allowed this to happen.

70 years later the "Soviet Union" "Communist" Party dictatorship finally crumbled. history unmistakable proved the anarchists right. Unfortunately because of the stupid debate around the issue of the party the rest of the revolutionary left was bastardised to a mere shadow of its former glory.

GET A GRIP PEOPLE
lininism is BAD
stalinism is BAD
maois is BAD

They are ALL FUNDAMENTALY counterevolutionary and routed in petty burgoise ideas of state controll and management of the masses.

Yes Im a proletarian

Yes im an Anti State or Anarchist Communist

Yes I am building a revolutionary organization(not a party that sees revolution as limited to the seizure of state power and controll OVER the working class)

Yes I work with other revolutionaries(as longas they dont want to repeat the follies of the past and betray the revolution and kill me: that includes you if you support Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Castro or any of ther ilk)

I hope this clears things up for people who have questions about "what went wrong in russia"

I recomend checking out www.anarkismo.net if you are interested in a genuinely revolutionary"pro workingclass" revolutionary Internaional.

Also check out "Platformist" Anarchist Communist Organizations of the www.broadleft.org webpage

There i didnt even plug my own organization Directly....

In Solidarity,
(one of many)rebelworker

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917) For people interested in learning about the Marxist theory of the state and such, I would highly recommend Lenin's The State and Revolution. Online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...terev/index.htm[/b] No, I agree with Axel1917, The State and Revolution is perhaps the only Marxist book "written" by Lenin.

Take into consideration that it was essentially a compilation (a copy/paste) of everything Marx and Engels ever wrote about post-revolutionary society, it was a very Marxist book. However, by the actions taken by Lenin in his post-revolutionary society (e.g. establishing a professional military rather than a workers' militia, etc.), it seems to go very much against Leninism.


Storming Heaven
I'm backtracking a little here, but why have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the first place? Why not abolish the relations of property (and so the capitalist class) etc. as part of the revolution. Why is there the need for some sort of state to do this? It depends how you look at things. I'll assume that you are not too well read in Marxism.

In terms of the bourgeois social scientist, Marx created a "method" of "historiagraphy" (the study of history) on materialism as opposed to the dominant Idealism of his time. He explained history as the "struggle" of classes, e.g. the Roman empire (central despotism) fell to the Barbarians (feudal society). The feudal society emerged, which then struggled with the up and coming capitalist society (look into the Religious wars, the Burghers, and so on); Protestants (capitalists) against catholics (the feudal society).

Max Weber, an opponent to Marxism, is --in my opinion-- pretty Marxian in his book The Protestant Work Ethic explaining the Protestants are more productive because in several branches of the Protestant movement there was a belief that if you got rich, you are predestined to go to heaven. Thus everyone works hard. Thus every protestant is rich. Odd reasoning, but very Marxian to say the least.

Well, anyways, if you look into the religious wars, the capitalists didn't simply emerge and overthrow feudalism. The feudal minidespots didn't simply overthrow the despots, and so on. There was struggle. There was even regression (look at post 1848 eastern Europe!). The paradigms didn't magically change.

I think the best explanation of this though would be (surprisingly) in Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. A good read, I might add.

I am still unsure about whether that is correct or not, I am still debating on how we should think of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It should first be revolutionary, and avoid (nay, abolish) all signs of capitalist society.

Men (in the U$) usually don't understand this analogy, but would you rather be a slave, a prostitute to support yourself, or free?

Something the whole left agrees on is that being free is best.

[Morpheus]

Max Weber, an opponent to Marxism, is --in my opinion-- pretty Marxian in his book The Protestant Work Ethic explaining the Protestants are more productive because in several branches of the Protestant movement there was a belief that if you got rich, you are predestined to go to heaven. Thus everyone works hard. Thus every protestant is rich. Odd reasoning, but very Marxian to say the least.

That's not Marxian at all, it's historical idealism. Historical materialism, including the Marxist version, views material elements (like class struggle, the development of the means of production, the enviroment, geography, social structure, etc.) as the dominant motor in history while ideas just reflect these factors. Idealism does the opposite: it views ideas & attitudes (like religion or political ideologies) as the main motor force of history. Material elements are thought to reflect these ideas & attitudes. Weber's theory, even if correct, is still idealist because he views attitudes & beliefs like the protestant work ethic as the primary motor of change. Materialist explanations for the rise of capitalism, in contrast, generally emphasize things like the development of the means of production, class struggle, the evolution of the state, etc. and view things like the protestant work ethic as reflecting these changes.

Just because you reject the "great man" theory of history doesn't necessarily make you a Marxist.

[RedSabine]

A dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible, because the proletariat whould not allow themeselves to be dominated by themeselves, that's just stupid.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 08:34 PM
A dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible, because the proletariat whould not allow themeselves to be dominated by themeselves, that's just stupid.
Yeah... you don't know what you are talking about. Please read the thread.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Weber's theory, even if correct, is still idealist because he views attitudes & beliefs like the protestant work ethic as the primary motor of change. I simply took the Protestant Work Ethic arising from the nearing capitalist societies, it was only a tool to end feudalism.

And if you look at the work, he essentially says that Protestants are richer than the Catholic nations.

Ignoring the reactionary bullshit in the majority of his book, those two premises seem materialistic to me: capitalists are richer than feudal despots.

I guess I just materialized what he was trying to say ;)


A dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible, because the proletariat whould not allow themeselves to be dominated by themeselves, that's just stupid. No, it is not the dictatorship over the proletariat, it is a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Just as capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, not the dictatorship over the bourgeoisie.

It's just a matter of wording.

[commie anarchist rebel]

i do not agree with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat becauz i feel that there are other ways of making the transition into true communism like a direct democracy becauz its happend one to many times wen the dictaorship of the proletariat is used to seize power over the ppl take stalin for example

[anomaly]

Originally posted by commie anarchist [email protected] 20 2005, 09:31 PM
i do not agree with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat becauz i feel that there are other ways of making the transition into true communism like a direct democracy becauz its happend one to many times wen the dictaorship of the proletariat is used to seize power over the ppl take stalin for example
What you wrote doesn't make any sense, if I may be so frank. How can we use 'direct democracy' to make the transition to communism if we have no direct democracy at present? Are you assuming the existence of a 'semi-permanent', 'socialist' state? If you are, than say so, for there are many problems with that idea. But the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' has nothing to do with Stalin, nor has it anything to do with any individual.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is simply what it says: the rule (dictatorship) of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. It is quite neccesary, also. How are the bourgeoisie to be defeated if we allow them to still have 'some' power? One cannot simply 'declare' the proletariat as 'equal' to the bourgeoisie; the bourgeoisie would fight us then because they would have everything to lose and nothing to gain if they accepted this 'equality' (or whatever else we might do instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat).

Therefore, we must have a dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat must defeat the bourgeoisie, and in doing so, must rule over them for a period of time, however small this time may be. It is wrong to assume that this 'ruling over' period must materialize as 'socialism'. It could just be that the proletariat has the guns and the bourgeoise do not!