critical of the dictatorship of the prolatariat

[ReD_ReBeL]

Of course the theory of the 'dictatorship of the prolatariat' truely represents the workers. But i have a feeling that in practice the 'dictatorship of the prolatariat' will only result in repressive 1 man or elitist rule over the country. the Soviet Union's model(and other socialist countries) of the dictatorship of the prolatariat has somewhat always came from above and not from below , thus showing the elitist nature of the former dictatorship of the prolatariat.
Can you please give me your opinions?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Third world experiments should not be considered representative of what will happen in 1st world revolutions. DOP does not have to be centralized nor should it be.

[ReD_ReBeL]

yes, i dont believe Russia had the proper material conditions to go straight to Socialism , i believe in the Menshevik view that capitalism needed to be restored to get the economy going etc and then switch to socialism then to communism. This was even shown when Lenin had to restore a bit of capitalism.

[Lamanov]

DOP was never actually implemented, with few exceptions which prove the tendency towards it (1871 Paris, 1917 Petrograd and 1921 Kronstadt).

When you get "critical" of it make sure to know what it exactly means and how it becomes what it is (what it should be, that is).

[Discused before... allot :P ]

[Morpheus]

All states inevitably become instruments of minority rule, including "dictatorships of the proletariat." If capitalism is abolished, but the state isn't then you just end up with a bureaucratic ruling class (see my article Authoritarian Socialism: A Geriatric Disorder (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Socialism.html) for a longer explanation). This was predicted by anarchists beforehand and has happened in every single case it's been tried, with no exceptions. The notion that the only thing that went wrong is that it was tried only in less industrialized countries is an ad hoc explanation invented after the fact to cover up the failings of their theory. By the Menshevik theory the Bolsheviks either should have never come to power in the first place, or their regime should have quickly collapsed. That didn't happen - instead these regimes developed bureaucratic ruling classes that industrialized their nations. Had they abolished the state, instead of creating a new one, history would have been very different. There's no reason why the lack of large scale industry must lead to the bureaucratic totalitarian states that all attempts at creating a DoP have lead to.

The notion that none of the past DoP's were "real" DoPs is also just an excuse made up to avoid empirical evidence that DoP's always lead to bureaucratic dictatorships. The same kind of logic can be used to excuse anything: a capitalist could claim that currently existing capitalism isn't "real" capitalism, for example. The fact is that Lenin, Mao & others genuinely believed they were setting up a real Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The nature of that institution, however, is such that it always becomes a bureaucratic ruling class no matter what its founders believe. As I said before, this was predicted by the anarchist theory of the state decades before any DoP was actually implemented and before any of these excuses were invented. As this falsifiable prediction has been repeatedly tested and shown to be true that makes it much more scientific than the unfalsifiable excuses made up to defend it.