Dictatorship of the proletarian?

[R_P_A_S]

I keep seen this when I read about a communist revolution and such. I don't really understand that meaning of this. can someone break it down in plain english?

thank you

[RedAnarchist]

DotP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Well it's supposed to just be a term for when the revolution has ended and the protalariat have taken over. As the working class as a whole, they start employing communism and stopping capitalism. Lenin took it literally to mean an actual dictator who destroys capitalism because the working class as a whole is too stupid to do it themselves as councils.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:35 PM
Lenin took it literally to mean an actual dictator who destroys capitalism because the working class as a whole is too stupid to do it themselves as councils.
:blink: Where on earth have you been fed this drivel

Some of you should actually read some Lenin instead of believing everything the Anarchists say on this board

(My apologies if you simply misunderstood what Lenin meant)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Well let's look at the USSR. Now let's compare it to what I stated. You think that the USSR was a working class paradise or a totalitarian sham?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:00 PM
Well let's look at the USSR. Now let's compare it to what I stated. You think that the USSR was a working class paradise or a totalitarian sham?
Did the USSR destroy capitalism? No.

You are going to read some Lenin now.


What, then, is the relation of this dictatorship to democracy?

We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to communism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence.

-Lenin, State and Revolution, Ch.6

Even Anarchists like Rosa Luxemburg use the word and advocate the DoP!


This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.
- Rosa Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution


The concepts of the DoP do indeed vary between Luxemburg and Lenin, however, they do agree that the DoP is the essence of revolutionary democracy.

Now, tell me where you can empirically prove that concept of the DoP is a "totalitarian sham"?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I'm not against the DOP, I'm just against the DOP being taken literally meaning an actual singualr dictator which becomes a 'totalitarian sham' like the USSR.

[bezdomni]

I'm pretty sure every real communist is against a "singular dictator which becomes a 'totalitarian sham' like the USSR"...mostly becuase it only reinforces class antagonism.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:18 PM
I'm not against the DOP, I'm just against the DOP being taken literally meaning an actual singualr dictator which becomes a 'totalitarian sham' like the USSR.
Something that nobody has ever pretended.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:18 PM
I'm not against the DOP, I'm just against the DOP being taken literally meaning an actual singualr dictator which becomes a 'totalitarian sham' like the USSR.
Lenin idn't take it like that either. But he was involved in a War, well, two, ending WWI and the Civil war. If he went the anarchist route of letting everyone do what they pretty much wanted, with out a central body to govern and democratic centralism, he probaly wouldn't have been able to come out winning either task.

[Nachie]

clownpenis, Rosa Luxemburg was not an "anarchist".

On topic: Defining a Dialogue of Revolution: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html)

[bezdomni]

"Libertarian communist" or some derivative thereof.

[Leo]

Here's what I wrote (and got zero replies :( ) on the first stage of communism, i.e the dictatorship of the proletariat:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50476

[Janus]

Leo Uillean, that was a good post. I think the reason why no one really responded was that it was very thorough so not much to respond too and others were just too lazy. Would you rather have a bunch of spam in response?

[Leo]

Leo Uillean, that was a good post.

Thanks :)


Would you rather have a bunch of spam in response?

It might have been better actually, because only 64 people read it so far, so even with a bunch of spam, it would be in the frontlines (at least for some time) and more people could have read it. Oh well...