Love Of The Dictatorship Of Party/man

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What is it with the love of of the dictatorship of party/one man rule?

Why are so many, especially leninists, stalinists, maoists, but also marxists, attracted to the dictatorship of the party/one man rule?

[Connolly]

I would consider myself closer to Marxism than anything else and I dont believe in what you say - nor did Marx.

As to why others believe it.

They wont give you a strait answer - they will obscure this intention by "vanguard", "most advanced members of the proletariat", "elected and recallable by the workers" etc etc.

IMO - they are attracted to the "personality" cult of an ideology like Leninism - I was too at one point :rolleyes: Not just that - but they see the "successes" of this ideology in practice previously in history - these ideologies being those such as Leninism. What they seem to not notice - they were not socialist revolutions, and therefore the ideology they folllow are no more valid than that of an anarchists today - since neither have had actual revolutionary success in an advanced capitalist country such as we have now.

Their "attraction" is that of historical results - not that those results showed anything but to achieve capitalism another way.

Maybe future revolutions will have a dictator - maybe it wont. We can come to conclusions and reject what we find as illogical however.

I find it complete rubbish based on what I can conclude.

[Enragé]

most trots at least in my opinion arent like that, and perhaps that goes for some others too. They just think its "necessary".

[Whitten]

I support the Vanguard, but thats not dictatorship. Even in the soviet union, people were able to vote for non-party candidates.

[rebelworker]

candidates elected in trade unions, factroy committees and soviets were by 1920 all subordinate to the rule of the party and the committees it set up.

Trotsky in particular was very much in favor of one man management (as was Lenin, but he was a little bit less fanatical about it).

It is a myth that the bolsheviks stod for the dictatorship of the Proletariate, they were for the dictatroship of the Party including one man management of industry, the militarization of the labour force and the like.

Its true that they beleived that the party was acting in the interests of the proletariate, but the party was run by career politicians and well before Lenins death there was invcreasing oposition to the path being taken by the party by the working class segments within the party.

More and more revolutionaries are coming to admit that the dictatorship of the party is not the same thing as the dictatorship of the working class. Trotslyists, Stalinists and the like continue to miss this point.

I personally feel that for many adhearants to Bolshevism there is a deep rooted personal will to rule that lies at the heart of the majority of supporters of a Party or one man rule. They will in this vision of revolution become the new ruling class (of course in the interest of the noble but incapable masses) and direct benefactors of a urocratic dictatorship.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 23 2006, 06:00 PM
IMO - they are attracted to the "personality" cult of an ideology like Leninism - I was too at one point :rolleyes:


Fine, but you don't have to transfer your previous sycophantic hero-worshipping tendencies to the rest of us.

I know of not one serious Marxist-Leninist or trotskyist who argues for the dictatorship of a party or a single individual.

The premise of this thread is slanderous.

[Whitten]

I see the vanguard as being just an option. The people have a choice to vote for the vanguard party representitive, or for an independent candidate (no blocking of candidature without strong evidence and court ruling, being openly capitalist/facsist would also disqualify them). I like this idea as it remains true to people's democracy, while providing a "recommended by the party" option. This way if the Party remains popular and works well for the people, they will retain a good percentage of seats, if they start to be bogged down by beurocracy, or take actions that are opposed by the people, the party will be forced to change. If the party really becomes that corrupt, then they will easily lose any majority they may have had, and eventually any remaining power.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:43 PM
What is it with the love of of the dictatorship of party/one man rule?

Why are so many, especially leninists, stalinists, maoists, but also marxists, attracted to the dictatorship of the party/one man rule?
Personally I'm not.

The important thing in a socialist/communist society is to get people who are skilled in a particular way, to work in the area they are best at, with no 'perks' or 'strings' attached.

There should be no need at all for an overall 'boss'.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:46 PM
I support the Vanguard, but thats not dictatorship. Even in the soviet union, people were able to vote for non-party candidates.
Soviet democracy more of a sham than modern Western democracy. You could vote for representatives who still had the ability to oppress you. There was no direct action capability on the part of the proletariat to control the fate of government, to my knowledge. There wasn't even direct action capability to elect the individuals at the highest level of government - it was all indirect bureaucracy.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+Jul 23 2006, 11:58 PM--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ Jul 23 2006, 11:58 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 05:46 PM
I support the Vanguard, but thats not dictatorship. Even in the soviet union, people were able to vote for non-party candidates.
Soviet democracy more of a sham than modern Western democracy. You could vote for representatives who still had the ability to oppress you. There was no direct action capability on the part of the proletariat to control the fate of government, to my knowledge. There wasn't even direct action capability to elect the individuals at the highest level of government - it was all indirect bureaucracy. [/b]
Thats not entirely true. As of the 1936 soviet constitution, the people had a direct vote towards their representitive in the supreme soviet.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:20 AM
Thats not entirely true. As of the 1936 soviet constitution, the people had a direct vote towards their representitive in the supreme soviet.
Yeah....and if it wasn't one of Stalin's friends he got killed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If someone is doing good, and faithfuly and honestly representing those who elected them, and they're subject to recall at any time, there's no reason why there should be a "time limit" on their term.

I'm not saying that this has always been the case in socialist countries (especially the bureaucratic socialist countries).. in some the leaders weren't elected by, or accountable, those they claimed to represent; but there's a real fetish around here with how many years someone serves in a certain position..

[Connolly]

Fine, but you don't have to transfer your previous sycophantic hero-worshipping tendencies to the rest of us.

Im simply stating a very common characteristic amongst young Leninist followers. Its not something entirely unique to me, but widespread.

NWOG asked why - I gave a valid reason.

Did I not answer the question by stating one of the reasons?

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 23 2006, 07:41 PM


I know of not one serious Marxist-Leninist or trotskyist who argues for the dictatorship of a party or a single individual.

The premise of this thread is slanderous.
Then why do they follow people/ theories that did.

Trotsky was all about one man management, and in practice ll leninist parties that I have come in contact with or read about have in practice been run by individuals or a small clique.

This is a structuarl and theorectical problem with bolshevism and needs to be aknowledged.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by rebelworker+Jul 25 2006, 02:25 PM--> (rebelworker @ Jul 25 2006, 02:25 PM)
Citizen [email protected] 23 2006, 07:41 PM


I know of not one serious Marxist-Leninist or trotskyist who argues for the dictatorship of a party or a single individual.

The premise of this thread is slanderous.
Then why do they follow people/ theories that did.

Trotsky was all about one man management, and in practice ll leninist parties that I have come in contact with or read about have in practice been run by individuals or a small clique.

This is a structuarl and theorectical problem with bolshevism and needs to be aknowledged. [/b]
I disagree. If the Vanguard party runs in elections along with independent candidates, then they will be forced to stay on track by the threat of a shrinking majority. The organisation within the party will reflect what is happening externally

[rebelworker]

But what happens when the Party wins a majority in some area?

Do they then have a mandate to rule at the cost of workplace democracy?

This is what the Bolsheviks did in the russian example.

Independent candidates had to be aproved by Bolshevik comittees even in the unions.

The party became "the proletariate" so whayever they did was the will of the workers, or atleast in the workers long tenr best interest.

Democratic centralism also leads to leadershipcliques who essentially run the whole party, and control the party aparatus to overide internal dissent.

This is exactly what happened with oposition groups in 1920, when it became increasingly clear even to working class bolshevik party members that the dictatorship of the professional revolutionary class was taking over.

A more recent example of the Black Panther Party in the US shows the same lack of internal democracy that comes form having a central comittee. As much damage was done to the party by Leadership Battles as any exterior attacks. The leadership is also easily manipulated by sofisticated goiverment cointer insurgancy programs as was the case with the panthers. In a more decentralised model this is harder as the decision making process is either much more open (when above ground) or less suseptible to manipulation of one single body (when underground),

Discussions I have had with former Panthers and Iranian Guerillas has confirmed this more up to date analysis.

[KC]

A more recent example of the Black Panther Party in the US shows the same lack of internal democracy that comes form having a central comittee.

Having a central committee itself doesn't create this lack of internal democracy. Perhaps giving the central committee too much power would, but the fact of having a central committee alone doesn't do this.

I see no problem with having a central committee as long as it's subordinate to the party congress.

[LSD]

What is it with the love of of the dictatorship of party/one man rule?

I think that that's an important question and one that far too few Leninists are actually willing to confront.

Marx, after all, for all his talk of party and leadership, never endorsed one-man or one-party dictatorship. He was somewhat vague on exactly how a "socialist" state should best be run, but I think it's fair to assume that he had in mind some sort of democratic system.

Obviously, though, none of the "Marxist" states have yet to actually live up to that ideal and that really begs the question why?

Personally, I think it goes back to Lenin. The fact is the Bolshevik party was not your ordinary communist party. I'm not one to harp on the specific details of the Russian Revolution, but I think that it's important to remember that the Bolsheviks were rather uniquely authoritarian in their management.

Unfortunately, I think that many people learned the wrong lesson from the October Revolution. Far too many communist parties starting thinkin that in order to gain power, one must be "as disciplined" as the Bolsheviks.

The thing is though, the Bolsheviks had something that no future party ever would: Lenin. The fact is Lenin was a genius. In terms of management, in terms of politics, in terms of social understanding, in terms of pure political intuition, he is unrivaled by any communist leader before or since.

With this kind of phenomenal leadership, the Bolsheviks could afford to let their leadership make all the rules. It wasn't "how they were running things" that let them outsmart their oponents, it was who was running things.

If the Bolsheviks had been run democratically, there can really be no doubt that Lenin would have been in charge anyway and that his line would have dominated. The fact that they happened to be run "democratically centralist" is just an accident of history, and one that has been repeated far too often.

If communism is about liberating people than it needs to run its party on libertine principles. No more "leader cults" or "centralist" bullshit about "iron discipline".

Once you allow one person or one cadre to have absolute control, you lose all ability to check them. You lose the very mass consciousness that is at the heart of Marxism.

Stalin was only able to rise to power becasue he operated within an already authoritarian system. If he had been subject to democratic controlls, he never would have been able to excersize the power he ultimately did.

It's the same way that Hitler was able to exploit the power of the Weimar Presidency to deal his way into power.

Personal power perpetuates itself. Lenin might have been an able leader but Stalin wasn't and we all know the result. The only way that Stalin could have been prevented from rising was if the precedent was never set, if the cult of the individual had never been established.

Obviously we need to make damned sure that we don't repeat these mistakes.


I support the Vanguard, but thats not dictatorship.

No it isn't. But the vanguard party far too often is a dictatorship in all but name.


If someone is doing good, and faithfuly and honestly representing those who elected them, and they're subject to recall at any time, there's no reason why there should be a "time limit" on their term.

Yes there is.

"New blood" is an invaluable resource when it comes to setting social policy. One person, no matter how skilled or smart, is simply not able to approach problems from more than one perspective. Shuffling positions and getting new people into top jobs every so often is essential to a functional state.

The optimum solutoin, of course, is not to have a state at all and to allow every member of society to have a direct say on policy. That way every possible perspective is heard from and every possible "leader" can have their say.

But even if you're unable to move away from the idea of institutional government, at least try to run that government as democratically as possible. One person in power for 50 years is simply not democratic. No one is that popular and, more importantly, no one is that good at the job.

A republic is not a democracy, by its nature it limits the absolute will of the people. Accordingly, there is nothing inconsistant with limiting how long "leaders" may remain in power. Exactly how short those limits should be is a debatable subject, but that they are needed is, I think, undeniable.

Power has a culture all its own; stopping that culture from taking hold means a regular changing of the guard.

Sometimes that may mean that good people have to step down for a while, but there are always more where they came from. And besides, they can always serve in some other area.

It's not like there aren't jobs that need doing outside of government. ;)

[KC]

Once you allow one person or one cadre to have absolute control, you lose all ability to check them. You lose the very mass consciousness that is at the heart of Marxism.


Do you think there's anything wrong with party rule as long as the party is democratic and is organized based on proletarian demands? Granted, there are things that marxists disagree on; however, if the party is built upon basic Marxist principles, then do you think there is anything wrong with this?

[LSD]

Do you think there's anything wrong with party rule as long as the party is democratic and is organized based on proletarian demands?

Yes.

I don't think that revolutionary leadership should come out the "party". Political parties attract far too many academic "leftists" and petty-bourgeois ideologues for any kind of "party leadership" to be truly proletarian.

As I see it, the only way for the proletariat to organize itself (which it must of course do) is throught revolutionary unions. Popular industrial unions, democratically and equitably run can represent the interests of their constituent workers far better than any career-politician "party delegate".

A true international workers' movement must be predicated on international labour cohesion, not party politics!

[KC]

I don't think that revolutionary leadership should come out the "party". Political parties attract far too many academic "leftists" and petty-bourgeois ideologues for any kind of "party leadership" to be truly proletarian.

That's why the party should be proletarian-only. ;)

[Karl Marx's Camel]

no blocking of candidature without strong evidence and court ruling, being openly capitalist/facsist would also disqualify them

How long will it take before the one's not following "the true party line" will be disqualified?

How long will it take before democratic socialists/progressive social democrats with a heavy social profile (like say Chavez) will be branded as "anti-communist" and then disqualified?


If the people have no interest in capitalist/fascist leaders, then they won't be elected. So what is the problem?

If the people elect capitalist/fascist leaders, that is the the people's choice, no? Should we not let capitalists/fascists expose themselves and their views to everyone?

I'm pretty sure some people in the USSR said the same thing, "let's waste these fuckers, but, not without court ruling and "evidence". It kind of start rolling from then on because the court is ruled by people who adhere to the "true party line" and so they will judge the victim "guilty" everytime a person sit infront of the court.

And BANG!, you got yourself a Stalin.

[Whitten]

How long will it take before the one's not following "the true party line" will be disqualified?

The Courts wouldnt be appointed by the party.


How long will it take before democratic socialists/progressive social democrats with a heavy social profile (like say Chavez) will be branded as "anti-communist" and then disqualified?

Straight away, if we're in a socialist society, then social democrats would be revisionist.


If the people have no interest in capitalist/fascist leaders, then they won't be elected. So what is the problem?

Its far to idealistiic to assume that as soon as the revolution to the DotP has taken place, that both a) people will not be interested in such leaders and b) people are inteligent enough to avoid them. That time will come, just not straight away.


If the people elect capitalist/fascist leaders, that is the the people's choice, no? Should we not let capitalists/fascists expose themselves and their views to everyone?

Dont over estimate the intelligence of the masses. They are making their own votes, they're making votes based on which bourgeois properganda they are exposed to. We have a Dictatorship of the Proletariate for a reason.


I'm pretty sure some people in the USSR said the same thing, "let's waste these fuckers, but, not without court ruling and "evidence". It kind of start rolling from then on because the court is ruled by people who adhere to the "true party line" and so they will judge the victim "guilty" everytime a person sit infront of the court.

You would maintain that under certain circumstances any such system may become unfair. But what about thetrue communists who would get screwed over by the foolish/brainwashed majority who would elsewise re-elect the bourgeois. You cant magicly expect everyone to become pro-communism and intelligent.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by rebelworker+Jul 25 2006, 03:25 PM--> (rebelworker @ Jul 25 2006, 03:25 PM)
Citizen [email protected] 23 2006, 07:41 PM


I know of not one serious Marxist-Leninist or trotskyist who argues for the dictatorship of a party or a single individual.

The premise of this thread is slanderous.
Then why do they follow people/ theories that did.

Trotsky was all about one man management, and in practice ll leninist parties that I have come in contact with or read about have in practice been run by individuals or a small clique.

This is a structuarl and theorectical problem with bolshevism and needs to be aknowledged.[/b]
There's a difference in asserting that Leninism as a strategic concept contains the possibility of dictatorship; or that Marxists convinced of some form of Leninism are in favour of a singular dictatorship after the revolution.

Leninism (or more appropriately Bolshevism) should properly be understood as a strategy of party building as preparation for the revolution; plus a theory of imperialism which negates the 'stages theory' of 2nd International economism. It is not a model of post-revolutionary government. Therefore, the political decisions made by the Bolshevik leadership after October need to be separated off from the true meaning of Leninism.

As I've repeated on this forum, any perspective which traces the roots of the eventual forms of dictatorship after October to only some 'original sin' in the theories of Lenin, but disregards the more overwhelming material and political forces which beseiged the revolution, is mere idealism.

Likewise, to take Trotsky's authoritarian position on one man management in, first the military, secondly in industry, and conflate it into some kind of general theory, fails to appreciate the difference between theory and practical politics.

Whitten:


You would maintain that under certain circumstances any such system may become unfair. But what about thetrue communists who would get screwed over by the foolish/brainwashed majority who would elsewise re-elect the bourgeois. You cant magicly expect everyone to become pro-communism and intelligent.

But you fail to understand that in order to make a revolution, the working class must transform itself. In other words, it must move from being a 'class in itself' to a 'class for itself'. Although this won't erase the problem of uneven consciousness, the majority section of the class must be united in revolutionary consciousness - otherwise, the revolution made will not be a socialist revolution and it will be at the mercy of political dictatorship.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 26 2006, 02:19 PM


Leninism (or more appropriately Bolshevism) should properly be understood as a strategy of party building as preparation for the revolution; plus a theory of imperialism which negates the 'stages theory' of 2nd International economism. It is not a model of post-revolutionary government. Therefore, the political decisions made by the Bolshevik leadership after October need to be separated off from the true meaning of Leninism.

As I've repeated on this forum, any perspective which traces the roots of the eventual forms of dictatorship after October to only some 'original sin' in the theories of Lenin, but disregards the more overwhelming material and political forces which beseiged the revolution, is mere idealism.

Likewise, to take Trotsky's authoritarian position on one man management in, first the military, secondly in industry, and conflate it into some kind of general theory, fails to appreciate the difference between theory and practical politics.


Trying to seperate pre revolution Bolshevik organisation and Theory from post revolution Bolshevik Practice is serriously problematic and avoids any serrious criticism.

We dont need theory, we need practice. Theory is only useful if it helps practice.

If we want to look solely for a pre revolutionary sucess, the CNT in spain was by far the most sucesful revolutionary organisation in History. Before holding any official power it mobilized 2 million workers into a fairly effective democratic combative organisation that had an overwhekming majority support of communism.

It servived a dictatorships intact (before 1936) and did as good as any other revolutionary organisation under similar curcumstances of putting out mass propaghanda.

This dose not make Anarcho-Syndicalism the peak of revolutionary theroy/organisation.

For the aims of the revolutionary transformation of society to communism during a civil war there were structural and ideological problems with the organisation (standing on its own).

Marxists continually slam anarchism as incapable of getting the job done, you have just admited the same for the bolshevik model.

There are things that we must learn from both Bolshevism and revolutionary syndicalism(anarchist or otherwise).

Is a strictly revolutionary organisation nessesary? in my opinion, yes.
Can that organisation substitue itslef for pure proletarian democracy durning a revolution? in my opinion, no.

So where dose that leave us?

I think the platformist current within anarchist communism takes these questions to task like no other current has (council communists and ultra leftists are hopelessly pureist and hands off, mainstream anarchists ignore the need for cohearant revolutionary leadership, and the various brands of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and Stalin followers largely refuse to learn from the past.).

We take marxist class struggle, and the examples of independant proletarian initiative and blend them with a fairy balanced view of history(admitedly with more weight on anarchist experience).

The tendancy has developed indeipendantly in Europe, by survivors of the russian and spanish experience, and in latin america by survivors of operation condor and the dictatorships of the 70-80's.

Based in mass struggles, but durable under extreem pressure.

I encourgae more forward minded marxists to look at this growing tendancy which adresses many of the questions and filures of the past.

We are acused by anarchists of being vanguardists, and by vanguardists as being ultra democratic, a position even Lenin held at one point if Im not mistaken?. Sounds like just the right spot for me.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I think the problem here Whitten, is that you want a fatherlike state. The people are "too dumb" to make decisions, so "we" must make the decisions for them, the people.

I hear echoes from history...

[KC]

I think the problem here Whitten, is that you want a fatherlike state. The people are "too dumb" to make decisions, so "we" must make the decisions for them, the people.

In a socialist society, the class conscious proletarians should make the decisions for the rest of the people. Unless you want to have "freedom" and let the reactionaries vote capitalism back in.


I hear echoes from history...

I smell shit. And it's coming from you.

[rebelworker]

One thing Leninists ignore (and some of them as middle class intelectuals are incapable of understanding from personal experience) is that the only way working class people will be able to govern, is by getting experience at doing it. This will take time, we are consistently, under educated (and the education we get is desighned at keeping us in "our place"), mentally brow beaten about how "dumb" we are daily (and this includes a big chunk of leftist, specifiaclly vanguardist and social democratic, theory, and in general most working class people are not confident enough in their own ability, due to the way society shapes us, to rule.

A big part of revolution for me is the working class collectively getting our confidence and experience in shaping a new worker frinedly communist society.

This is totaly ignored in Bolshevik theory (partially because the authors were, and largely continue to be middle class intelectuals). Bypassing Factory committees, and subordinating the unuosn to party hacks is not a way for the working class to collectivly flex our muscles.

This, among other reasons, is why communism will be un atainable under a vanguard leadership model.