Dictatorship of The Proletariat

[RedLenin]

I have recently been studying marxism quite a bit and have found it to be on better theoretical grounding than anarchism. I certainly like what I have read and I really don't have any opposition to the positions of Marx and Engles. My question is to the Leninists and Trotskyists. What is your vision of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and how does this relate to the concept of the vanguard party?

It seems that the Vanguard Party, composed of the most advanced elements of the proletariat, exists to infuse class consciousness within the working class. I have no problem with this idea, nor do I have a problem with the idea of a vanguard leading the revolution. However, would this vanguard party seize power in the name of the working class, or would it simply lead the revolution and then the masses would establish the workers state democratically?

And finally, what is the structure of this workers state? Marx said that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the rule of the class itself, so I am assuming that the workers state would be decentralized and based on workers councils as the main instruments of state power. Is this a correct understanding, and if not, what would a workers state look like and what would be the role of democracy in such a state?

[Redmau5]

However, would this vanguard party seize power in the name of the working class, or would it simply lead the revolution and then the masses would establish the workers state democratically?

Theoretically speaking, the vanguard's job is to lead the working-class into the revolution. Post-revolution however, it is the workers as a whole who will control the socialist state, rather than just a select group of individuals. Obviously, this didn't quite go to plan in Russia, but from a purely theoretical point of view there is no need for the vanguard the revolution. When Lenin spoke of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, he meant the same thing as Marx (ie that all workers would participate in the running of the state rather than just a vanguard).


And finally, what is the structure of this workers state? Marx said that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the rule of the class itself, so I am assuming that the workers state would be decentralized and based on workers councils as the main instruments of state power. Is this a correct understanding, and if not, what would a workers state look like and what would be the role of democracy in such a state?

We cannot really predict what way this workers' state will turn out. The material conditions of the time will shape how things pan out in any post-revolutionary society. But hey, there's no harm in formulating ideas and opinions.

[The Bitter Hippy]

the vanguard party must necesarily take power in the name of the workers. If a vanguard party is needed (ie: the workers are not sufficiently politicized and revolutionary to take over without one), then the workers as a whole are not sufficiently politicized and determined enough to engage in revolution with the vanguard.

A vanguard would then attempt to hand over power to the workers, but it wouldn't succeed. If the workers as a whole aren't capable of leading the revolution, they are not capable of taking power after it. After a while i doubt the vanguard would even want to give away power, thinking themselves more fit to rule benevolently.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by The Bitter [email protected] 12, 2006 06:39 pm
A vanguard would then attempt to hand over power to the workers, but it wouldn't succeed. If the workers as a whole aren't capable of leading the revolution, they are not capable of taking power after it. After a while i doubt the vanguard would even want to give away power, thinking themselves more fit to rule benevolently.
How is it possible for every single worker to "lead"?

[bezdomni]

No, the vanguard of the proletariat is just the most advanced section of the proletariat that leads the rest of the class to revolt against capitalism and establish a worker's state.

I don't understand why people think the vanguard is some sort of dictatorship that rules over the proletariat after a revolution. That clearly is not socialism.

[The Bitter Hippy]

makaveli: what i meant was that there is no 'Great Leader' of the revolution. No lenin, no castro, no mao. Ideally it will be conducted by affinity groups or local parties of workers, but definitely not the sort of professional revolutionary bolshevik model of a revolution.

SovietPants: people are biased againt the vanguard because it is so associated with leninism. I also explained why i was against vanguard parties: a proletariat that needs leading from a seperate entity (which a vanguard party becomes) is incapable of taking and holding onto power for itself. Power immediately after the revolution will always fall into the hands of the members of the vanguard, or rather the leaders thereof. Trying to devolve it is very very hard indeed, and there's a good chance of a stalin figure emerging who doesn't actually want to give power away.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 05:58 pm
And finally, what is the structure of this workers state? Marx said that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the rule of the class itself, so I am assuming that the workers state would be decentralized and based on workers councils as the main instruments of state power. Is this a correct understanding, and if not, what would a workers state look like and what would be the role of democracy in such a state?
In a way yes, in a way no. Leninists believe that councils of workers (not necessarily councils specific to any individual workplace or industry, more often all the workers in a locality), in Russia called "Soviets", would run affairs on a local or community level, while elected representitives would represent the will of the people on a national level. The power in practice has been mostly centralised, however as socialism becomes more developed it would seem logical that more and more powers would be defered to the soviets.

[bezdomni]

I also explained why i was against vanguard parties: a proletariat that needs leading from a seperate entity (which a vanguard party becomes) is incapable of taking and holding onto power for itself.

The vanguard is not a seperate entity of the proletariat. It is simply the advanced, class conscious section of the proletariat that leads the masses to revolution.

Once the masses revolt, there won't be a vanguard any more.

[The Bitter Hippy]

but that's just the thing: I think a vanguard, by merit of it's very existence, becomes separated from the proletarians. Once you have 'enlightened' members of a movement leading the less enlightened masses, the leading movement becomes a seperate entity.

But even going along with your ideal of the vanguard, who would people look to as soon as the revolution had happened? The leaders of the vanguard.

They should be looking to themselves.

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by The Bitter [email protected] 13, 2006 01:38 am
but that's just the thing: I think a vanguard, by merit of it's very existence, becomes separated from the proletarians. Once you have 'enlightened' members of a movement leading the less enlightened masses, the leading movement becomes a seperate entity.
Not really, because the economic condition does not change with "enlightenment", they are still working class, but they hold a higher understanding of society than their fellow peers

And I think anybody who wonders about how the state will look like, act, what class composition it will have etc under socialism read Lenin's "The state and the revolution". I think I can say they even if you disagree with Bolshevism the book is a Marxist classic. Mostly because its a cut-paste job of what Marx and Engels wrote about the state.

[The Bitter Hippy]

well look how lenin's state ended up. Not that i dismiss all his ideas, but the whole soviet thing was made infinitely more difficult by the fact that your basic proletarians were far from aware of exactly what the revolution was about.

And i would argue that the political-economic state of the vanguard DOES change after the revolution, if it conducted along bolshevik lines. They become part of the state, and exercise political influence over the non-vanguard proletarians.

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by The Bitter [email protected] 13, 2006 07:57 pm
well look how lenin's state ended up. Not that i dismiss all his ideas, but the whole soviet thing was made infinitely more difficult by the fact that your basic proletarians were far from aware of exactly what the revolution was about.

And i would argue that the political-economic state of the vanguard DOES change after the revolution, if it conducted along bolshevik lines. They become part of the state, and exercise political influence over the non-vanguard proletarians.
1. I disagree, it was not "Lenin's state" and really, the country was torn in a civil war. Throughout the civil war, a very large portion of Russian society had a revolutionary class consciousness. It was this civil war that made Soviet democracy unable to exist, and the measures taken by Lenin to prevent the revolutionary government from collapsing were not reversed by his successors when there was no need for a one party dictatorship other than personal self-enrichment.

2. And I agree with you, on the Russian example. In Russia, the so-called "Proletarian vanguard" did enrich themselves, but this came with a cost. For Stalin to assume power he had to eliminate sections of the Bolshevik party, but in general a dictatorship would not automatically arise because of Bolshevik theory being followed...

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 08:32 pm
No, the vanguard of the proletariat is just the most advanced section of the proletariat that leads the rest of the class to revolt against capitalism and establish a worker's state.
so the vanguard decides that they themselves are the most advanced group?

no wonder leninists always tend to be so egocentric.

[The Bitter Hippy]

bolshevist: don't get me wrong, i believe in the DoP, but not through vanguardism.

And i agree with you on the specific, short-term reasons for the failures of soviet democracy, but i think that these failures were inevitable because of the vanguard system. However i also think that a lack of bolshevik democracy doomed efforts for soviet democracy.

A vanguard party such as the bolsheviks must necessarily adopt some form of authoritarian centralist control over its membership, or it will get infiltrated and destroyed by agents of the state. When the party takes over temporarily, it will form the proto-state in it's own (authoritarian) image. Once you've started down the path to authoritarianism, there's no going back.

As for the Civil War being the cause for soviet failure: The civil war was a symptom of an incomplete revolution. In a 'spontaneous' revolution, no white elements would be allowed to form at the corners of the country, because the revolution would be nationwide (if not global).

The bolshevik party was suited to seizing power from a tottering provisional government in the cities, but it didn't have the wide support base necessary to spread the revolution all over russia simultaneously. Yes, the major cities fell to the reds within hours of each other, but what use are cities when the majority of the population lives in the country?

It can be argued that defending the revolution required the suppression of opposition, but that rings as a bit of a lame excuse. The bolshevik party would have found the smallest excuses for getting rid of it's opponents if the whites hadn't obliged.


I can't really make a judgement on the prevalence of revolutionary class conciousness amongst the proletarians, if you have internet sources for it i'd be much obliged.


Finally: I'd contest that the soviet state was lenin's bastard. He led the party during it's most important formative years, and stalin was able to take power because of offices and structures set up under lenin's watch, and he took bolshevism to it's natural conclusion.

[ern]

Hi

The bitter hippy, you pose some very interesting questions about the dictatorship of the proletariat; nature of the party, the state, role of the party, structure of the dictatorship. Obviously. The russian revolution is the only experience we have of the proletariat seeking to carry out the revolution and it has certainly provided the proletariat and its revolutionary minorities with many lessons. The prime one being: the revolution has to spread internationally because it is impossible for a revolutionary bastion to survive on its own.
Lenin, and those who supported him in the party, based his call for the carrying out of the October revolution upon the developing international situation; growing ferment in europe, especially in Germany, Britain and East Europe, muntinies in the main imperialist armies etc. From the very beginning the Bolsheviks stressed that without the international spread of the revolution the revolution would be destroyed.
This does not mean that the means used for carrying out the revolution or seeking to organise society are not important, there are, but it is only once the capitalist system has been overthrown world wide that the task of building communism can really begin.
The soviet's, factory committees, Red Guards and all the other efforts of the proletariat tried to use and develop in order to defend and build the revolutionary are very important and demonstrated that the mass assemblies have to be the bases of any revolutionary effort. They were expressions of the massive explosion of the creative genious of the revolutionary proletariat. But without the internationalisation of the revolution this stupendous effort by the working class to try and replace capitalism was doomed to failure: unless believes that it is possible to build socialism in one country.
The other main lesson of the Russian revolution is: the party does not take power on behalf of the proletariat and cannot identify itself with the state. This is one of the most priceless, but terribly bitter, lessons that the Bolsheviks have taught us. It is easy to use hindsight to condemn the Bolsheviks and Lenin because of the way the party became totally integrated into the state, but the idea that the party 'took power' was shared by all revolutionary parties at the time. The tragic implications for the party and the proletariat of this conception we can all see.
As for the precise structure of the organisation of the dictatorship the experience of the russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, along with the other revolutionary struggles between 1917-1927 has shown that the mass unitary organisations regrouping the whole of the proletariat will be the foundations, but precisely how that will unfold it impossible to predict in advance.

[bezdomni]

so the vanguard decides that they themselves are the most advanced group?

no wonder leninists always tend to be so egocentric.

Vanguard = Organized revolutionary class conscious workers.

[KC]

So basically you're saying that the least advanced, least active section of the proletariat should lead? Good luck.

[ern]

The party cannot replace the class. If the proletariat is unable to continue the development of its class consciousness after the revolution on a mass scale, no matter how 'advanced ' the party is it cannot replace the proletariat in the process of the emancipation of the proletariat. Obviously, party will play an important role in the generalisation of class consciouss but unless there is a developing and deepening process of the development of class consciousness throughout the class the party will not be able to carry out this role.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by chimx+November 13, 2006 09:06 pm--> (chimx @ November 13, 2006 09:06 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2006 08:32 pm
No, the vanguard of the proletariat is just the most advanced section of the proletariat that leads the rest of the class to revolt against capitalism and establish a worker's state.
so the vanguard decides that they themselves are the most advanced group?

no wonder leninists always tend to be so egocentric. [/b]
Well the vanguard has to be the most advanced section of its class or else it wouldn't be a vanguard. It's not like they wake up in the morning and say "I think i'll become the most advanced section of my class today". The very fact that they have developed a revolutionary conscious while the rest of the masses have not is the reason they are seen as "advanced".

[The Bitter Hippy]

ern: I think we are in excellent agreement.

Makaveli: Your version of the vanguard differs from the common conception of a vanguard party as set out by Lenin. The leninist vanguard is a self-declared 'enlightened' party that seeks to take state power for it's class. I do not count myself a part of any vanguard, and yet by your criteria i am a member.


Ern: I think we are in excellent agreement. A truly proletarian party cannot take power until the bulk of the proletariat is ready to wield power.

As for the international revolution, i'm of the firm belief that a true revolution can only occur globally. Or at least in capitalist nations capable of sustaining themselves as the other governments are dissolved and class conciousness instilled in the less revolutionary proletariats.

[KC]

The party cannot replace the class.

Nobody said it could. Of course, if the class is organized into a party...


Makaveli: Your version of the vanguard differs from the common conception of a vanguard party as set out by Lenin. The leninist vanguard is a self-declared 'enlightened' party that seeks to take state power for it's class. I do not count myself a part of any vanguard, and yet by your criteria i am a member.

The vanguard isn't a party! :o

[Rollo]

Most people seem to think that way KC.

[KC]

Most people are wrong.

[Rollo]

Yeah, there's a lot of stigma attached to Leninism like worshipping a gold statue of him and everything, it's all crap but people love to go on with it.

[sav]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 14, 2006 06:34 pm
Most people are wrong.
How would the vanguard be organised then, if not by a 'communist party'?

[KC]

How would the vanguard be organised then, if not by a 'communist party'?

How the vanguard should be organized and what the vanguard is are two completely different things.

[The Bitter Hippy]

KC: i referenced the leninist "vanguard party" (bolsheviks). I also specifically stated that it was the "common conception".

The stigma attached to leninism is not the idol-worship. That came in with stalin, and i personally count it as one of the trappings of a stalinist (a)theocracy. The stigma with leninism is the stigma of the bolsheviks. The stigma of the CHEKA and GPU. Finally the stigma of a centralized party controlling the increasingly authoritarian state.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 02:12 pm

Well the vanguard has to be the most advanced section of its class or else it wouldn't be a vanguard. It's not like they wake up in the morning and say "I think i'll become the most advanced section of my class today". The very fact that they have developed a revolutionary conscious while the rest of the masses have not is the reason they are seen as "advanced".
Social Revolutionaries
Mensheviks
Bolsheviks
Anarchists

Lenin thought one of the above was the most advanced section of the working class--the one he was a part of. All of the groups were revolutionary, but who decides which is the most advanced? if you look at bolshevism in practice, then i can only assume it is he who can politically subjugate the other revolutionary parties which is deemed unadvanced.

[Aurora]

Holy crap you think the SR's and mensheviks were revolutionary?

but who decides which is the most advanced?
The most advanced is the group whose idea's are materialistic.(the bolsheviks)

[chimx]

uhh, they were revolutionary. their failure was in that they refused to initiate reforms in the military and countryside prior to a constituent assembly.

so:

bolsheviks decide that a vanguard must lead the revolution -> vanguard must be the most advanced sector -> bolsheviks decide they are the most advanced.

it sounds like a very closed circuit.

also the mensheviks were certainly materialists as well. they felt that it was absurd to stage a proletarian revolution when a proletariat hadn't actually developed in russia. if anything lenin was the one who wasn't a materialist.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What is your vision of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and how does this relate to the concept of the vanguard party?

The DoP would relate to a vanguard party in that the party would be the active revolutionary proletarian force during the revolution and would be key to establishing a newly founded worker's state after the revolution. Based on Lenin's idea of democratic centralism, a strong state would emerge and the workers would be in control

[ern]

Hi

The bitter hippy, it is good to see that we are in agreement on the party not replacing the class and the international nature of the revolution. These are two fundamental lessons of the revolution. It would be interesting to hear what the others participating in this discussion think about the international nature of the revolution.
I also agree that the idea 'Leninism' has become a cover for Stalinism.
There is one aspect that we may disagree on, in your original post you say

It seems that the Vanguard Party, composed of the most advanced elements of the proletariat, exists to infuse class consciousness within the working class. I have no problem with this idea
This vision of class consciousness whilst being defended by Lenin (following on from Kautsky) in What is to be done, was rejected by him in his lectures on the lessons of the Russian Revolution -I think that is what it is called- delivered in Switzerland in early 1917. Class consciouness is the product of the historical and revolutionary nature of the proletariat and is a dynamic process. Communist organisations and eventually the party are the highest expression of this consciousness, but as Lenin said, the proletariat can be in front of the party at times. You might find this link the consciousness of the proletariat (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/classconc/2_cconc/prolconc) interesting. It gives a more detail analysis of class consciousness than I can here.

Chimx, do you agree with the Mensheviks about the idea of an undeveloped proletariat in Russia and thus their idea that October was not a proletarian revolution?

[The Bitter Hippy]

ern: your quote was by cobra90x. Not me. I don't agree with it.

Class conciousness comes from individual enlightenment. The self-emancipation of the proletariat is just that: SELF-emancipation. While commies like us can facilitate this by engaging them in debate and debunking cappie myths, we cannot force them to be revolutionary. Even if we do, by various means, then they will not be equipped to partake in the new society.

[ern]

Hi

The Bitter Hippy: sorry for the misquote
I do not agree that class consciousness comes from individual enlightenment. Class consciousness does not arise because of individual contemplation, but from revolutionary nature of the proletariat and its self-activity:
[/QUOTE]The fact that class consciousness is essentially the fruit of experience, of the practical struggle of the class, truly implies that the activity of the entire class is irreplaceable. Revolutionary consciousness, like the political emancipation of the proletariat, is the work of the workers themselves. It has nothing to do with a collection of rigid ideas, of ready made recipes developed exterior to the class. Similarly, the consciousness which the proletariat has about its situation is not an awareness about an object external to itself, but is a consciousness of what it is itself. Proletarian consciousness is the consciousness of the proletariat of itself as a class. This means, quite simply, that in becoming conscious of its own situation in the process of production, the proletariat becomes conscious of the nature of the capitalist system in all its complexity and barbarity. And this development of consciousness is always synonymous with the class struggle. Class consciousness is, then, the affirmation by the pro*letariat of its nature as a revolutionary class, as conscious being.[QUOTE]
class consciousness of the proletariat (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/classconc/2_cconc/prolconc)
An individual's becoming class consciousness only happens as part of this process.
The implication of this understanding of the nature of class consciousness for the role of revolutionary organisation is crucial. It is clearly not its role to 'introduce' class consciousness into the class, but nor is it a passive product of the class. The revolutionary minorities of the class have a vital role to play in seeking to help generalise this consciousness in the class. Clearly the impact of a revolutionary organisation will bepened upon the historical period. In a revolutionary period when the development of class consciousness is taking place in a mass dynamic, the revolutionary organisation can have a real influence in the class and in the development of this process. In a period of defeat such as from the mid 1920's until 1960's revolutionary organisations were reduced to a tiny minority of the class. However, through the activity of the Left Communist minorities, especially the Italian Left Fraction and its publication Bilan, which centred around try to draw the lessons of the defeat of the revolution there was a deepening of class consciousness. A clarification of class consciousness that meant when the counter-revolution came to an end in 1968 the positions develop by the communist Left were able to act as a reference point for many of those seeking to find an alternative to Stalinism, along with Trotskyism. These individuals did not have to reinvent the wheel but were able to concretise their striving for a revolutionary alternative through discussing with and joining a revolutionary organisation like the International Communist Current which was formed in 1975 basing itself firmly on the work of the Left Communist fractions in the 20's, 30's 40's and 50's. Thus, at an organisational level, as well as the individual, it is not a question of an individual group enlightening itself but of basing its positions and activity on the historical traditions of the proletariat.
I apoligise for the long reply but it is not easy to deal with this question in short posts. Have you been able to read the article linked to the previous post, if so what did you think?