peaccenicked
27th February 2002, 22:51
For Marx, every state was by definition a dictatorship. But Marx argued strongly for a democratic republic and preservation of the institution of the existing representative democracy under capitalism.[9] Marx considered the Paris Commune a working class dictatorship because the property form of the society was organized in favor of the working class.[10] He also linked the democratic nature of the proletarian rule with the Paris Commune since it provided democratic components such as self-government and immediate recall of all elected officials. Engels even made clear that the democratic republic then existed in the United States, was "the specific form of the dictatorship of the proletariat."[11] Neither Marx nor Engels endorsed the one-party rule, and that was primarily Lenin's invention.
Lenin as a theorist and a practitioner of Marxism further developed the instrumental approach towards the state. A socialist state, as defined by Lenin, is an instrument for the repression of the proletarian social class. Lenin's interpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat includes: (1) the dictatorship of the proletariat can not be exercised through a mass party which embraces the entire working class; instead, it can only be exercised by "a vanguard [party] that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of that class;" and (2) the dictatorship of the proletariat means the rule of the proletariat "unrestricted by any law." [12] This, unquestionably, laid the foundation of the one-party rule and the party-state that existed in all socialist counties in the 20th century.[13]
With regard to the issue of socialization, Lenin was rather realistic. He pointed out that the seizure of private property and state ownership in itself was not enough to build a socialism society. Nationalization without real control by workers, according to Lenin, was simply not enough.[14] Indeed, Lenin was the first Marxist leader who realized that a transitional period between a capitalist society and a socialist one was needed. In an economically backward country like Russia, Lenin asserted, the proletarian state must follow the "change of historical order" and establish first of all an "industrial and commercial civilization".[15] The New Economic Policy initiated by Lenin was his answer to materialize such a transition. However, the early death of Lenin and the transfer of power to Stalin altered the course of the Soviet Union's development.
Firstly, Lenin did not invent one party rule nowhere does he theorise it as an ideal. He sees at an expediency during the civil war. Secondly, Lenin was not the first to realise that a transistion period was needed. The lower phase and higher phase are already in 'the critique of the gotha
programme.
Thirdly,"A socialist state, as defined by Lenin, is an instrument for the repression of the proletarian social class. " nowhere in Lenin is this written and the State and Revolution, or any other of his writings. This is is simply a lie.
The dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing to do with one party rule, one party rule is an aberration which Lenin understood.
The dictatorship of the majority
is the essence of democracy.
Lenin envisaged a day when the State would disappear
meaning that Humanity would outgrow pettiness and work together, as Marx says'the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all''
(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:56 am on Feb. 28, 2002)
Lenin as a theorist and a practitioner of Marxism further developed the instrumental approach towards the state. A socialist state, as defined by Lenin, is an instrument for the repression of the proletarian social class. Lenin's interpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat includes: (1) the dictatorship of the proletariat can not be exercised through a mass party which embraces the entire working class; instead, it can only be exercised by "a vanguard [party] that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of that class;" and (2) the dictatorship of the proletariat means the rule of the proletariat "unrestricted by any law." [12] This, unquestionably, laid the foundation of the one-party rule and the party-state that existed in all socialist counties in the 20th century.[13]
With regard to the issue of socialization, Lenin was rather realistic. He pointed out that the seizure of private property and state ownership in itself was not enough to build a socialism society. Nationalization without real control by workers, according to Lenin, was simply not enough.[14] Indeed, Lenin was the first Marxist leader who realized that a transitional period between a capitalist society and a socialist one was needed. In an economically backward country like Russia, Lenin asserted, the proletarian state must follow the "change of historical order" and establish first of all an "industrial and commercial civilization".[15] The New Economic Policy initiated by Lenin was his answer to materialize such a transition. However, the early death of Lenin and the transfer of power to Stalin altered the course of the Soviet Union's development.
Firstly, Lenin did not invent one party rule nowhere does he theorise it as an ideal. He sees at an expediency during the civil war. Secondly, Lenin was not the first to realise that a transistion period was needed. The lower phase and higher phase are already in 'the critique of the gotha
programme.
Thirdly,"A socialist state, as defined by Lenin, is an instrument for the repression of the proletarian social class. " nowhere in Lenin is this written and the State and Revolution, or any other of his writings. This is is simply a lie.
The dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing to do with one party rule, one party rule is an aberration which Lenin understood.
The dictatorship of the majority
is the essence of democracy.
Lenin envisaged a day when the State would disappear
meaning that Humanity would outgrow pettiness and work together, as Marx says'the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all''
(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:56 am on Feb. 28, 2002)