am i the only one that hates dict. of prol.? - he dictatorsh

[anarchoveganLAM]

am i the only person who finds bolshevism bullshit? i keep seeing peple like peacenicked keep posting 100% in favor for this hypocritical form of revenge...

who else does not like it and what is your alternative to it?

[libereco]

i think any kind of dictatorship is wrong. why put a new "dictator" in the place of the one you just defeated? (even if a whole class)

(Edited by libereco at 11:30 pm on Mar. 15, 2002)

[El Che]

Look why start a new thread when there are currently 5 threads on this subject? this is useless and pointless. Just post on the existing threads man.

[Valkyrie]

YES. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the only place where Marx went wrong ( and Lenin interpretedly exploited) in an otherwise flawless, flawless commentary on economic pragmatism.

[peaccenicked]

For a suumary of the debate so far.I have taken this from an anarchist source.
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat and State Socialism


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a Marxist conception. According to Lenin "only he is a Marxist who extends his acknowledgement of the class struggle to an acknowledgement of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Lenin was right: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is, in effect, for Marx no more than the conquest of the state by the proletariat which, organised in a politically dominant class, arrives, by way of State Socialism, at the elimination of all classes.

In the 'Critique of the Gotha Programme' written by Marx in 1875 we read:

"between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"

In the Communist Manifesto he was already saying:

"The first step on the path to the workers' revolution is the elevation of the proletariat to the position of ruling class .... The proletariat will gain from its political domination by little by little tearing away from the bourgeoisie all capital, by centralising all means of production in the hands of the State, that is to say in the hands of the proletariat itself organised as the ruling class"

Lenin in 'State and Revolution' only confirms the Marxist theory:

"The proletariat only needs the state for a certain length of time. It is not the elimination of the State as a final aim that separates us from the anarchists. But we assert to attain this end, it is essential to utilise temporarily against he exploiters the instruments, the means and the procedures of political power, in the same way as it is essential in order to eliminate the classes to instigate the temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class"

"The State will disappear in so far as there are no more capitalists, there are no more classes and it is no longer necessary to oppress 'any class'. But the State is not completely dead as long as 'bourgeois rights' which sanctify de facto inequality survive. In order that the State dies completely, the advent of integral communism is necessary."

The Proletarian State is conceived of as a temporary political structure destined to destroy the classes. Gradual expropriation and the idea of State Capitalism are at the basis of this conception. Lenin's economic program: of the eve of the October Revolution ends with this phrase: "Socialism is nothing more than a State Socialist Monopoly".

According to Lenin:

"The distinction between the Marxists and the Anarchists consists of this:

1. The Marxists, although they propose the complete destruction of the State believe that this can only be realised after the destruction of the classes by the Socialist Revolution, and as a result of the triumph of socialism which will come to an end with the destruction of the State; the Anarchists want the complete elimination of the State overnight without understanding what are the conditions which make it possible.

2) The Marxists proclaim the necessity for the proletariat of securing political power, of destroying entirely the old machinery of State and of replacing it by a new mechanism consisting of an organisation of armed workers of the type of the Commune; the Anarchists, in calling for the destruction of the machinery of State, do not really know 'with what' the proletariat will replace it nor 'what use' it will make of its revolutionary power; they even go as far as to condemn all use of political power by the revolutionary proletariat and reject the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

3) The Marxists want to prepare the proletariat for the Revolution by using the modern State; the Anarchists reject this method.

Lenin was disguising the facts. The Marxists "do not have the complete destruction of the State in mind", but they foresee the natural disappearance of the State as a consequence of the destruction of the classes by the means of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat', that is to say State Socialism, whereas the Anarchists desire the destruction of the classes by means of a social revolution which eliminates, with the classes, the State. The Marxists, moreover, do not propose the armed conquest of the Commune by the whole proletariat, but they propose the conquest of the State by the party which imagines that it represents the proletariat"
I only wish to say that marxist and leninists, do not imagine any such thing and the contaciction between
party and class, between vanguard and mass, is the context of every thread of democratic centralism.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:00 pm on Mar. 16, 2002)

[anarchoveganLAM]

what i do like about you peacenicked is that you do back up your argument, but you have to remember this: isnt it biased to say somebody cant dominate me but i should be free to dominate them???

[TheDerminator]

anarchoveganLAM,

It is a misinterpretation of the position of socialists.

The majority must dominate in the long term interests of all society so there is no domination of any one class.
There is no difference between "dictatorship of the ploretariat" and the rule of the majority, if you believe in achieving socialism, through democratic means. The rule of the majority is the dictatorship of the majority. Why be semantic?
You just hate the word "dictatorship" and I daresay the word "rule". Alas, your conception of democracy is a primitive one. El Che is right. How many threads are we going to have on this subject?
Resistance is Futile!
May the Force be with U!

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from libereco on 11:30 pm on Mar. 15, 2002
i think any kind of dictatorship is wrong. why put a new "dictator" in the place of the one you just defeated? (even if a whole class)

(Edited by libereco at 11:30 pm on Mar. 15, 2002)

You misunderstand the concept, liberco. You are simply hostile to the word 'dictatorship' because of the capitalist propaganda surrounding it and the atrocities committed by fascist and communist dictators in the past.
In a classless Marxist society, the proletariat is the entire people. So all the people govern, which is democracy, the opposite of a one-man dictatorship.

[Valkyrie]

Yeah, that has always been the case when the Marxists interpretated dictatorship of the proletariat-- they applied it OVER the proletariat.

Libereco knows the deal.

[peaccenicked]

Again the history books are left unopen. From Lenin
"'How a Simple Question can be Confused

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Commenting on the resolution of the Central Committee of April 20 concerning the necessity of transferring power to the revolutionary proletariat "with the support of the majority of the people", today's Dyen writes:

"Very simple, then what's the hitch? Instead of passing resolutions, come and take the power."

We have here a typical example of the methods used by the bourgeois press. People pretend not to understand the simplest thing, and ensure themselves—on paper—an easy victory. Anybody who says "take the power" should not have to think long to realise that an attempt to do so without as yet having the backing of the majority of the people would be adventurism or Blanquism (Pravda has made a special point of warning against this in the clearest, most unmistakable and unequivocal terms). [See also: Blanquism]

There is a degree of freedom now in Russia that enables the will of the majority to be gauged by the make-up of the Soviets. Therefore, to make a serious, not a Blanquist, bid for power, the proletarian party must fight for influence within the Soviets.

All this has been gone over and hammered out by Pravda again and again, and only stupidity or malice can fail to grasp it. Let the reader judge for himself to which of these two unenviable categories Rabochaya Gazeta belongs when it describes the "recommendation" (made to the Soviet) "to take power into its own hands" as "irresponsible provocation", as "demagogy, devoid of all sense of political responsibility, light-heartedly urging democrats towards civil strife and war, and inciting the workers and soldiers not only against the government but against the Soviet itself" and so on.

Can one imagine a worse muddle than this, when the blame on the question of demagogy is laid at the wrong door?

Prime Minister Lvov is reported by the evening paper Birzheviye Vedomosti for April 21 as having said literally the following:

"Up till now the Provisional Government has invariably met with the support of the Soviet's leading organ. During the last fortnight these relations have changed. The Provisional Government is suspect.Under the circumstances it is in no position to administer the state, as it is difficult to do anything in an atmosphere of distrust and discon tent. Under such circumstances it would be best for the Provisional Government to resign. It is fully alive to iits responsibility towards the country, in whose interests it is prepared to resign immediately if need be."

Is this not clear? Is it possible not to understand why, after such a speech, our Central Committee proposed that a public opinion poll be held?

What have "civil war", "provocation", "demagogy" and similar frightening words to do with it, when the Prime Minister himself declares the government's readiness "to resign" and recognises the Soviet as the "leading organ"?

One or the other: either Rabochaya Gazeta believes that in making such statements Lvov is misleading the people, in which case it should not urge confidence in and support of the government, but no confidence and no support; or Rabochaya Gazeta believes that Lvov is really "prepared to resign", in which case, why all this outcry about civil war?

If Rabochaya Gazeta understands the situation correctly, understands that the capitalists are raising a hullabaloo about civil war in order to cover up their desire to flout the 'will of the majority by means of force, then why this outcry on the part of the newspaper?

Lvov is entitled to ask the Soviet to approve and accept his policy. Our Party is entitled to ask the Soviet to approve and accept our, proletarian, policy. To speak of "provocation" and so on is to reveal an utter lack of understanding of what it is all about or to sink to base demagogy. We are entitled to fight for influence and for a majority in the Soviet and the Soviets, and we are going to fight for them. We repeat:

"We shall favour the transfer of power to the proletariana and semi-pro letarians only when the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies adopt our policy and are willing to take the power into their own hands."

[Resolution of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. of April 22, 1917]




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest]

Honest Intellectual, in communism wouldn't everyone be a beourgeiosie as the proletarian would now own the means of production??

[TheDerminator]

Guest Market Analyst for the Republican Party?
Your good! Your good!

I'll crack the jokes!

Community ownership belongs to the community, and in a socialist society there is only one class of individual; the individual human being! That is why we are socialists and you are BORGS!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[Guest]

?????? That was a baffling response especially the inane Resistance is futile you have been derminated?? That sounds very childish, anyways back to the topic what do you mean by borg and how did you come to that conclusion. Also by definition would they be beourigiosie as they would in fact own the means of production unlike the capitalist who they overthrew.

[TheDerminator]

It is a satire on US imperialist culture, and I am sticking with it. Suits my sense of humour. Don't care too much about yours.

If you are really intersted in BORGS; |there is a whole thread dedicated to the BORG mentality in the 'Capitalism vs Socialism' Forum. The thread is entitled Why "Cappies" are BORGS?.
U can either give an informed response, an uniformed response or piss-off. The choice is yours. Community property is not personal property.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

You really ought to know about The Fly, Star Trek, and Star Wars. What planet are U from?

derminated