About the dictatorship of the proletariat...

[Michael De Panama]

Explain something to me...

The bourgeoisie is defined as the ruling class that controls and benefits from capital. If you abolish free trade, you abolish capital. If you abolish capital, you abolish the bourgeoisie. If you abolish the bourgeoisie, what in the hell would a "dictatorship of the proletariat" be? How would you distinguish who is proletarian and who is bourgeois if there is no capital? What would be the purpose of this dictatorship?

Do you get what I'm saying?

[El Che]

Dictatorship of the proletariat is a means to an end. In order to abolish the bourgeoisie you need a period of "dictatorship of the proletariet" in order to carry out the necessary socialistic reforms.

Not that I agree with this, I`m merely explaining the concept.

[Frosty]

I guess "dictatorship of the proletariat" refers to "rulership of the people...or that revolutionary ex-proletars govern the state...
And why is it named "dictatorship", that sounds really bad to some people i think

[Valkyrie]

Down with the D.O.P.!

Sorry, I know -- that's as bad as my "you fuckers, you all suck." and "Boycott the USA"!!!! hehehe!!

What can I say? It happens when you get old!

So, glad you're back El Che! Now we've got to get our other long time comrade back!

[Valkyrie]

Seriously, let's hope if it's a necessary by-product of abolishing Capitalism, that we can make the transition quick and clean and get on with the withering away of the state.

El Che, are you not agreeing with the Dictator of the Proletariat? i'd like to hear your views

[El Che]

Thanks paris :)

On democracy vs dictatorship I`ve wrote quite alot in different posts but to those who are interested or disagree and want to fight:

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=234 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=234)

Also related, see post addressed to augostos, is:

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...ic=192&start=80 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=192&start=80)

There could be more but I really can`t remember...

[vox]

Damn, I was going to reply, but if you read the links that El Che left, that pretty much sums it up.

One thing I would say, however, is that the DoP was not intended, from what I've read, to be a lasting state of affairs. Rather, Marx stated that the ruling class would never give up its power willingly, that is legally, and so revolution would be the only course. I think that this still has some legitimacy.

However, the DoP was only a brief stage in which the means of production were liberated from the hands of the oppressor and truly democratic ownership was introduced. It was not meant to be a sort of vanguard party "holding pattern" that so many Leninists want until they feel that the time is "right" for the people to have a say.

To me, the DoP is the transfer of power from the bourgeoisie to the people.

vox

[peaccenicked]

I fed up with this debate. I think my version of leninism probably closer to anarchism than mosts.
I have always imagined that Lenin felt (and can cite some evidence to prove that and some of the debates I have pointed to )the painful nature of Statism.
It might be a good idea to discuss the content of
''Ten Days that Shook the World''
One of the greatest books to come out of the American
left. I liked Cannon's ''Struggle for a Proletarian Party''
and Clr James, particularly the ''Black Jacobin''
Not mention the novels of Stienbeck, London, Hemmingway, Updike, Sinclair etc etc

After 9/11 I spent a lot of time giving out lectures on the
history of american culture. One has to start with the genocide of the red indians and that is only natural
but I could not wait to get to Walt Whitman whose ''Song of Myself'' is just as influential on me as the ''State and Revolution'

[vox]

Hey, peacenicked, if you want to talk about Hemingway, I'm all for it, though I don't think that this is the appropriate thread.

Fact is, Hemingway, while fighting against the fascists in Spain, was not a Leninist. Nor was, as best as I can tell, Steinbeck.

Brining up influences is good, I think, as long as they are relevant, but I fail to see the relevance of the genocide against Native Americans to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Can you expound on that?

vox

[peaccenicked]

Nup, Just part of the story but the connection is there somewhere. If you look at the work of Morgan which greatly influenced Marx and Fearless Fred. There is talk of the organisation of early tribes the election of all
officials, rotation and woman right and the sorts of kinship. It might be arguable that the genocide of the Indians was a genocide of a future proletariat with greater democratic traditions than the settlers.
In future communism, I think people will look to primitive times
in awe of structures free from domination but pity the scarcity of material goods.
I dont think Leninism has a great stamp on US history. Lenin's influence was probably more felt as the 'forced' unification of the American left and Trade Union Movement.
It is in my opinnion The IWW were as killed off by horrid State oppression as by the Third international's demand that socialists should join the larger right wing trade unions.
I liked the Wobblies, and I think we have much to learn from their cultural practices.

[vox]

I like the Wobblies, too. One of the problems of the IWW was that it refused to become a political union, and to this day claims to be non-political, which is simple foolishness of course, for how can any worker's organization be apolitical in a capitalist society? I don't think that it can.

I'm less sure about the idea of a "future proletariat," however. My gut reaction is that it's nice talk in the White Ivory halls of the academy, but what about forced Chinese labor? Were the Chinese somehow less disenfranchised than the Native American? Were they somehow less threatening as a "future proletariat?" I don't see how. Indeed, given the nascent capitalism of the time, one would think they were a larger threat.

Now, I think it might be interesting to talk about why the IWW had more success, for a period, than the DeLeonist SLP. Any thoughts on that?

vox

[peaccenicked]

The balance of class forces is always difficult to judge.
I tend not always to be exactly scientific and go with feelings too. I do'nt know much of Deleon but what I have seen has been dry and dull, but I would not by any means go by that even as an educated guess.
The IWW were amazing in there tactical shots and ''fanning the flames of discontent''.
I sang a few of their songs at a tribute in Glasgow.
''Joe Hill'' was my Da's fav.
There something raw and fresh about the Wobblies, that
also in the air on the Grandma boat, something that could be found in the H-blocks in Belfast. A spirit that can be found in the proletarait hungry for justice.
Cultural relativism is probably a great mistake, if it sets worker against worker, the case is proven. Yet there are traditions within our class that we should bring to the new society. Not least good reading habits, but ideas and practices centuries in the boiling pot accross the gardens of human culture.
The heritage of china and the chinese diaspora contains much learning and wisdom as with the aboriginal cultures of all nations. Indeed when what capitalism represented was not just a progressive leap forward in the development of the productive forces but also a even deeper unlearning of the wisdom of any community at the point of contact.
In the UK even the destruction of our mining communities against our wisdom.
Capitalism loses all contact with history and universal cultural values. Jameson talks about the 'perpetual present'. Funnily enough even the capis here are trying to escape it. It is ironic that the capis might need this bb more than we do.
In someways that too is the 'dictatatorship of the proletarait', the force of sense in human society.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:28 am on Sep. 22, 2002)

[Turnoviseous]

This is from Marxist glossary:



Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx/Engels
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Part IV

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
Democracy and Dictatorship

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.

V.I. Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt. 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State

The real tasks of the workers' state do not consist in policing public opinion, but in freeing it from the yoke of capital. This can only be done by placing the means of production - which includes the production of information - in the hands of society in its entirety. Once this essential step towards socialism has been taken, all currents of opinion which have not taken arms against the dictatorship of the proletariat must be able to express themselves freely. It is the duty of the workers' state to put in their hands, to all according to their numeric importance, the technical means necessary for this, printing presses, paper, means of transportation.

Leon Trotsky
Freedom of the Press and Working Class

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

I will add to this something when I have time...

[Iepilei]

Well we must remember Marx was a person as well. To me, dictatorship of the proletariat is just a intimidating way of saying workers democracy.

Kinda like he said "the spectre of communism" that haunts europe and is trying to be exorcised by the people in power. It's intimidating to the upper-classes.

Sadly it's used against us because of it, cause people don't take the time to sit down and think it out - and those are just the few who have ACTUALLY read the manifesto.

It's misused. Kinda like the Lenin Quote:

"First we shall take Eastern Europe. Next the masses of Asia. Then we shall encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We shall not have to attack, it will fall like an over-ripe fruit into our hands."

If they actually knew how the system works and how things were going to spread, that quote wouldn't be nearly as intimidating as 1950s propaganda-whores made it seem.

(Edited by Iepilei at 7:44 am on Sep. 22, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

That is a good point, the language of Marx has been
semiologically or semiotically damaged by Stalinism, we should do a damage limitation exercise on it.

[Marxman]

This is one of my great points here. You see, the word "dictatorship" has been slandered by fascists and stalinists and cappies so much that it's only natural for someone to dislike the word "the dictatorship of the proletariat."

But that isn't so. We can also use another word called "workers' democracy." This stage is very important for the development of socialism and Marx emphasized that millions of times. To deny that is to deny marxism and its science. Proletariat is the key essence of capitalism and the key essence of building socialism and that is why some people say that Marx was fond to capitalism. It is because Marx said capitalism has developed the basics for socialism.

[El Che]

I feel that enthusiasts of the DoP, despite slightly different interpretations of the same, are in a sense playing with fire. You can ignite the fire to burn your enemies but can you put it out ?

[Valkyrie]

Yeah, I think the key word there is "Of" . There is a strikingly different meaning if one would say that a person is a President Of the company. as oppossed to saying one is a President BY the company. I think the word "of" in the context of the former implies the possessive, and not necessarily by consent. It would seeming be more appropriate if it were "Dictatorship by the proletariat." No?

[Marxman]

Dictatorship of the proletariat/dictatorship by the proletariat/workers' democracy/workers' government/workers' self-management

It's all in the same bag, if I put it like this. Dictation is something that the road to communism definitely needs but the question remains still for some individals. That is question:"dictation by whom?"

The Answer:"By the proletariat." As simple as that. The time of learning what proletariat represents is of importance here but we've discussed this numerously, so I suggest going to previous posts or reading something.

[Iepilei]

but that's just what was said. By the proletariat sounds better when talking to certain groups. To you and I we see what Marx meant, but not everyone has our same paradigm.

[Marxman]

That's just the slightest misunderstanding. What about the others who don't even know the word Stalinism?

[Turnoviseous]

I think that key thing is that Marxists label every rule of one class "dictatorship". We say dictatorship of bourgeoisie or bourgeois democracy. But the thing is that bourgeois theoriticians see dictatorship of bourgeoisie as the ultimate democracy.

They don´t see the class that rules. They don´t see it in capitalism, neither they can see, how would proletariat rule.

So, by saying dictatorship, they don´t see the class that rules, but a man...

Well even one man can not rule if he does not represents the interests of ruling class to some degree. (examples: Hitler, Stalin,..)... I have been talking about that anyway on one other occasion...

[Valkyrie]

Well, it's because the very nature of the word dictatorship denotes an autocracy. It's not the word proletariat that people have a problem with.

Anway, it's not splitting hairs as Marxsman seems to think, but when I am trying to present Marxism to someone I tend to stay away from those loaded idioms myself.

[peaccenicked]

''Talk in the language the workers understand'' is always good advice. We have to remember it takes two to communicate. It is a skill to translate the essential ideas of Marx into the modern political arena.

Precision is a luxury we can do without at 'first contact'
scenarios. Naturally workers interested in the science of it all can find out what the jargon means. It would be a mistake to assume auto-understanding of the words we use.

[Turnoviseous]

Yes, I think that we should use term workers´ democracy instead of dictatorship of proletariat when talking to someone who is new in Marxism.

We can tell him about the dictatorship of proletariat letter...

[Valkyrie]

Speaking of Trotsky (from a different thread) the one thing I will always stand by him saying is (paraphrase)

If you are trying to get your message out, speak in terms a 5-year old would understand.


Which reminds me of an amusing little anecdote I once read.

Stalin was giving a speech in the Center Square to the masses as someone came up to him giving him a written message, which he read to the people.

"Comrade Trotsky has sent me a message. He says: You ARE right and I am wrong."

Later upon hearing that Trotsky says "That is not what I said. I said " YOU are right? and I am wrong?"


No matter how many times I think of that, it never loses it's impact on me. Interpretation is everything.

[Marxman]

Actually, Trotsky was right upon everything after Lenin died. His Marxist skills developed so much that he was like a man with a crystal ball. I mean, fascism was only in its embryonic stage (the real deal of fascism) and Trotsky so profoundly described it that there is no better substitute. And not to mention the October revolution in its fullest details or Stalin's regime from top to bottom. Stalin knew Trotsky was right but, of course, he wanted him dead for that. And Trotsky also predicted the fall of Stalinism.

Interpretation is everything, of course. In that case, misinterpretation of Trotsky is a crime.

[El Che]

I`m sorry but I`m still a bit confused.

Does the concept of DoP translate into society where only the individuals who belong to a certain class have political power? Or rather does it translate into a society where bourgeoisie hegemony is destroyed and all people, from all classes, detain power equaly?

Is the DoP inherently of Socialist nature?

[peaccenicked]

The Dop is a transitional form, so it has characteristics of both, a class to end bourgeios rule and a class to end all class rule. How this pans out in reality, is obscured by Stalinism and the uneven development of revolutionary situations throughout the world.
However, Marx envisaged this as the way that class society would come to an end, it is easier to see it in terms of historical necessity. Though history is not a straight line. The workers become a majority in favour of dispossessing the bourgeois, the working class lose their class function, ie they have no class to serve.
The State becomes obsolete. Freedom emerges.

The process is the conscious eradication of power relationships from society. It is not individuals as in a few but as a class as a class acting in its own interests.
The first historic class to abolish itself and diffuse power
relations in all their forms.
Stalinism has made us wary of corrupt leaders but if the workers can defeat the bourgeois they can surely learn how to defeat corruption.

[El Che]

Fair enough.

But a few considerations are that we should keep in mind and that I would like to associate with DoP are:

That power should be in the hands of the people, to the exception of noone.

That the progressive (or regressive) course society is to take is to be chosen by the people. For if DoP refers to a given social transformation, one can not speak of imposing DoP for to do so is to speak of imposing a political agenda unto the people rather then it emanating from the same.

That one can only, and should only, go so far as too remove all obstacles to free thought, by achiving a society free of indoctrination and intellectual harrasment.


If what is refered to as DoP seeks to achive these legitimate goals in what concerns intitutionalised power structures and democracy in general, that is one thing. If it seeks to accomplish the above (therefore in a sense "giving power to the proletariat", though what is important here is to realise in what sense to we give power to the workers. To do that you must first ask the question: what is it that denies them power?) and also seeks to other political-social-economic goals, then that is another thing.
And if, finaly, it is only a sociological project, i.e socialism, to be acomplished by means that differ from the ones I broadly described, then that is yet another thing.

According to how you understand it, so should you use the concept. And depending on how you understand and use it so will different people agree/disagree with you, my self included.

[peaccenicked]

Capitalism is a destructive influence on thought, for thought to be truly free it has to go beyond the confines
of commodity fetish. Power is fetish of a sort it commodifies people. Socialism transforms commodities into social products, but the fetish character will still scar the new society. Power is not given to the workers.
The workers take the power out of the hands of the exploiters. After that has been secured, we do not need power so much. There is nothing left to do with power but to tackle remaining fetishes. I would hope that the majority would want to do this humanely and inteligently. If it is not done in this way it would prove fetishness is a part of human nature for all time. I do not believe this is so.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:50 pm on Sep. 23, 2002)

[El Che]

"Capitalism is a destructive influence on thought, for thought to be truly free it has to go beyond the confines
of commodity fetish."

So, what you mean is that this whole consumerist culture has a "destructive influence" on thought, blinds people to the injustices of Capitalism, and indeed often to their own situation of semi-slaves, with promises of illusory wealth? Good point. But what if people want their fetishes? should we decide for them if they are to have them? I dont think so and I think the majority of you will agree with me, at least I hope so.

"The workers take the power out of the hands of the exploiters. After that has been secured, we do not need power so much."

Sounds good to me. Now all we need is to convince the workers...

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from El Che on 2:41 am on Sep. 24, 2002

. But what if people want their fetishes? should we decide for them if they are to have them? I dont think so and I think the majority of you will agree with me, at least I hope so.


I don't think people should be coerced into giving things up, either. I think, however, in a socialist societies commodities will gradually lose their fetish qualities because they are being produced for social consumption, not for profit. Education, also, will help people see commodoties in a new light.

[RGacky3]

People will still be able to keep their "fetishes" in a socialist system, peope hav to loose the thought that every one is the same in a socialist system, that is a miss conception. People are the same ECONOMICALLY, however they stil all have different tastes and every thing, and there will be different poducts for different people, however without capitalism.

[peaccenicked]

Fetishness is not merely the obsessive quality of the power of money. It is also its wider distortion.
Marx quotes shakespeare
''Shakespeare in Timon of Athens:

“Gold? Yellow, glittering, precious gold?
No, Gods, I am no idle votarist! ...
Thus much of this will make black white, foul fair,
Wrong right, base noble, old young, coward valiant.
... Why, this
Will lug your priests and servants from your sides,
Pluck stout men’s pillows from below their heads:
This yellow slave
Will knit and break religions, bless the accursed;

Make the hoar leprosy adored, place thieves
And give them title, knee and approbation
With senators on the bench: This is it
That makes the wappen’d widow wed again;

She, whom the spital-house and ulcerous sores
Would cast the gorge at, this embalms and spices
To the April day again. Come, damned earth,
Thou common whore of mankind, that put’st odds
Among the rout of nations.”

And also later:

“O thou sweet king-killer, and dear divorce
‘Twixt natural son and sire! thou bright defiler
Of Hymen’s purest bed! thou valiant Mars!
Thou ever young, fresh, loved and delicate wooer,

Whose blush doth thaw the consecrated snow
That lies on Dian’s lap! Thou visible God!
That solder’st close impossibilities,
And makest them kiss! That speak’st with every tongue,

To every purpose! O thou touch of hearts!
Think, thy slave man rebels, and by thy virtue
Set them into confounding odds, that beasts
May have the world in empire!”

The fetishness is extremely powerful. Even today our opposition to war and media control are fetishes not of our creating. Should not we be thinking more humanely, but how can we when all around us is inhumane.
Free thinking requires free conditions to think under or with.
We dont want to decide for others but use our thoughts to get quality freedom started. Limits on desire either indicate poverty or a spiritual greed, a minor aspect of fetishness. Comrade we could say ''There is enough soup in the bowl for everyone.'' Only the few rich and the petty bourgeios types would deny us.
Our blindness and people outside us blindness is relative to each present individual circumstance.

I dont think it is a matter of convincing workers.
It is a matter of bringing clarity to the political situation.
It is a movement of blindness to seeing. There are those who dont want to see. How do we convince them?
As Engels said.''Necessity is blind insofar as it is not understood'' ...............and from Hegel .........''Freedom is the recognition of necessity''.
It is not a matter of getting people to agree but bringing about a pole of attraction that people can view in opposition to the hard cash world that embraces most of all our thinking. This is our history. This is the way we are evolving. This pole of attraction has the potential to shape itself into the vehicle of popular revolution. Its organisation is all we have.
IMO it is only our speed of learning and that in time with others in this universal struggle that may change the shape of things to come(bar real disaster).
This reactionary period has a tendency to produce despondency, perhaps this too is part of our growth, to strengthen our will to win our world.
''Forever til victory''

(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:41 am on Sep. 24, 2002)

[Marxman]

What is the important thing in DOP?

WORKERS own the means of production for the first time in human history! They wield them and they own them and they control them. Einstein said that would be a totoal progressive advancement in the road to socialism. Means of production move this world around for cappies and workers are enslaved by the burgeois to wield the means of p. but they do not own them.

That will be one of the greatest achievements in the human history, for workers to control the means of production. That is what deprives them of freedom now.