dictatorship of the proletariat

[Tower of Bebel]

(TAKN:) Marxists dont believe in a state either, but they want a DotP afterwards, which we anarchists oppose.

So, what's wrong with the dictatorship of the proletariat? What's the anarchist perspective?

[Leo]

I think they expect a full blown social insurrection which will automatically abolish the classes so there would be some sort of social collectivism.

Although there are some anarchists who want the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[RGacky3]

The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a marxist one and debated over all the time, I personally think its better for Anarchists just to ignore it, I think its a flawed concept and not really helpful.

[apathy maybe]

Depends on what you mean.

If you mean the "proletariat" organised as a state, then all anarchists are against that. ("State" is used to mean something like minority rule, any rule by the "proletariat" cannot be in the form of a state. But rather it would be people ruling on "behalf of" the proletariat. Fuck that.)

If you mean the majority of the population ruling in a horizontal structure, then I guess some anarchists would be fine with that.

Really though, (most/all) anarchists aim to abolish the relevance of class ASAP after a revolution, which would render the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" irrelevant.

[Djehuti]

DOTP:

Bakunin: "What does it mean, the proletariat organized as ruling class?"

Marx: "It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared."



I don't believe that anarchists oppose this. As far as I know, Bakunins only real objection was that the proletarians was in minority at the time (most were still peasants back then). Many anarchists saw the peasants as a revolutionary class, Marx did not.

(today most peasants are included in the proletariat)

[rebelworker]

I think most class struggle anarchists want a dictatorship of the proletariate, but we have gone to great lengths to distance ourselves from what most people think of when they hear that phrase, the dictatorship of the party practiced after most succesful Bolshevik inspired revolutions.

We recognise that the workingclass is not capable of ruling in a highly centralised state, we are mearly subjegated to thewill of the new burocratic or party ruling class.

Only federated community and workplacecouncils will allow true "rule of the working class".

Bolshevik supporters will disagre with what I have said, but in practice in Russia there were many Party bodies which were above the democratic structures set up by theworking class. These bodies driven by the Bolshevik beleif (well Trotsky and Lenin at the least) in one man managementand other clearly anti working class ideas, led to the political and physical disarmament and marginalisation of the working masses in the governance of the revoution. By the time Stalin came along, the workerswere no loner emowered enough to resist the alread powerful burocratic ruling class.

[Vargha Poralli]

I think most class struggle anarchists want a dictatorship of the proletariate, but we have gone to great lengths to distance ourselves from what most people think of when they hear that phrase, the dictatorship of the party practiced after most succesful Bolshevik inspired revolutions.

Well there had been one Bolshevik revolution in the history and it didn't transform in to a one man dictatorship instantaneously. It took more than 10 full years for the apparatchiks to establish their hegemony and not without murdering almost evry single Bolshevik except Stalin,Trotsky(whom it took out after 3 years after solidifying its position) and Kollontai.


Bolshevik supporters will disagre with what I have said, but in practice in Russia there were many Party bodies which were above the democratic structures set up by theworking class. These bodies driven by the Bolshevik beleif (well Trotsky and Lenin at the least) in one man managementand other clearly anti working class ideas, led to the political and physical disarmament and marginalisation of the working masses in the governance of the revoution.

It had lot more to do with the conditions of those times. Soviet Russia was a very weak workers state with a majority of peasants with the Industrial Infrastructure in complete Ruins after the bloody and Brutal civil war.

If the Russian revolution had been made by Anarchists instead of Bolsheviks your kind would also have done the same thing. Historically unlike Bolsheviks anarchists did the opposite - surrendering to the Bourgeoisie(Kropotkin and CNT leadership in Spain)

Anarchists have the benefit of opposition in my opinion. There had never been an successful anarchist revolution so they didn't get in to the troubles of defending it and continuing it. So all they make is criticise everything others do while not providing a workable alternative theoretically and historically.

[rebelworker]

I disagree with some, but not all of what you said, but this dosnt change the fact that what I said before was true. And it did not take 10 years, workers controll was being activly undermined from 1918 on. There was no real workers controll by 1920.

Also anarchist did not all surrender to the burgeoise, In Spain many resisted and were killed. In Russia the Bolsheviks also brought elements of the old ruling order into thew govt. They usually chose former officers or burocrats over workers. So The russian revoluton was not a sucess, the working class lost! The Bolshevik Party won.

[redcannon]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12, 2007 07:31 am
Depends on what you mean.

If you mean the "proletariat" organised as a state, then all anarchists are against that.
I don't think they mean organizing it as a state, as communism is supposed to be both classless and stateless

[gilhyle]

It seems to me the difference between anarchists and marxists is this: Marxists will work whatever type of state is necessary to defend the seizure of the state and will restructure the State to the desireable form only to the extent that the fight against counter revolution allows whereas anarchists place various conditions on their willingness to defend the state effectively. In certain quite likely circumstances they would prefer to defend the revolutionary state ineffectively.

THe Friends of Durutti probably crossed this line towards the Marxist position

[Leo]

Well there had been one Bolshevik revolution in the history

I don't think it is fair to call the October revolution a "Bolshevik" revolution. That's what the bourgeoisie called the revolution, as if the proletarians were mere puppets manipulated by the evil Bolsheviks who were the only people involved. Even the Bolsheviks themselves called it a workers revolution; it was a workers revolution.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Here again an opinion of mine, It is unfortunate that the idea of DoP is suppressing of one group in favor of another. I understand we are under capitalist despotism. I would have to believe that the future new society would have to be more desirable than the former capitalist one. If socialist society is something that has laws to arrest people who have desires to return to the former economic ways then that society would eventually fall because it failed to meet human desires.

Basically we use Marx's criticisms of capitalism to find what a socialist society would be like. Marx wrote little on what a communist society would be like. I even consider, "To each according to their ability, to each according to their need" as a broad brush statement. That may be good on a cognitive level. Trial and error need to happen to help pave a better road to socialism. I am happy to see that there are other methods than a political state. I found the council commmunism thread interesting and I have made copies of links to read later. Kinda like what the IWW is doing and in essence goes along with Socialist Industrial Unionism departments.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:37 pm
(today most peasants are included in the proletariat)
Are you sure? :rolleyes: Even Lenin realized that tha alliance with the sickle holders was only for the era of primitive stamocap, but eventually even THEY would have to be "proletarianized" (which, BTW, is what I like about the sovkhozy as opposed to the kolkhozy: those on it are wage-earners, not would-be landlords).

[apathy maybe]

What are peasants? In most rich countries today, there aren't such a thing. Farm workers and (small) farmers are well, workers (or petit-bourgeois).

As such, the idea that peasants are part of the working class (I don't like the word proletariat) is perfectly acceptable.

As I understand it (and I welcome correction if I am incorrect), historically the proletariat were considered the industrial workers, and peasants the workers on the land.

[Whitten]

There is a world outside of the Imperialist countries, you know? Peasents still exist in their billions arround the world.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+April 13, 2007 02:55 am--> (Leo Uilleann @ April 13, 2007 02:55 am)
Well there had been one Bolshevik revolution in the history

I don't think it is fair to call the October revolution a "Bolshevik" revolution. That's what the bourgeoisie called the revolution, as if the proletarians were mere puppets manipulated by the evil Bolsheviks who were the only people involved. Even the Bolsheviks themselves called it a workers revolution; it was a workers revolution. [/b]
Well you have misunderstood me but i have worded wrongly. I was responding to rebelworker who said Bolshevik Inspired revolution.

Anyway for bourgeoisie it is a coup. They will never admit that it is a revolution.

Originally posted by rebelworker+--> (rebelworker)
I disagree with some, but not all of what you said, but this dosnt change the fact that what I said before was true. And it did not take 10 years, workers controll was being activly undermined from 1918 on. There was no real workers controll by 1920.[/b]

I have already said that workers were a minority in Soviet Russia. In 1920 the civil war was at its height and the Red Army had started to export the revolution in Europe(they failed of courseBattle of Vistula. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_at_Vistula)). The Russian economy was placed under War Communism.In 1921 with NEP there was a partial retreat from war communism.But the whole Industrial infrastructure had to be rebuilt so the Bolsheviks did use one man management and used specialists in those Industries.It is the demand od the situation that made Bolsheviks to do it.

Originally posted by rebelworker

Also anarchist did not all surrender to the burgeoise, In Spain many resisted and were killed.

Thats why I have specifically mentioned CNT leadership in brackets.

[email protected]

In Russia the Bolsheviks also brought elements of the old ruling order into thew govt. They usually chose former officers or burocrats over workers. So The russian revoluton was not a sucess, the working class lost! The Bolshevik Party won.

I have already given the reasons why the Bolsheviks had to use the elements of the old order in to the new government. And the careerists who joined the party and the government came from all sections of the society even former Mensheviks and right and left SRs. Both the workers and Bolsheviks lost to them.

Saying the Russian revolution a total failure is just sectarian dishonesty.


apathy maybe

As I understand it (and I welcome correction if I am incorrect), historically the proletariat were considered the industrial workers, and peasants the workers on the land.

No you are totally wrong.

[apathy maybe]

Well then g.ram, care to explain why I am wrong and what the historical difference between proletariat and peasant was (for example in Russia before the revolution)? And for that matter, what the difference is now (in for example China or India)?

[TheGreenWeeWee]

City slickers and hicks :-p

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13, 2007 10:08 am
What are peasants? In most rich countries today, there aren't such a thing. Farm workers and (small) farmers are well, workers (or petit-bourgeois).

As such, the idea that peasants are part of the working class (I don't like the word proletariat) is perfectly acceptable.

As I understand it (and I welcome correction if I am incorrect), historically the proletariat were considered the industrial workers, and peasants the workers on the land.
So why did Marx consider the peasantry to be REACTIONARY, then (at least in terms of developed capitalist countries&#39; socialist revolutions)? <_<

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well then g.ram, care to explain why I am wrong and what the historical difference between proletariat and peasant was (for example in Russia before the revolution)? And for that matter, what the difference is now (in for example China or India)?

For Marxists there is a very important difference between prole and peasant.

And it came to light in the Russian revolution, to which many anarchists harp on about.

A peasant in Russia was bonded to the land, had to work on it, but could not own it. Then the whole Tzar the liberator guy came, the peasants got some rights to own land. Though what they produced was sold to the old Land Lords and the Land lords charged them more rent than they could produce food to be sold, so they became indentured to the Land again.

So, their class interest was to own their own land, so they could work and sell their goods on the market. They didn&#39;t want the old Land Lords.

the Urban workers class interest was to take all of the urban workplaces and run it communally, as you need more than a family to run a factory etc.

So, Workers are forced to collective action. Peasants are forced to individual land ownership.

At kronstadt when the red army put the mutiny down, whether or not you agree with the action, the sailors had a declaration with rights for Land ownership, rights for rural craftsmen etc.

So, the Kronstadt sailors, which was made up of peasants, had class interests opposed to the collective interests of the workers.

[Tower of Bebel]

I dug up this old thread because I want to change perspectives: what&#39;s the council communist view of the DOTP? What&#39;s the council communist view on the role of the communist party during the stage of socialism? (I know there is a difference between DOTP and the CP, that there is a difference between DOTP and socialism)

[Janus]

what&#39;s the council communist view of the DOTP?
Basically the same as Marx&#39;s in that it is the manifestation of mass worker&#39;s control through worker&#39;s councils.


What&#39;s the council communist view on the role of the communist party during the stage of socialism?
It&#39;s no longer needed.

[Tower of Bebel]

So the presence of DOTP is the only thing that devides council communists from anarchist after and during the Revolution?

[syndicat]

i think the key thing about the conditions that the libertarian left would place on the new governance structure is that it not have the sort of hierarchical structure that empowers some group apart from the working class, in ways that would favor the emergence of a new dominating class. if that happens, it doesn&#39;t matter what the ideology of these new bosses is, they can call themselves "socialists", but it will mean the working class was not succesful at liberating itself from class subordination and exploitation.

in the case of the Russian revolution, there were a number of structures set up at the outset that would be problematic: concentrating power in soviets in the executives, setting up the Council of People&#39;s Commissars with no real controls by mass bodies of rank and file workers, setting up a centralized state planning system in Nov. 1917 rather than allowing the proposal for a national congress of factory committees to do planning, hiring 30,000 czarist officers to run a top-down army rather than organizing a popular militia, setting up a private party police only answerable to the party central committee (Cheka).

g.ram says the CNT "leadership" surrendered to the bourgeoisie in Spain. I&#39;m not sure which event he has in mind. The May 1937 events were a power struggle, not with the bourgeoisie, but with the Communist party. the working class of Spain was divided into two major union federations -- anarchist CNT and socialist UGT. A solution for Spain had to get the support of both. CNT didn&#39;t have the power by itself to impose a solution on all of Spain. in Sept 1936 the CNT did propose to the UGT leadership that they get rid of the old bourgeois state and create a working class government, a National Defense Council, made up of an equal number of UGT and CNT delegates, to run a unified people&#39;s militia with a unified command, seize the banks and authorize socialization from below of the whole economy, replacement of the Spanish parliament (Cortes) with a National Workers Council, with delegates elected by assemblies at the base. The military would be controlled by CNT-UGT "joint commissions".

I think some people would call this a "dictatorship of the proletariat". organized labor would have had a monopoly on all economic, political and armed power.

The Socialist and Communist Parties, which controlled the UGT, turned down the CNT proposal. So, if not getting rid of the bourgeois state was "surrendering to the bourgeoisie", it was the Socialist and Communist parties who were responsible.

gilhyle refers to the Friends of Durruti proposal as closer to Marxism. This is a common misconception. Two men who were influential in the founding of FoD were Liberto Callejas and Jaime Balius. In Sept-Oct 1936 they were journalists on the big CNT daily paper in Barcelona and they were vigorous advocates for the revolutionary defense council proposal. In Nov. when the CNT decided to go along with the request of the Socialist party that they join the popular front government, Callejas and Balius were fired because they refused to accept this.

So, if you look at the actual program of FoD, it was in fact the original program of the CNT in Sept 1936. They were not deviating towards "Marxism" but proposing a return to the original anarcho-syndicalist program.

[syndicat]

One correction in my account of the CNT proposal of Sept 1936 in the Spanish revolution: The body to which the revolutionary defense council would be answerable was to be a National Workers Congress (not "council"). This would be sort of equivalent to the Soviet Congress in the Russian revolution but there are differences:

1. the assemblies at the base would be on-going decision-making bodies, based on participatory democracy. so it wasn&#39;t just a question of a parliamentary style election. there would be bodies at the base to execize oversight. moreover the anarchists proposed that on important questions, the issue would be referred back to the assemblies to make the decision.

2. the governing council would be elected directly by the congress. in the Russian revolution, the Council of People&#39;s Commissars was only very indirectly accountable to the congress. The congress elected an intermediate body, the Central Executive Committee, to which the People&#39;s Commissars were accountable in theory.

3. it wasn&#39;t a proposal for a political party to take power but for power to be held by the mass organizations of the workers, the unions. in practice there were five main political tendencies in the CNT and UGT that would have been represented in the government by way of their union supporters: Left Socialists, social-democrats, PCE (Moscow-line Communists), FAI, and treintistas (the more moderate anarcho-syndicalists). The CNT and Left Socialists together would have had a majority, reflecting their actual support within the Spanish working class at that moment.

4. the proposed unified people&#39;s militia was not to be organized as a conventional hierarchical army with unlimited authority and privileges for the officers. the sections of the armed forces would be directly overseen by committees elected by the UGT and CNT unions, so the armed forces would be directly accountable to the organized working class, as the Red Army was not.

[Rawthentic]

I.E : a state.

Glad to hear you&#39;ve understood that you advocate a state. Or are you still stubborn and ignorant on the subject?