Post-Revolution Society - Authoritarian or Liberal?

[Klondike]

For all of you revolutionaries, after our revolution brings our cause to the people, and capitalism has been toppled, are authoritarian policies going to be necessary? Is there going to be a centralized, authoritative, vanguard, 'workers' government? Is there going to be a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'? If so, how will it be brough forth? Is the general social atmosphere going to be liberal? Let's discuss.

[rAW DEaL bILL]

well me being an anarcho-socialist i fucking hope theres no dictatorship! yick! absolute power corrupts absolutely. just ask those in china, russia, vietnam etc... not so much in cuba but enough to prove that absolute power corrupts absolutely, even in a communist economics system. i wonder how many times ive said "absolute power corrupts absolutely" in this site... anyway id hope thered be some form unhierarchal government in which the people determine the actions in the nation and no1s vote counts more than anyone elses.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Bill, I'll have you know that a dictatorship of the proletariat is a step in the direction of achieving Communism where the worker uses it's absolute power to suppress the bourgeoisie.

[jjack]

I think there's a misconception about what is meant by 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' Let's break it down.

Dictatorship: Don't let this word throw you. It comes from the word dictate; "to issue a directive or command." Therefore, any entity that issues directives or commands is a "dictatorship." Raw Deal Bill, even if a non-hierarchal government were to come to a completely democratic consensus on what directives or commands these may be, it would still be a "dictatorship."

Of: Key word here. Not for. Not over. Not merely involving. Of. This means that the dictatorship consists of, in it's entirety, the....

Proletariat: ie, the working class, or the vast majority of people in general.

So, finally, when we put it all together, Dictatorship of the Proletariat = the vast majority of the people in any society dictating the rules by which that society operates. In a single word, democracy.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The practice of concentrating power in few hands can only lead back to social stratification and the failure of the revolution.

"Democracy", "dictatorship of the proletariat", "power to the people" - call it what you will, the basic idea is the same: the people themselves must be in charge. Authoritarian governments can never escape corruption.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I agree with edric, a vanguard party cannot lead a revolution in the name of the worker and cannot claim absolute power in the name of the working class.

[ComradeJunichi]

Very well said, jjack.


Quote: from Edric O on 9:48 am on May 28, 2003
The practice of concentrating power in few hands can only lead back to social stratification and the failure of the revolution.

"Democracy", "dictatorship of the proletariat", "power to the people" - call it what you will, the basic idea is the same: the people themselves must be in charge. Authoritarian governments can never escape corruption.


"The people themselves must be in charge", now tell me. How will you do that? So many of you say that the whole working class must be in charge, I'm sorry but explain that to me.

[inessa1917]

this is absolutely a stupid question to ask. we won't fight any revolutions to get the same shit again which we want to destroy! well, Klondike, i think that you have some problems with definitions: dictature of the proletariat means that proletariat has the power and the proletariat dictates to the former ruling class, and finally destroys it. and this can be only the ruling of the proletariat (in a system which is in fact a direct democracy) and not the ruling of a single person or bureaucracy.

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from inessa1917 on 10:08 pm on May 28, 2003
this is absolutely a stupid question to ask. we won't fight any revolutions to get the same shit again which we want to destroy! well, Klondike, i think that you have some problems with definitions: dictature of the proletariat means that proletariat has the power and the proletariat dictates to the former ruling class, and finally destroys it. and this can be only the ruling of the proletariat (in a system which is in fact a direct democracy) and not the ruling of a single person or bureaucracy.

It's a stupid question? Oh yeah, the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is a direct democracy, huh? I hope you know there is a grey area, not just two extremes of direct democracy and bureacracy.

It is not a stupid question to ask, it's "stupid" to simplify post revolution society into a few words and just labeling it "direct democracy". Please explain, how this will all work after revolution.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think it's clear taht the worker must have complete power, but the question remains, will the worker need a strong authoritative vanguard party to suppress the bourgeoioie, or not. After all, if the revolution is sufficiently popular, we may not need force to ostracize or oppress the bourgeoisie, perhaps the fact that they are outnumbered will be enough to suppress their power and class status.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 10:05 pm on May 28

"The people themselves must be in charge", now tell me. How will you do that? So many of you say that the whole working class must be in charge, I'm sorry but explain that to me.

Well, here is how it should basically work:

eDemocracy (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=817&start=0)

[YKTMX]

Quote: from jjack on 7:20 am on May 27, 2003
I think there's a misconception about what is meant by 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' Let's break it down.

Dictatorship: Don't let this word throw you. It comes from the word dictate; "to issue a directive or command." Therefore, any entity that issues directives or commands is a "dictatorship." Raw Deal Bill, even if a non-hierarchal government were to come to a completely democratic consensus on what directives or commands these may be, it would still be a "dictatorship."

Of: Key word here. Not for. Not over. Not merely involving. Of. This means that the dictatorship consists of, in it's entirety, the....

Proletariat: ie, the working class, or the vast majority of people in general.

So, finally, when we put it all together, Dictatorship of the Proletariat = the vast majority of the people in any society dictating the rules by which that society operates. In a single word, democracy.


Great post.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think that a dictatorship of the proletariat is essential, if there is to be a violent revolution, which I believe must take place. A dictorship of the proletariat, as jjack insightfuly illustrated, is necessary to completely suppress the bourgeoisie. After the communist revolution, the ruling class will retain its chracter, a charater that must be destroyed if the working class is to have power. During the dictatorship of the proletariat, a vanguard party must seize power. But is the vanguard party going to consist of the intelectual and revolutionary elite of the bourgeoisie? Will such a party legitimately work in fuction of the working class? No, in fact, I would expect such a party to create an authoritarian, beurocratic, and state capitalistic society. The vanguard party must consist of members of the working class, as they are the only ones who are destined to work in favor of the working class.

[Kez]

surely the vanguard and its works must take place BEFORE the revolution is established, and the dictatorship of the proleteriat is establisheed.

Once dictatorship of proles takes place, from my knowledge tehre wont be any vanguard, the vanguards job is merely to spearhead the revolution

I dont see what this thread has to do with the title of authoritarian or liberal...

comrade kamo

[Klondike]

I think I may have missused the word 'vanguard'. By vanguard, I meant the leaders of the Communist party that would be in power during the dictatorship of the proletariat. Good post, btw, jjack. I'd also like to hear Redstars's insight on this subject, I recal reading something by him on the matter and would like his input.

[Conghaileach]

If the leaders of the communist party are in power, then it's not really a dictatorship of the proletariat. What it is, is a dictatorship of another elite class "on behalf of" the proletariat.

(Edited by CiaranB at 2:23 am on June 3, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from CiaranB on 8:21 pm on June 2, 2003
If the leaders of the communist party are in power, then it's not really a dictatorship of the proletariat. What it is, is a dictatorship of another elite class "on behalf of" the proletariat.

(Edited by CiaranB at 2:23 am on June 3, 2003)


that was my point

[Conghaileach]

What I'm saying is that any vanguard, even if made up of members of the working class, is succeptible to corruption. A working-class vanguard still exists as a distinct entity from the rest of the working class. It's another new elite group.

[Klondike]

Quote: from CiaranB on 12:50 pm on June 3, 2003
What I'm saying is that any vanguard, even if made up of members of the working class, is succeptible to corruption. A working-class vanguard still exists as a distinct entity from the rest of the working class. It's another new elite group.

during the dictatorship of the proletariat, a communist party will need to be in power, right? Whoever is a member or has influence over such a party, will have power, or is there anotehr alternative?

[Conghaileach]

Considering how many (so-called) communist/socialist parties there are in existance, it'd be difficult for any one of them to be in power.

People high up in the communist party may be there because they're well versed in Marx or because they're good at keeping the account books in order. It doesn't mean that we should just let them become rulers over us.

The role of the communist party(ies), as far as I'm concerned, is the education and politicisation of the working class.

If the workers don't truly understand what they're fighting for, then any revolution is doomed to fail. A politicised proletariat will know when someone claiming to be their leader is trying to screw them over, and they'll stop that person/people, even if another revolution is necessary. And another. And another. This is what I see as the 'permanent' revolution.

Dictatorship of the proletariat should be what it claims to be, as jjack has explained well.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

okay, Ciaran, another question, though. Would the revolution itself be carried out by a vanguard party? Would a vanguard party lead the revolution in the best intrests of the working class? Would they establish a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat?

[Conghaileach]

I'm not sure how likely it is that a vanguard would simple move aside and step down voluntarily. It could be made up of many altruistic individuals, but it could also be made up of many opportunists - or even those who get a taste for power.

I don't know what shape any kind of revolution will take. Idealistically there'd be no need for a vanguard. I believe that when the time for a proper revolution has truly come, the workers will be educated and politicised enough to make a vanguard obsolete.

[Blibblob]

the workers will be educated and politicised enough to make a vanguard obsolete.
You sure? "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious." --George Orwell - 1984
Don't trust the people to educate themselves. You educated yourself, thats how you came across this ideology. Do you expect the masses to educate themselves? They've lived the same way their entire lives, they have not seen change, therefore, they wont work for it. There must be one revolution, that will take education as its primary goal, after that, a second revolution will occur. The masses will revolt themselves, without help. The must be taken to that point though, they aren't intelligent to do it themselves, yet.

[Conghaileach]

It's probably a bit idealistic what I've been saying.

A lot of Marxists say that a revolution will be around 100 years away, because it will take that long for the workers to wake up and smell the exploitation, and get themselves together and organised as a class.

I feel that there are many coniditions in which the workers can become radicalised quickly. In periods of great strain on the capitalist system, like deep recessions, depressions and the like, downtrodden workers can be politicised.

Like the 1920s, it's just a matter of who gets to them first - us or the fascists. The right-wing preaches left wing economics to get the workers on the side, while using scape goats to tell them that sorting out the problem is going a matter of getting rid of that scapegoat.

We have more work to do. The left is an enemy of the state. The right isn't.

[Conghaileach]

On education after revolution, look what happened in Russia. The force within Bolshevism that won the power struggle in the early 20s, the Stalinists, had a working class below them who had not been educated properly. So the workers were easily fooled into accepting the Stalinist line.

Waiting until after a revolution is once again placing trust in the elite, the leaders, to do what's best for everyone else.