Anarchism and dictatorship of the proletariat

[nvm]

Dictatorship of the proletariat means dictatorship of the many. It was a play on words. It is supposed to redefine our understanding of democracy: Democracy = rule by majority....not rule by a representative majority.

It does NOT mean...Rule by a vanguard of elite individuals.

We call this an antonym: The two words together create a meaning out of their respective oppositeness. Dictatorship (implying one), Proletariat (implying the majority of society).....thus it means.....the dictatorial (unquestioned) rule of the majority of society.

So since anarchist-communists at lest believe in democracy ( because other anarchists believe that democracy is the oppression of the many against the few which is totally individualistic but that's another story, which Bookchin's book Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism explains it better), then i think that at least the anarchist communists should be FOR the dictatorship of the proletariat!

I look forward to see your views on that!

[STI]

Anarcho-communists, by and large, are for unopposed control of society by those who've built it - call them the ex-proletariat - and for the suppression/elimination of counter-revolutionary ex-bourgeois elements

The problem with the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is that it's often conflated with the dictatorship of the "workers' party" via some state apparatus... and the term itself, ironic as its intent may have been, really does lend itself well to that interpretation.

So, when talking with other revolutionary leftists, I'll not hesitate to use the term. But when talking politics out in the real world I opt more to explain what's meant by the term, then introduce it, if at all.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Didn't Marx (or Engels) say that the Paris Commune was an example of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? I believe I remember reading that somewhere...

But anyway, I used to believe that the DOTP was referring to some kind of authoritarian, elite government (like the USSR), but now I realize that this wasn't the case.

[Dros]

Didn't Marx (or Engels) say that the Paris Commune was an example of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? I believe I remember reading that somewhere...

But anyway, I used to believe that the DOTP was referring to some kind of authoritarian, elite government (like the USSR), but now I realize that this wasn't the case.

A.) They did.
B.) It doesn't (but you know that now).
C.) And no, it (the USSR) wasn't.

[RNK]

It isn't that anarchists don't "believe" in DOTP. They reject Marxist ideals on how it should come to be, how it should manifest.

Generally, communists believe that capitalism must be eroded by progressive state measures before society will be ready to do away with classes and states completely. Anarchists believe that the state can be dismantled overnight.

The general Marxist criticism of the anarchist position is that 150 years of capitalism can not simply be undone overnight without society crumbling at its foundation and turning into complete and utter chaos as all structure is immediately removed.

The general anarchist criticism of the Marxist position is that it often leads to authoritarian governments disassociating themselves from popular rule (usually citing the USSR), that any state is inherently oppressive and that the only solution is the immediate destruction of the state.

Naturally, anarchists are idealistic fools.

The end. :D

[nvm]

C.) And no, it (the USSR) wasn't.


Well after Lenin died and Stalin took over it was kind of authoritarian!

[Dimentio]

The problem with true democracy is that it holds few inhibitions. In practice, there should be no laws, and the will of the majority is to be made into law, whatever it might be.

The problem with that system is that if the majority is uneducated or supports reactionary philosophies and beliefs (like they often are in the third world countries where revolutions do occur), the system leaps a considerable risk of turning into a classical dictatorship.

I am not an elitist, but when the majority of the people are illiterate, and has been taught to respect and uphold traditions like wife-beating, stoning, female circumcision, ritual animal torture and ethnic hatred, there is little opportunity that a proletarian dictatorship with that as the base could produce a genuinly socialist system.

Stoning scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erthun0Pauc)

[Bright Banana Beard]

Naturally, anarchists are idealistic fools.

The end. :D

At least we do not support the involvement of dogmatic restriction by the state.

[bayano]

Serpent- and that is why you fight in part using counter-hegemony, creating a culture of resistance, etc etc. the revolution is in each of the participants. literacy campaigns, for example, in regions where many dont know how to read (which includes parts of the West too) doesnt just teach that tool- it can teach values.

as for dotp, i dont find it useful except in discussion of marx and lenin. the basic marxian definition many of us agree with. but i dont think its a useful term in the general public.

[anti-authoritarian]

Dictatorship of the proletariat invariably turns into dictatorship of the party elite (or vanguardism). Have nothing against DotP, but it just takes someone like Stalin to screw it up.

[Dimentio]

Dictatorship of the proletariat invariably turns into dictatorship of the party elite (or vanguardism). Have nothing against DotP, but it just takes someone like Stalin to screw it up.

Dictatorship of the proletariat is a very bad term actually, since what most people today means with dictatorship and what most people of the 19th century meant with dictatorship are two different definitions.

[careyprice31]

The problem with true democracy is that it holds few inhibitions. In practice, there should be no laws, and the will of the majority is to be made into law, whatever it might be.

The problem with that system is that if the majority is uneducated or supports reactionary philosophies and beliefs (like they often are in the third world countries where revolutions do occur), the system leaps a considerable risk of turning into a classical dictatorship.

I am not an elitist, but when the majority of the people are illiterate, and has been taught to respect and uphold traditions like wife-beating, stoning, female circumcision, ritual animal torture and ethnic hatred, there is little opportunity that a proletarian dictatorship with that as the base could produce a genuinly socialist system.

Stoning scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erthun0Pauc)

The anarchist would agree with you.

I would have to agree with u. and im not even an anarchist. but i do think the anarchist has a point when he/she says that a state, whether democratic or no, will step on someone's toes even a democratic one.

[Dimentio]

The anarchist would agree with you.

I would have to agree with u. and im not even an anarchist. but i do think the anarchist has a point when he/she says that a state, whether democratic or no, will step on someone's toes even a democratic one.

Yes, and I do agree with that. I do not believe in state power because the state is constructed for the service of the ruling classes. Thus, a classical hierarchic "socialist state" will probably generate a ruling class quite reminding of the old one.

[STI]

I am not an elitist, but when the majority of the people are illiterate, and has been taught to respect and uphold traditions like wife-beating, stoning, female circumcision, ritual animal torture and ethnic hatred, there is little opportunity that a proletarian dictatorship with that as the base could produce a genuinly socialist system.

That's why proletarian revolutions which lead to a classless society have to happen in the first world.


Anarchists believe that the state can be dismantled overnight.

That's a mischaracterization. A lot of anarchists think the new world needs to be built "in the shell of the old" - popular organs of production and distribution, for example - to institute popular control from day one.

Abolishing the state and getting rid of bourgeois elements will not be an easy process, nobody argues that, but this idea of "doing what they do, like they do it, only better, for a few years/decades" isn't how it'll happen.

[MarxSchmarx]

you fight in part using counter-hegemony, creating a culture of resistance, etc etc. the revolution is in each of the participants. literacy campaigns, for example, in regions where many dont know how to read (which includes parts of the West too) doesnt just teach that tool- it can teach values.

Precisely. If "the people" aren't sufficiently committed, intellectually or emotionally, to self-liberation and individual self-determination, then even legal guarantees cannot stave off majoritarian oppression. The task is to develop social institutions that are conducive to creating a conscience of tolerance and mutual respect.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not this again!

Scroll to the bottom of the page and you will see a small selection of threads where this debate has happened in depth.

I can assure you there won't be anything more original or profound than in those other threads.

[Comrade Rage]

I started one of these too.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=66013
You ought to do a search before you start a new thread, and if you find a pre-existing thread on a subject you should just reply to that thread. That's an actual board policy, I believe.