the dictatorship of the proletariat

[redarmyfaction38]

how, given, the last 200 years of capitalist morality and economic dominance, does a "revolutionary party/ the self organised proletariat" take control without relying on the mechanisms of the "state" it has overthrown to "impose" the new "revolutionary" order on those it has overthrown?
how can the "new order" prevent itself from becoming a new "ruling class".?

quotes are welcome.

BUT, bearing in mind, i'm a cynical, antogonistic, trotskyist/anarchist bar steward, you better have good reasoning behind any "quotes" :D

btw, this is relevant, cos, there is more than a "chance" we'll actually have to deal with "power" i n the next 20 yrs. or so.

no, not me, you'll have to deal with it, i'll probably have died by then :rolleyes:

[Rawthentic]

comrade,

A thread I made yesterday in the History forum deals precisely with this question.

It is called a "Major Study of the Cultural Revolution" and is a very well done analysis of the Cultural Revolution.

The basic premise is: how do the people deepen and continue socialist transformations under socialism? How does the leading party "stay Red"?

Socialism and capitalism are both class societies, in all forms. Consequently, there is an acute class struggle. Under socialism, this class struggle does take form in national conspiracies or actions by former members of the ruling class against the capitalist state. It takes the form of imperialist invasion.

But, most notably (and something that maoists "discovered"), socialism is a society that is still bears the scars of the old society. There are wages, division of labor, and, basically, old ideas, attitudes, and methods persist from the old society.

Objectively, members from the communist party under socialism begin to take such attitudes and practice and implement policies that represent this and objectively are reversals to the revolutionary transformations. Take as an example: Mao said that in production, politics needed to be in command. You can't deepen socialist relations amongst workers or peasants if their consciousness isn't challenged towards a higher understanding of the need to produce for the purpose of socialism and communism. There were party officials that began implementing incentives so that the workers could harder. There were no politics involved, and the concept of class struggle and socialist relations did not matter. This is an example of the underpinning of the cultural revolution. All over China, as a mass movement against "capitalist roaders" (those officials i mentioned taking the road back the old system), a new management system was created, 3-in-1 committees. They were composed of a worker, party cadre, and soldier, and they all participated in production and management. There were study sessions all the time that were meant to study different lines contending in china as well to come to a better of understanding of communism and their role in it. It was a new form of worker's control.

just some thoughts. I recommend reading the thread I posted in History.

[ZeroNowhere]

Socialism and capitalism are both class societies, in all forms.
Wait, what?


how, given, the last 200 years of capitalist morality and economic dominance, does a "revolutionary party/ the self organised proletariat" take control without relying on the mechanisms of the "state" it has overthrown to "impose" the new "revolutionary" order on those it has overthrown?
There's nothing to impose. Capitalists do not control the means of production, the workers do. As a consequence, the capitalists aren't at all essential, and nothing needs to be 'imposed' on them for collective ownership of the means of production to come about.

[Mister X]

BUT, bearing in mind, i'm a cynical, antogonistic, trotskyist/anarchist

How can you be a Trotskyist and an Anarchist at the same time? It's an oxymoron.

Going to your question my standard action is that you can't view history idealistically like most people do. You have to view it as a result of material conditions. I have in mind to create a thread over why each revolution we saw in the 20th Century resulted in the way it resulted.

Basically there are two trends:
1) A Degenerated workers state , which became like that due to the material conditions of backwardness, isolation etc. (Eg. USSR)

2)A Deformed workers state , which became like that due to the method with which capitalism was overthrown (eg China, Cuba), or due to the influence of the already degenerated USSR(Eastern Blocks)

It is important to note that a degenerated workers state was once a healthy workers state, while a deformed workers state was never a healthy workers state.

Now going over to your question, no it is not due to the dictatorship of the proletariat, which means the democratic rule of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

Even the best idea like the one just mentioned turns to its opposite due to the effect of the objective material conditions.

[Rawthentic]

Wait, what?



?

Socialism has the proletariat as the leading class in society and the former oppressors ousted.

The difference is, socialism is a radically different society in that it emerges from capitalist society and struggles to defeat its old ideas and attitudes that are the basis for the re-emergence of a capitalist class (as happened in the old Soviet Union and China).

[Revy]

It's a simple idea. After the revolution overthrows the bourgeoisie, the workers democratically control the state and prevent a bourgeois counterrevolution. It is not synonymous with the dictatorship of an individual.

[Kassad]

It's a simple idea. After the revolution overthrows the bourgeoisie, the workers democratically control the state and prevent a bourgeois counterrevolution. It is not synonymous with the dictatorship of an individual.

Precisely. Lenin describes it very well in State and Revolution. Broadly speaking, the proletariat overthrows the bourgeoisie system and takes control of the state through revolution. The state is forcefully destroyed. After the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, we begin working towards a revolutionary socialist 'state'. The dictatorship will be phased out as we work towards communism.

[Mister X]

Wait, what?

Both are class societies that is why both require a state.
Communism is a classless society socialism is a class society.

[Kassad]

Both are class societies that is why both require a state.
Communism is a classless society socialism is a class society.

Well, socialism is meant to formulate a state that serves people's needs, not the corporate greed that the state advocates and supports at the current time. They are two completely different 'states'.

[Tower of Bebel]

?

Socialism has the proletariat as the leading class in society and the former oppressors ousted.

The difference is, socialism is a radically different society in that it emerges from capitalist society and struggles to defeat its old ideas and attitudes that are the basis for the re-emergence of a capitalist class (as happened in the old Soviet Union and China).
The period of (political and economic) revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is a class society. I don't think socialism is, because socialism means the end of capital (the revolution puts an end to the rule of capital) as a (dominant) social or production relation. Under socialism there are only workers and maybe farmers. There will be a "state", maybe even "bourgeois laws" (Marx), but this state is even less than "a state not in the actual sense of the word" (Engels). It is a dying state (if you cannot call it dead already) because there is only one class that exists. There are no capitalists or landlords to control because there is no dominance of capitalist ways of production.

[Mister X]

Well, socialism is meant to formulate a state that serves people's needs, not the corporate greed that the state advocates and supports at the current time. They are two completely different 'states'It is understood that different economic systems have different states.
But Socialism and Capitalism have both a state and classes. It's a fact.

[ZeroNowhere]

Both are class societies that is why both require a state.
Communism is a classless society socialism is a class society.
Sorry about that, I'm one of the people that uses 'socialism' as a synonym for communism. "Socialism is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is socialism; nothing short of that."


The period of (political and economic) revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is a class society
Well, within the commune, there are no classes, and being an ex-capitalist is not a class (unlike what people occasionally seem to think). From an internationalist perspective, however, the bourgeoisie still exist, thus still have interests that compete with the proletariat. So, for example, within the Spanish communes there were no classes, but there certainly was a bourgeoisie still around, they were funding Franco. Well, except for the Russian bourgeoisie, who were just being a load of assholes.


It's a simple idea. After the revolution overthrows the bourgeoisie, the workers democratically control the state and prevent a bourgeois counterrevolution. It is not synonymous with the dictatorship of an individual.
The state meaning the enforcement of one class' interests over another, of course. Therefore, a workers' state would simply mean an area where class is abolished, though capitalism still exists externally. It could be mutualist, syndicalist, or whatever the hell else.