Avoiding A "communist" dictatorship.

[ThisDay]

This might not be the right place for this, so move it if it is not relevant to the learning section.

I was thinking about the dictatorship of the proletariat and how it often ends with people like Stalin becoming a supreme leader for life. Why does a society have to move through a dictatorship of the proletariat to become a communistic society? I don't see very much reason for it, as It seems to me to go against communist principals, giving the proletariat power over others doesn't seem right. I suppose it is better than the bourgeois rule, but what is to stop the proletariat from becoming the new bourgeois?
my questions are, in point form;



What purpose does the dictatorship of the proletariat serve?
What sort of dictatorship would this end up being, and who would be able to decide when the time is right to abolish the dictatorship?
If the dictatorship is not abolished, do you believe that it is a failed attempt at communism?
What justifies the dictatorship of the proletariat?
What are possible alternatives to it?

thank you comrades, I'm just learning myself, so these questions probably seem a little naive to you, thanks for taking your time to at least read them.

[Pogue]

This might not be the right place for this, so move it if it is not relevant to the learning section.

I was thinking about the dictatorship of the proletariat and how it often ends with people like Stalin becoming a supreme leader for life. Why does a society have to move through a dictatorship of the proletariat to become a communistic society? I don't see very much reason for it, as It seems to me to go against communist principals, giving the proletariat power over others doesn't seem right. I suppose it is better than the bourgeois rule, but what is to stop the proletariat from becoming the new bourgeois?
my questions are, in point form;



What purpose does the dictatorship of the proletariat serve?
What sort of dictatorship would this end up being, and who would be able to decide when the time is right to abolish the dictatorship?
If the dictatorship is not abolished, do you believe that it is a failed attempt at communism?
What justifies the dictatorship of the proletariat?
What are possible alternatives to it?
thank you comrades, I'm just learning myself, so these questions probably seem a little naive to you, thanks for taking your time to at least read them.

Firstly I must clear up by dictatorship it means simply class rule, not a dictatorship in terms of one man absolute rule.


as It seems to me to go against communist principals, giving the proletariat power over others doesn't seem right. I suppose it is better than the bourgeois rule, but what is to stop the proletariat from becoming the new bourgeois?

Communism is about empowering the working class. We want the workers to be in control. Thats not against communist principles - the working class are the majority, so they should be in control of what they produce and their own lives. What communist principle do you think this contradicts comrade?

What will stop the proletariat becoming the new bourgeoisie is workers democracy and decentralised power. We'd have abolished capitalism and the bourgeoisie state and so it would be impossible ot become the employing class. Also it'd be impossible for the whole proletariat, i.e. every worker in the world, to become a new employing class. Who would they employ, why would they do it?



What purpose does the dictatorship of the proletariat serve?


To move from capitalism to communism, get rid of the bourgeoisies power and wealth and give the workers true power, in the democratic and equal sense, as a class, as a people, and then move onto a classless society.


What sort of dictatorship would this end up being, and who would be able to decide when the time is right to abolish the dictatorship?

As I sad earlier it'd be a dictatorship of one class over another. In reality it'd be a system of direct democracy and equality.



If the dictatorship is not abolished, do you believe that it is a failed attempt at communism?

If we're forced to be in a socialist stage for a long time I'd say we haven't failed but we'd be meeting problem.s If you mean the DOTP (dictatorship of the proletariat) in the dictatorship sense, I.e. the Stalin sense, then yes it'd be a failed reovlution, but that'd only happen if the revolution degenerated.


What justifies the dictatorship of the proletariat?

The need to destroy the bourgeoisie as a class and distribute its wealth freely and equally and create a socialist society.


What are possible alternatives to it?

As an Anarchist I'd say just moving straight to a stage of communism, but of course theres always going to be a period after or during any revolution in which things will be taken back from the bourgeoisie and things are not perfectly communist yet. Theres no real alternative to it in the sense of the period of us distributing things and removing the bourgeoisie's wealth and power, but the alternative to the Leninist idea of a socialist stage would basically be anarchist theory.

[Mister X]

What purpose does the dictatorship of the proletariat serve?

To create a classless and stateless society.


What sort of dictatorship would this end up being, and who would be able to decide when the time is right to abolish the dictatorship?

It seems like you don't know what "dictatorship of the proletariat means. The dictatorship of the proletariat means the democratic workers control of the means of production and the workers state. Dictatorship of the proletariat was a play of words. Proletariat=the majority. So dictatorship of the proletariat = the dictatorship of the majority = democracy.

Read the definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat before making threads like these.



If the dictatorship is not abolished, do you believe that it is a failed attempt at communism?

Again what are you talking about? You clearly have no idea what the dictatorship of the proletariat is comrade. You are confusing it with Stalinism.

To answer your question supposing that by dictatorship of the proletariat you mean Stalinism, I will tell you that Trotsky said that either the bureaucracy("dictators" as a liberal would call it) will sell out socialism to serve its own interests either there will be a political revolution which will overthrow the bureaucracy and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat=workers democracy.



What justifies the dictatorship of the proletariat?

The proletariat is the motor force of history. Just like the bourgeoisie was a progressive force when it abolished feudalism and built capitalism, only the proletariat can abolish capitalism and build socialism. All other classes(except the bourgeoisie which is now reactionary) will ally themselves with the proletariat in its historic mission.

All this has to do with the relationship of the proletariat to the means of production.



What are possible alternatives to it?

Yes, fascism, social-democracy(capitalism in its keynensian form), the continuation of capitalism in its neo-liberal form and going back to feudalism. All those systems are bankrupt.

[ThisDay]

Thanks to all of you, I am learning.
and I do realize I know very little about the dictatorship of the proletariat, thats why I asked these questions in the first place.

[Pogue]

Thanks to all of you, I am learning.
and I do realize I know very little about the dictatorship of the proletariat, thats why I asked these questions in the first place.

Yeh its cool mate we know. I've been here since 2007 and I still ask questions.

[mikelepore]

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" is an unfortunate name, made up not by Marx but by Blanqui, and Blanqui advocated violent methods, whereas Marx and Engels advocated the political process. Nevertheless, Marx and Engels took up the phrase, although each of them wrote the phrase just a couple times in their entire lives. It refers to the working class telling the deposed propertied class that they must adhere to the newly adopted system, no matter how much they may dislike it. Socialism will become the law, and the old rulers will be expected to obey this new law, or they will be outlaws and handled accordingly.

[ZeroNowhere]

Why does a society have to move through a dictatorship of the proletariat to become a communistic society?
Well, if you wish for a revolution to successfully overthrow capitalism everywhere at the exact same time, then you can have your socialism without the dictatorship of the proletariat. For the rest of us...
Anyways, a dictatorship of the proletariat is basically when the bourgeoisie still exist. For example, the Spanish communes, as the bourgeoisie certainly did exist, and were funding Franco (well, the Russian bourgeoisie was stabbing the anarchists in the back, but anyhow).


"Dictatorship of the proletariat" is an unfortunate name, made up not by Marx but by Blanqui, and Blanqui advocated violent methods, whereas Marx and Engels advocated the political process.
Actually, this is just a myth, it was made by Marx and not Blanqui. To quote Draper, "Incidentally, the ascription of the term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ to Blanqui is a myth industriously copied from book to book by marxologists eager to prove that Marx was a putschist “Blanquist,” but in fact all authorities on Blanqui’s life and works have (sometimes regretfully) announced that the term is not to be found there. More important, the concept of political power exercised by the democratic masses is basically alien to the Blanquist idea of Educational Dictatorship." Yes, I did just quote a Trot. I feel ashamed. :(
As for Blanquism, the problem with it is more along the lines of the fact that it actually does call for a minority 'Educational dictatorship':

Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. this conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government.
-Engels on Blanquists.


It refers to the working class telling the deposed propertied class that they must adhere to the newly adopted system, no matter how much they may dislike it.
Nah, the bourgeoisie would not exist any more in a revolutionary commune, thus one couldn't have a dictatorship of the proletariat over the local bourgeoisie, because they wouldn't exist. It doesn't have anything to do with the local bourgeoisie, and more to do with the fact that, from an internationalist perspective, the bourgeoisie still exist, and have their own class interests. Their interest is in establishing capitalism, a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie', while the proletariat's class interests are in socialism, thus a dictatorship of the proletariat/workers' state is basically the enforcement of proletarian class interests, as going with the Marxist definition of the state. That is, it's classless, but class systems still exiist around it.
However, the dictatorship of the proletariat is different from 'socialism', which is just a synonym for 'communism'.


I don't see very much reason for it, as It seems to me to go against communist principals, giving the proletariat power over others doesn't seem right. I suppose it is better than the bourgeois rule, but what is to stop the proletariat from becoming the new bourgeois?
Looks like you've been listening to too many Bakuninite blabbermouths for your own good.



What sort of dictatorship would this end up being, and who would be able to decide when the time is right to abolish the dictatorship?
Who knows? Syndicalist, collectivist, mutualist... Something. As for abolishing the dictatorship, whoever has access to the US or Russian nuke supply. :D


If the dictatorship is not abolished, do you believe that it is a failed attempt at communism?
If it is abolished, then it's a failed attempt at socialism. If not, then it shall eventually either lead to international revolution and socialism, or be abolished by a counter-revolution or intervention from outside.



What justifies the dictatorship of the proletariat?
I'm hoping you didn't mean 'Why should capitalism be overthrown?'



What are possible alternatives to it?'
Capitalism?

[LOLseph Stalin]

What purpose does the dictatorship of the proletariat serve?
What sort of dictatorship would this end up being, and who would be able to decide when the time is right to abolish the dictatorship?
If the dictatorship is not abolished, do you believe that it is a failed attempt at communism?
What justifies the dictatorship of the proletariat?
What are possible alternatives to it?


Proletariat=majority. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the majority. It's different from the system we have now because(dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) because our current system is a dictatorship of the minority. :)
That minority acts in their own interests.

[Q]

Thanks to all of you, I am learning.
and I do realize I know very little about the dictatorship of the proletariat, thats why I asked these questions in the first place.

It's easy to understand if you realize we now live in a dictatorship of capital - that is a class rule of the bosses' minority over the proletarian majority. The dictatorship of the proletariat is thusly far more democratic.

[mikelepore]

To quote Draper, "Incidentally, the ascription of the term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ to Blanqui is a myth

Yes, what you wrote is more accurate than what I wrote. Blanqui's suggestion was a conspiracy by an armed minority, followed by a temporary dictatorship, supposedly for the emancipation of the proletariat. Blanqui wasn't known to have written the exact phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx later used the phrase during occasions when he was correcting Blanqui about the point that the revolution should be enacted by the working class and not a minority.

[mikelepore]

It refers to the working class telling the deposed propertied class that they must adhere to the newly adopted system, no matter how much they may dislike it.


Nah, the bourgeoisie would not exist any more in a revolutionary commune, thus one couldn't have a dictatorship of the proletariat over the local bourgeoisie, because they wouldn't exist.

That's my point -- after a very brief act of law enforcement, the bourgeoisie would cease to exist. Implementing socialism is expected to require a short duration of enforcement when some thugs loyal to the now-ousted capitalists, and no one can know whether it would be many or few, would be committing violence and vandalism, and so the state, under control of the socialist movement, must apprehend them. To Marx there must be an act of enforcement of the mandate for socialism, but this can be simply an action of some hours or days or whatever is necessary, not some extended "period of history." To Marx, it's just a matter of some nut is threatening to shoot anyone who goes into that yard, so call the cops. To the later Bosheviks, the dictatorship of the proletariat is visualized as a whole epoch with no clear end in sight.

[mikelepore]

It doesn't have anything to do with the local bourgeoisie, and more to do with the fact that, from an internationalist perspective, the bourgeoisie still exist

Why would anyone want to use a term like "dictatorship of the proletariat" for a post-revolutionary society being surrounded by an international bourgeoisie?

[ThisDay]

haha, we should change the term then, just call it democracy XD

[JohnnyC]

haha, we should change the term then, just call it democracy XD
Yes, but economic democracy. :)

[benhur]

The problem is the word dictatorship, which is misleading. We can call it workers democracy, and get it over with.:)

[Glenn Beck]

A dictatorship of the proletariat is not just democracy though, its a democracy that only enfranchises the proletariat to take total control over society in their interests and gives the bourgeoisie nothing. In fact, the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to suppress the bourgeoisie as much as possible until the bourgeoisie no longer exist as a class. If there is no class with competing interests then differentiating between "worker's democracy" and just "democracy" becomes redundant and thus we move past the dictatorship of the proletariat into communism, as there is no longer an antagonism of classes.

To a Marxist, the state is not synonymous with government as it is for your typical liberal or conservative: the state is an institution of class rule, an instrument for one class to rule over another. This is why the current state of affairs is the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" where the state's role is to maintain the overall dominance of the bourgeoisie and keep the proletariat from gaining control over society commensurate with their size and importance. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is turning this on its head and organizing a state for the purpose of keeping the bourgeoisie out of power. This is why Marxists believe the state will eventually "wither away" because if the state is truly a "dictatorship of the proletariat" then this state becomes truly meaningless and redundant if there is no class in existence that is antagonistic to the proletariat.

So in summary, the dictatorship of the proletariat can and probably should be run as a democratic institution, but it is not simply synonymous with democracy, it also denotes a situation where the proletariat is the dominant class.

Hope that helped

[mikelepore]

In fact, the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to suppress the bourgeoisie as much as possible until the bourgeoisie no longer exist as a class.

I see a problem with the phrase "suppress as much as possible." In a modern and highly integrated political and economic system, such as the U.S. where I live, after the working class takes control of the state, all they have to do is pass one law or constitutional amendment that says that stocks, bonds, deeds, and similar symbolic forms of ownership, will no longer be officially recognized, nothing but meaningless pieces of paper. With that, the bourgeoisie has just ceased to exist completely. It would be an instant, not a developing process. Nothing would remain to be done about class rule except, in any cases that reactionaries commit sedition against socialism, handle them as ordinary criminals, prosecuting them for any specific acts of violence or vandalism.

[KC]

I see a problem with the phrase "suppress as much as possible." In a modern and highly integrated political and economic system, such as the U.S. where I live, after the working class takes control of the state, all they have to do is pass one law or constitutional amendment that says that stocks, bonds, deeds, and similar symbolic forms of ownership, will no longer be officially recognized, nothing but meaningless pieces of paper. With that, the bourgeoisie has just ceased to exist completely. It would be an instant, not a developing process. Nothing would remain to be done about class rule except, in any cases that reactionaries commit sedition against socialism, handle them as ordinary criminals, prosecuting them for any specific acts of violence or vandalism.Class is not only defined by relations to the means of production, but also by their relation to other classes. Thus, in periods where class struggle has been aggravated, sections of the petit-bourgeoisie can "break off" and go over to the side of the proletariat, for example.

It is in this way that the bourgeoisie still exists in a time of revolution. There are saboteurs, reactionaries and open conflicts, as was all evidenced during the Russian Revolution. Thus, what is necessary is a means of not attacking the bourgeoisie, but defending the proletarian state against such attacks, which is characteristic of any state.

[piet11111]

Proletariat=majority. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the majority. It's different from the system we have now because(dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) because our current system is a dictatorship of the minority. :)
That minority acts in their own interests.

actually proletariat = the working class those that earn their money by selling time they spend working to someone else as opposed to those that earn their money through their propery and the exploitation of others like the capitalists and the peasants do.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The problem is the word dictatorship, which is misleading. We can call it workers democracy, and get it over with.

Haha! I fully agree. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is very misleading. That could be one of the reasons why so many people tend to believe that we support totalitarianism.


actually proletariat = the working class those that earn their money by selling time they spend working to someone else as opposed to those that earn their money through their propery and the exploitation of others like the capitalists and the peasants do.

What? I know what proletariat means...I think. :(

[ZeroNowhere]

Haha! I fully agree. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is very misleading. That could be one of the reasons why so many people tend to believe that we support totalitarianism.
Yes, but, unfortunately, that seems to have become a well-known phrase by now, even though Marx didn't use it much.
Ironically, when he did use it, it was mainly in response to Blanquism. :lol:

[mikelepore]

Thus, what is necessary is a means of not attacking the bourgeoisie, but defending the proletarian state against such attacks

Such means being handcuffs and the county jail. Because if the socialist movement follows the political process and acquires majority support, then socialism will be the law.

[Invincible Summer]

Such means being handcuffs and the county jail. Because if the socialist movement follows the political process and acquires majority support, then socialism will be the law.

Are you suggesting that we all vote for national Communist parties and hope that they win, so that they essentially become one of the bourgeois ruling apparatus, under a different name?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Are you suggesting that we all vote for national Communist parties and hope that they win, so that they essentially become one of the bourgeois ruling apparatus, under a different name?

Funny you bring that up because I was just discussing that at school the other day. Socialism can't be democratically achived under bourgeois democracy. I spent so long trying to explain this to a person.

[Invincible Summer]

Funny you bring that up because I was just discussing that at school the other day. Socialism can't be democratically achived under bourgeois democracy. I spent so long trying to explain this to a person.


Precisely, which is why I'm sort of challenging that guy. Although, given his number of posts and his Commie Club status, i doubt he's a Social Democrat, but his post does confuse me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I prefer proletocracy, ergatocracy, or demokratia (Aristotle's particular rendition).

[mikelepore]

Are you suggesting that we all vote for national Communist parties

Some political party, someday, yes. I don't endorse political parties that exist at the present time, as we wait for the day when at least one of them will adopt a workable program, that is, without reformism, without vanguardism, etc.


and hope that they win,

There no hope involved. The workers can't take collective control of the means of production, be successful at it holding onto them, and see a democratic result rather than totalitarianism come out of it, until we're talking about the day in the future when the majority of the members of society advocates such a change, no matter how far in the future that may be. Then, without any doubt, with that majority support having been achieved, socialist candidates for public offices will therefore win.

If socialists didn't first obtain majority support, and run for public offices and therefore win them, that means that supporters of capitalism would still be in control of goverment. That would mean that there can be no transfer of the industries to collective ownership by the people.


so that they essentially become one of the bourgeois ruling apparatus, under a different name?

That phrase makes no sense to me. Why would socialists want a bourgeois apparatus?

Socialists have to take control of government so that they can enact the necessary political mandate to convert the industries to collective social ownership. They have to repeal private ownership of the industries, and declare that the industries are to be public institutions, with the management authority given to workers' organizations.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm assuming that you're not advocating solely political organization?
Just so that if you aren't, people don't assume that you do and waste pixels.

[mikelepore]

I think De Leon (http://www.deleonism.org) had the dual industrial-political program for socialism essentially right, but I change some of the words that I emphasize.

The industrial half of the program, the "One Big Union", is needed because the new administrative system of workers' assemblies has to formed while capitalism still exists. On Revolution Day, the capitalist management will have to be abruptly locked out. The industrial organization of workers must be fully prepared to be switched online as the new worker-controlled management, with no interruption in the flow of society's goods and services.

The political half of the program is needed because the political form of much of modern society worldwide has developed in a particular direction. In most modern countries, all social groups that have competing beliefs try to persuade the majority of the people to support them politically, and then whatever faction wins the elections gets control over the legislatures, courts, police and military. There is no other possible way to authorize any change to the structure of society except to first get some of your supporters into political offices.

I differ from De Leon in that he had an anarchist streak and said that socialists should get control of Congress and immediately abolish the Congress, acquire control of the state for the purpose of dismantling it at once, leaving nothing but industrial administration as the only form of governance. I believe that a government of laws regulating human behavior will always remain necessary in a classless society, so the legal system can be modified largely but not simply abandoned.

[Black Sheep]

"proletariat = the working class those that earn their money by selling time they spend working to someone else"

proletariat = the working class, those who are forced to sell their labor to someone else, in order to survive

[Invincible Summer]

Some political party, someday, yes. I don't endorse political parties that exist at the present time, as we wait for the day when at least one of them will adopt a workable program, that is, without reformism, without vanguardism, etc.

There no hope involved. The workers can't take collective control of the means of production, be successful at it holding onto them, and see a democratic result rather than totalitarianism come out of it, until we're talking about the day in the future when the majority of the members of society advocates such a change, no matter how far in the future that may be. Then, without any doubt, with that majority support having been achieved, socialist candidates for public offices will therefore win.

So you're saying that when class consciousness is at a peak, you expect there to be a genuinely Communist party that will be voted for by the majority (due to said class consciousness), as opposed to through revolution of capitalist society?

Do not the Party members become a sort of bureaucratic caste, such as in Cuba or the PRC? How does one ensure that worker's control will be truly that, as opposed to the sort of state capitalism found in the PRC?

To me, having the workers organize themselves, seize control, and run society themselves is the surest way to ensure democracy. This party system you are talking about seems more likely to have a totalitarian outcome than a people's revolution (and I mean without vanguards or any of that stuff).


If socialists didn't first obtain majority support, and run for public offices and therefore win them, that means that supporters of capitalism would still be in control of goverment. That would mean that there can be no transfer of the industries to collective ownership by the people.

Well even if, in your scenario, the majority of the people wanted a Communist government, there will still be capitalists, and powerful ones at that. You think people like Rupert Murdoch, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, etc are just gonna have something click and they're not capitalists anymore? Ignore the fact that they'll probably be dead by this stage of history....

While I agree with you that popular support is needed for a successful revolution, I do not see how workers can't seize the means of production by themselves. Assuming we're talking about the majority of workers revolting, then the factory owners are SOL. Why is it so important to have the means of production "legally" transferred?


That phrase makes no sense to me. Why would socialists want a bourgeois apparatus?

Well, I didn't understand your position at first (it's a bit more clear now, but I would still like clarification), so i thought you were advocating for a reformist, social-democratic style of government. Therefore, the party would be working within the confines of a capitalist system, yes?


Socialists have to take control of government so that they can enact the necessary political mandate to convert the industries to collective social ownership. They have to repeal private ownership of the industries, and declare that the industries are to be public institutions, with the management authority given to workers' organizations.

Again, I don't understand why it needs to be "legally" transferred, as opposed to just having the classic worker's revolution.


Please enlighten me - I'm clearly not too informed about your position or set of ideas.

[Dimentio]

This might not be the right place for this, so move it if it is not relevant to the learning section.

I was thinking about the dictatorship of the proletariat and how it often ends with people like Stalin becoming a supreme leader for life. Why does a society have to move through a dictatorship of the proletariat to become a communistic society? I don't see very much reason for it, as It seems to me to go against communist principals, giving the proletariat power over others doesn't seem right. I suppose it is better than the bourgeois rule, but what is to stop the proletariat from becoming the new bourgeois?
my questions are, in point form;



What purpose does the dictatorship of the proletariat serve?
What sort of dictatorship would this end up being, and who would be able to decide when the time is right to abolish the dictatorship?
If the dictatorship is not abolished, do you believe that it is a failed attempt at communism?
What justifies the dictatorship of the proletariat?
What are possible alternatives to it?

thank you comrades, I'm just learning myself, so these questions probably seem a little naive to you, thanks for taking your time to at least read them.

I think there are three things which are important to prevent a dictatorship.

1. An independent judiciary.
2. An independent judiciary.
3. An independent judiciary.

[mikelepore]

In reply to destructicon500


So you're saying that when class consciousness is at a peak, you expect there to be a genuinely Communist party that will be voted for by the majority (due to said class consciousness), as opposed to through revolution of capitalist society?

Yes, up to the comma in your question. I don't understand the part about "instead of." It would have to be voted on. It would also be a revolution, where the word REVOLUTION means a change to the internal or fundamental structure of society -- rather than its opposite, which is a cosmetic change on the surface, which is called REFORM.


Do not the Party members become a sort of bureaucratic caste, such as in Cuba or the PRC? How does one ensure that worker's control will be truly that, as opposed to the sort of state capitalism found in the PRC?

If the people are so unwise as to vote for a party that supports having a bureaucratic caste, then that's what will be imposed on the people. If the people are educated enough to vote for a party whose program has for years consistently supported genuine workers' control, then that's what they'll get. For society to have democratic options is like an individual having free will. An individual could always drink poison if he or she wanted to. It all depends on wanting the right thing.

Therefore it's important to discontinue this 150-year-old tradition of having a left wing that shakes fists and chants angry slogans, and thinks that we're thereby preparing for the revolution. The actual preparation has to consist of everyone discussing what kind of new system should we have, what should its features and structures be, what would be the relative advantages and disadvantages of each type of proposed feature and structure, by what method shall the system be implemented.

If people go into a revolutionary situation without adequate consideration about all these issues, the new system would be bureaucratic at the very least, and more likely a rigid dictatorship.


To me, having the workers organize themselves, seize control, and run society themselves is the surest way to ensure democracy. This party system you are talking about seems more likely to have a totalitarian outcome than a people's revolution (and I mean without vanguards or any of that stuff).

A more totalitarian outcome, by following the legal and political process?

By *NOT* following the legal and political process, an attempt at socialist revolution would have to have an actual war between the workers on one side, and the army and police on the other side. The workers: armed with sticks and a few deer rifles. The army and police: armed with machine guns, bazookas, exploding mortar shells, flame throwers, poison gas, aircraft, and more. Now, what's the likely outcome of that tremendous asymmetry of power? Millions of workers dead, and then the strictest fascism ever seen.


Well even if, in your scenario, the majority of the people wanted a Communist government, there will still be capitalists, and powerful ones at that. You think people like Rupert Murdoch, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, etc are just gonna have something click and they're not capitalists anymore? Ignore the fact that they'll probably be dead by this stage of history....

There's a tight feedback loop between property and government. Each one props up the other, and rests on the other. Property owners use their money to influence government, and government recognizes the property rights of the property owners. That feedback loop has to be destabilized. It would be broken if the wage slave majority becomes educated to insert their own delegates into political offices.


While I agree with you that popular support is needed for a successful revolution, I do not see how workers can't seize the means of production by themselves. Assuming we're talking about the majority of workers revolting, then the factory owners are SOL. Why is it so important to have the means of production "legally" transferred?

Without using the political process, we would have intentionally left the deadly weapons of the state in the hands of people who have already given notice that they intend to oppress the workers. Most political candidates say, in effect: Vote for me and I promise to use government forces to massacre and repress the workers for the sake of holy capitalism. But a few candidates say: Vote for our party because our platform is to acknowledge the workers' rights to control the means of production. Are you really saying that it's a toss-up, and neither of those two options is better than the other? I would be amazed by that conclusion.

Then I don't know what your plan would be to deal with the violent government powers in the hands of pro-capitalist factions. The key here is that it would be a case of the socialist movement *intentionally* leaving those violent power in the hands of pro-capitalist factions, having been able to have it otherwise, but not realizing that it's even necessary. So then what's the plan?

The police won't let anyone violate sacred property rights to any extent at all, even in the smallest degree, and they'd be happy to kill someone for taking a little stick of bubble gum without paying for it. So are government troops going to do nothing at all as they see people take over factories, mines, mills and railroads, which, in the language of the cops' handbook, is nothing but a lot of "trespassing", "grand larceny", "violation of court orders", "riot", and "sedition"? The government torops wouldn't just do nothing. They would go totally berserk and kill and mutilate workers in the greatest possible quantities and as fast as they possibly could.

But I'll tell you under what single circumstances the government troops *would* do *nothing* about it. That would be under the circumstance that the officials from whom the troops receive their formal orders, from the law-makers down to their local supervisors, tell them that it's actually their job description to do nothing about it, because of the passage of a new socialist law.


Well, I didn't understand your position at first (it's a bit more clear now, but I would still like clarification), so i thought you were advocating for a reformist, social-democratic style of government.

I can't blame you for that. Most of the left keeps it a secret that there is the option of using the political process without also having reformist demands.

Automatically assuming that what I say is impossible, most of the left describes people like me by the derogitory term "the impossibilists."

Even the "leftist dictionary" document on this web site has it wrong, saying that the word "reformism" means to use legal methods. I seem to be the only person here who has ever complained about it.


Therefore, the party would be working within the confines of a capitalist system, yes?

Is the declared intention to abolish the capitalist system a form of working within the capitalist system? It sounds like a semantical distinction to me.

You might have some money in your pocket right now, or a checking account for paying your monthly bills, so then you're working within the capitalist system. We can't simply ignore the facts of the world that we were born into.


Again, I don't understand why it needs to be "legally" transferred, as opposed to just having the classic worker's revolution.

Who told you what the classic method is? Karl Marx's position was that countries with absolutist monarchies would need violent revolutions, and that the workers in countries "such as America, England and Holland" [to use Marx's words] could achieve everything legally and peacefully. Marx argued that the political process, if workers knew what to do it, is the most "socialistic measure."

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ We disagree with what Marx and Engels said about America, England (a constitutional monarchy), etc. I guess both of us are selective about which parts to agree with and which parts to disagree with. ;)

[sanpal]

How I understand " Avoiding A " communist "dictatorship" means an establishment of proletarian democracy, doesn't it?
What is democracy generally?
Development of rules by majority democratically and compulsion to their performance for those who not agree with rules dictatorially.
So democracy mean the democracy & dictatorship as two sides of one coin (by definition).
When we talk about dictatorship of the proletariat in the proletarian-class society we mean the dictatorship & democracy as two sides of one coin.

"Two copecks" about communist and "communist" parties:
if communist (not "communist") party takes the power its next step is to give away the power to the proletariat (to the proletarian class as a whole) i.e communist party organizes political mechanism for the proletariat (for instance abolishing all parties including itself and organize instead proletarian parliament http://www.revleft.com/vb/proletarskiy-parlament-istinnaya-t74678/index.html).