Why would the working class relinquish power?
Results 1 to 20 of 72
Dictatorship of the Proletarait Stays On
Let's say the Revolution happens and the Dictatorship of the Proletarait is formed. However like in all other communist states let's say they don't want to and will not relinquish power. What now then?
2+2=4
Why would the working class relinquish power?
Everything above is open to criticism. It's the only way to learn.
Perhaps you misunderstand the definition of Dictatorship of the Proletariat? It's pretty much just a way of saying the working class is in power(dictatorship of the majority) as opposed to what we have now, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie(dictatorship of the minority). Communism and Socialism are all about worker's control thus I don't see why they would want to relinquish power. So unless you're referring to them not wanting to abolish the state your question is flawed.
As for comparing this to other "communist" states you're actually quite inaccurate. North Korea in particular is a perfect example of what a Socialist state should NOT look like. It is not a Dictatorship of the Proletariat as the majority of workers have little control and have to submit to a ruling party/personality cult instead.
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
"There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin
if its the majority who hold power, why should we call it a dictatorship?
cant we just say: we should achieve a complete direct democracy instead? to me it actually sound more normal.
i guess marx was like me, always trying to confuse people.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
If the working class is in control, there is no Capitalist class (duh), so what power are you talking about, power over who?
THe dictatorship of the proletariet is a theoretical excuse for Leninist state power.
Power over who? Whats the point of the State if there is one class and that class is in power?
Power over the bourgeoisie. Unless there's absolute worker's control they will try to regain power.
There's a state in the Socialist transition stage to ensure there's no counter-revolution. You can't just abolish the state overnight.
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
So your saying, that after the revolution, there will be bourgeoisie living in the country (that means that there will be people still controling the means of production, which would be strange considering that supposedly the workers do), and thus you need a state appuratus to suppress them?
How would a state stop conter-revolution better than not having a state, also I'm assuming the counter revolution would'nt happend from inside, considering the capitalists are supposedly not around anymore (if they dont' control the means of production they arn't capitalists any more are they)
Insertnamehere already ripped this statement apart but let me just clarify. The concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was created before Lenin was born. It is the democratic control of the working class over society. Lenin created the concept of the vanguard party and the more tightly controlled communist party. He believed the vanguard party could act on behalf of the working class and that it would eventually dissolve.
The first goal of the DotP will be to abolish all other classes. And while it will not take a particularly long time there will be a period while several classes exist during the DotP's reign. Collectivizing the economy of an entire nation will likely not be completed in one night.
Everything above is open to criticism. It's the only way to learn.
What i ment by that, was that the DotP was used the same way the concept of protecting our freedom is used in the United States, not that the concept was bad, just that it was used as essencially a tool.
About the idea of classes, are you saying that after the revolution, there are still Capitalists that actually hold on to large segmants of capital (which they can only do with the help of state property laws)? How does that work?
I think you are confusing DotP and the vanguard party or one of Lenin's more tightly controlled party. In the past these more tightly controlled 'communist' parties have said to be working on behalf of the Proletariat (or even the peasantry for that matter). The DotP could never have functioned in quite the same way as Marx described in those countries because of the tiny size of the proletariat itself and that fact that it would have had to collaborate with the peasantry.
You probably need to get beyond the word Dictatorship. It is the Dictatorship of an entire class, not one singe human despot. The word dictatorship did not have the same connotations back then as it does now. In today's literal terms it would probably be called 'The Proletarian Democratic Apparatus to Destroy Previous Social Conditions and Advance Socialism". It would be elected by the Proletariat and would be directly responsible to the Proletariat.
So yes it is a tool but it is one that actually does protect the interests of the Proletariat as it is created entirely by the proletariat. I Just want to fully clear that up.
I'm saying that after the Revolution the task of collectivizing an entire nation will be very complicated. It may take a week to completely destroy private property and thus the Capitalist class but because of the complexity of current capitalism it may take longer.
So yes there will be a short period after the revolution where the Proletariat is in control yet other classes exist. It is not something desirable and that's why the DotP will act as quickly as possible to create a classless society. However during that period the class that will the undisputed iron rule will be the Proletariat. Thus for that short period the Proletariat will be sitting on top of all remaining social classes like the Bourgeois did previously. And like the Bourgeoisie we will act in a way that is purely in our (the working classes) interests.
Everything above is open to criticism. It's the only way to learn.
Gack, I honestly don't see the "duh" there. You're assuming as always that there is this sharp impermeable divide between the two classes. Maybe there is in Europe, but not here. Or at leat not one that either class recognizes. Rich guys go bust and workers get rich. Or at least very comfortable.
It also assumes there are only two classes, which is also wrong.
For every 10 working class people who become bourgeois, there's at least one movie about it.Class fluidity isn't as fluid as it is portrayed.
The Marxist definition of class is your relationship to the means of production, which means, there is a sharp divide economically (maybe not culturally) between classes.
Being Capitalist or being Proletariat is'nt a mindset, it is'nt a culture, its your relationship to the means of production.
SO it is kind of a duh.
Also if your in the United States, class is much more extreme than in Europe, although in europe there is the history and culture to go with it, in America there is'nt.
perhaps, but that does'nt mean it was'nt used in the way I described.
I understand that, compleatly, however in the soviet union, Lenin actually did become a despot, to the best of his ability, which was taken further by Stalin.
Historically that was not the case.
Private property does'nt need to be destroyed, without the governemnt protecting it it crumbles. In the SOviet Union after the revolutoin the people took over the factories, private property crumbled and the workers took over. the Capitalists essencially lost power almost over night, there was no state to defend their rights.
The Bourgeoisie acts that way because they are a minority in control of the resources. If the proletariat is sitting on top of the Bourgeoisie then the Bourgeoisie ARE NOT THE BOURGEOISIE, what are their relationship to the means of production? If the Proletariat are in control then there are no bourgeoisie, if there are, that means that the state is still defending private property, OR workers are juts accepting it by choice.
Class is ones relations to the means of production.
I never really understood how one was supposed to achieve a stateless society by installing a dictatorship first (no matter who controlled it)...
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat seems more like a revenge from the people on the capitalists than an effective way to achieve communist ideals. And we all know how dictatorships end...
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
Try asking yourself that when the bourgeoisie regain power after a revolution...
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
Yes, I know, but it would be preferable to not have any dictatorship and achieve communism through other means.
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
What you are amazingly not understanding is that Lenin's vanguard party or at the very least his concept of the more tightly controlled party was a perversion of Marx's writings. The conditions of Russia called for a significantly different revolutionary approach than the one espoused by Marx and more traditional Marxists.
You need to look at the concept of the DotP itself and not through the lenses of the Russian revolution. Marx saw revolution in a country that the only two majorly relevant classes were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. This is what he based his strategy for revolution off of. Lenin took power in a nation that had a massive peasantry and a tiny bourgeoisie and proletariat that were essentially confined to a few cities. Thus you can not judge Marx's beliefs through a situation that would have been so alien to him. The DotP was supposed to compromise the vast majority of society. Russia proletariat barely made up 15% before it was heavily damaged in the civil war.
I referring to the concept of private property. The day after the Proletariat definitively takes power there will still be private property. Capitalists will desperately try to hold on to it and profit off of it. Just because the Proletariat is in a position to enforce its will does not mean that their will is already enforced.
Also lets not compare the Russia of 1917 to any modern bourgeois nation. Today's first world countries capitalist economies are infinitely more complex and more powerful than Russia's relatively young and small bourgeois class. Even the bourgeois countries Marx was talking about in the mid to late 1800's were far more powerful than those in Russia 50 years later.
You are simply incorrect. The Bourgeoisie are the Bourgeoisie because they actively control the means of production. The DotP is the force that takes control of the means of production and ensures the Proletariat continues to control them. A bourgeois factory owner will be a member of the bourgeoisie until control of his factory is firmly ripped away from him no matter who is in charge of society.
Change in class relationships does not inherently mean a change in material conditions.
Everything above is open to criticism. It's the only way to learn.
Care to propose a method of achieving communism without the complete domination of the proletariat?
Again the word Dictatorship is scary but one must really look at the context Marx was using it in.
Everything above is open to criticism. It's the only way to learn.
of course the complete domination of the people is crucial, but not in the form of a dictatorship: in the form of direct democracy, of decentralized communities, cooperatives, communes, etc
Electing representatives of the people to engage in a dictatorship is idiotic and will only lead to those representatives to be against their own people.
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
has i said earlier, some people fucked up the semantics.
would have been more clear and posirtive to say thast the people need to install some kind of direct democracy instead.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
