Dictatorship of the Proletarait Stays On

[cb9's_unity]

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.

Ok so this is larger critique of having any state or large governing body in control. Honestly I can't speak to this issue with quite as much confidence but to my knowledge marx actually believed the Paris commune may have been a DotP.

Regardless I do believe that the DotP should erect a large elected body, supplemented and responsible of course to smaller directly elected and controlled communes. To say the idea is idiot is in itself idiotic. The idea has not really ever been tried be and anarchists try to dismiss the idea of the workers state by using example of bourgeois and monarchist states. Also while I prefer a somewhat centralized system after the revolution I would never call the anarchist method idiotic. As with the method I support it is also untested and has the needs of the working class at heart.

[Nwoye]

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

The dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy:

“We have never been idol-worshippers of formal democracy.” All that that really means is: We have always distinguished the social kernel from the political form of bourgeois democracy; we have always revealed the hard kernel of social inequality and lack of freedom hidden under the sweet shell of formal equality and freedom – not in order to reject the latter but to spur the working class into not being satisfied with the shell, but rather, by conquering political power, to create a socialist democracy to replace bourgeois democracy – not to eliminate democracy altogether.

But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

^^^ Rosa Luxemburg, in The Russian Revolution (1918)

The concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean one man ruling a country - the term stems from the Marxist analysis of the state: that every state is an organ of class rule, ie it represents the rule of one class over another. Every state is therefore a dictatorship of a class, be it feudal lords or kings or capitalists. The dictatorship of the proletariat is simply a state where the working class has taken control, and where the working class uses the state to suppress the interests of capital. This is done through the fullest application of democracy in all spheres of life (political, economic, and social).

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?

It's not a matter of anyone relinquishing power - as I explained above, the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't simply the rule of man or the rule of a party. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the period where the working class takes control of the power of the state by creating new democratic organs and uses it to suppress the interests of capital. The existence of this conflict - and therefore the existence of a state, ie the "dictatorship" - is an inevitable result of the existence of opposing classes, since at this point there will still be remnants of the bourgeois class. (Of course, as you all know, the existence of a state and the power structures behind it is a result of class antagonisms).

Once these class antagonisms fade away, the existence of a state as we understand it bureaucracy, centralization, oppression, inequality) will cease to exist. This won't happen with some benevolent leader stepping down and "relinquishing" his power, it happens as the democratic organs of the working class (workers councils, factory committees, militias, economic planning assemblies, etc etc) overcome the centralized state apparatus and the class antagonisms that underlie it.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Ok so this is larger critique of having any state or large governing body in control. Honestly I can't speak to this issue with quite as much confidence but to my knowledge marx actually believed the Paris commune may have been a DotP.

Regardless I do believe that the DotP should erect a large elected body, supplemented and responsible of course to smaller directly elected and controlled communes. To say the idea is idiot is in itself idiotic. The idea has not really ever been tried be and anarchists try to dismiss the idea of the workers state by using example of bourgeois and monarchist states. Also while I prefer a somewhat centralized system after the revolution I would never call the anarchist method idiotic. As with the method I support it is also untested and has the needs of the working class at heart.

What are the differences between a DotP and an anarchist federation? Would the elected delegates of the communes to the central federal body have more power in a DotP than in an anarchist federation (in which virtually all decisions of delegates must be directly approved by the communes)? Would communes be free to disassociate from the central organ in a DotP, as they would be in an anarchist federation?

[cb9's_unity]

What are the differences between a DotP and an anarchist federation? Would the elected delegates of the communes to the central federal body have more power in a DotP than in an anarchist federation (in which virtually all decisions of delegates must be directly approved by the communes)? Would communes be free to disassociate from the central organ in a DotP, as they would be in an anarchist federation?

To a certain extent I must apologize. To my knowledge Marx never stated specifically what I wrote down. While what I wrote fits into the parameters of the DotP I presented it in a fashion that may have mislead one into thinking that it was specific of Marx's views.

I also must admit that I don't know much about an anarchist federation and that when I speak I don't do so for all Marxists but instead I am just talking about my specific beliefs going forward.

To a certain extent I would personally support the ability for a specific commune to break away from the larger socialist government. The only problem is I think there may be some conditions for breaking away. If you are breaking away to protect the interests of private property and to harbor capitalism then I think there should be some large reservations about letting a group break away. Or at least letting them break away without repercussions (possibly economic, certainly not military). However if a social anarchist or even another communist group wants to break away because they fear being controlled by a larger government then I have no problem. In fact it would be the communists duty to let them leave while continuing to fully work with them economically. I would even support offering military protection to the break away group, if they chose to except it.

[Durruti's Ghost]

To a certain extent I must apologize. To my knowledge Marx never stated specifically what I wrote down. While what I wrote fits into the parameters of the DotP I presented it in a fashion that may have mislead one into thinking that it was specific of Marx's views.

I also must admit that I don't know much about an anarchist federation and that when I speak I don't do so for all Marxists but instead I am just talking about my specific beliefs going forward.

To a certain extent I would personally support the ability for a specific commune to break away from the larger socialist government. The only problem is I think there may be some conditions for breaking away. If you are breaking away to protect the interests of private property and to harbor capitalism then I think there should be some large reservations about letting a group break away. Or at least letting them break away without repercussions (possibly economic, certainly not military). However if a social anarchist or even another communist group wants to break away because they fear being controlled by a larger government then I have no problem. In fact it would be the communists duty to let them leave while continuing to fully work with them economically. I would even support offering military protection to the break away group, if they chose to except it.

Interesting. It sounds to me like an anarchist federation would also be considered a DotP much as a square is also a rectangle; all a-feds are DotPs, but not all DotPs are a-feds.

About the whole capitalists-breaking-away scenario, I don't think that would ever happen in an established socialist society. Imagine Community X said one day, "Hey, guess what? We like private property! So long, suckers!" and left the federation. In order for capitalism to exist in that community, a majority of the population would have to vote against their own interests to reestablish private property. Then, as living standards started to decline for them, they would have to remain in the community despite the beckoning call of much higher living standards and freedom from wage labor in the surrounding socialist society. It's a ridiculous scenario. The only reason it happens in the current capitalist society is the enormous level of indoctrination workers face. However, if, by some twist of fate, it did happen, I would definitely support economic sanctions against the community. If the capitalists of that community started using force to preserve their rule against the will of the workers (theoretically avoidable, but practically a virtual guarantee), I would also support military aid to said workers.

[Pogue]

Its a bad term. I don't use it. Putting dictatorship in anywhere is going to raise suspicion. It can also lead to some crude conclusions, such as the idea the Bolsheviks had that a dictatorship of the self proclaimed party of the proletariat represents a dictatorship of the proletariat.

I don't object to the period when the working class will be in control though obviously.

[cb9's_unity]

Interesting. It sounds to me like an anarchist federation would also be considered a DotP much as a square is also a rectangle; all a-feds are DotPs, but not all DotPs are a-feds.

About the whole capitalists-breaking-away scenario, I don't think that would ever happen in an established socialist society. Imagine Community X said one day, "Hey, guess what? We like private property! So long, suckers!" and left the federation. In order for capitalism to exist in that community, a majority of the population would have to vote against their own interests to reestablish private property. Then, as living standards started to decline for them, they would have to remain in the community despite the beckoning call of much higher living standards and freedom from wage labor in the surrounding socialist society. It's a ridiculous scenario. The only reason it happens in the current capitalist society is the enormous level of indoctrination workers face. However, if, by some twist of fate, it did happen, I would definitely support economic sanctions against the community. If the capitalists of that community started using force to preserve their rule against the will of the workers (theoretically avoidable, but practically a virtual guarantee), I would also support military aid to said workers.

The further into the revolution the more I agree with you. Once socialism/communism is established I really doubt people will want to go back. However what I'm more worried about is the weeks or months after a revolution. Pockets of conservative workers may very likely exist or even group together to actively oppose socialism (or likely the expanded rights for gays and ensured rights of women and minorities that any socialist movement will bring). The heavily religious will likely be the last to support socialism and those communities may be swayed by influential ministers that actively enjoy what the bourgeois system has given established churches. In these cases I have no wish to actively support these reactionary and backwards cultures. However as a Marxist I see social anarchists as brothers that could play a very important part of the revolution and as such I would certainly respect their wishes at being more autonomous.

I'm still young so I haven't had a chance to personally encounter people from many different leftist ideologies. Yet where the actual ideological substance of Marxism and Anarchism are concerned I see know reason why our movements should be hostile towards each other. In fact if each side can give just a little I see no reason why we can't truly combine our efforts.

[RGacky3]

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.

A factory does'nt NEED to be firmyl ripped away, without state property laws, he really has no control over it, you don't need a state to destroy propety laws, you need a state to defend it.

Also being in charge of hte means of production IS being in charge of society.

Material conditions are what cause class relationships, not the other way around.

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.

Like I said, private property needs to be enforced, without anyone enforcing it, workers can just take over, they don't need a state to do it for them.

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.

I understand that, however in my opinion, it was'nt the conditions of russia, it was the ambitions of the bolshevik leaders. The conditions of Russia simply don't explain the needs for what I talked about, mainly, suppression of dissnet, taking away of soviet autonomy, taking away of free speach, and attacking anyone who was'nt loyal to the party. What explains that is not the conditions, but the disdain that lenin and other had of the russian people, the fact is , they did'nt believe in democracy, or socialism, they believed in top down "socialism" which is as oxymoronic as top down "democracy".

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 have no problem with the concept of the DotP, however when used by Lenin, it was basterdized, it had nothing to do with the peasents, the fact is Lenin was'nt so popular with the peasants as he was with the proletariat, which is why he put hte enphasis on the proletariat.

The amount of peasents to proletariats does'nt really mean much, or justify anything. You can have a democratic and socialistic society no matter what it produces.

The fact is the NKVD, the camps, the shootings of dissidents and total state control. Was'nt about 'conditions' it was about Lenin and other leaders simply wanting to be in control no matter what. Because they did'nt trust the russian people.

[Il Medico]

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.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is direct democracy. As apposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeois which is Representative democracy.

[Bud Struggle]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is direct democracy. As apposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeois which is Representative democracy.

Except in all the attempts of Socialism/Communism out there--almost all end up with a real life honest to God dictator often with aspiration of nepotism like Fidel Castro or Kim Il Jong.

I know the EZLN and maybe the Spanish Anarchists seem(ed) to have a direct democracy (and good for them!)--but the Marxist/Leninist/Maoists never even came close. It seems there was something of an error in their launch program.

Hopefully the problem could be addressed if Communism is ever attempted again.

[cb9's_unity]

A factory does'nt NEED to be firmyl ripped away, without state property laws, he really has no control over it, you don't need a state to destroy propety laws, you need a state to defend it.

Also being in charge of hte means of production IS being in charge of society.

Material conditions are what cause class relationships, not the other way around.

When the bourgeois state falls, or when it is apparent that the state will fall I doubt the capitalists will just hand it over. In this moment of history the state does protect their property and they have full confidence it will do so. When the state is no longer as strong and and their confidence in the state police wanes don't be surprised to see them hire their own police. The capitalists have been crafty in their time of domination so don't expect anything different when they are threatened. You are thinking purely in theory and not in the material world.

Again when it is clear the proletariat has the upper hand class relations will clearly be altered in some way. Right now the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is in the position to dictate future policy. When the dictatorship of the proletariat gains power they will be in a position to dictate future policy and that in itself constitutes an alteration of class relations. Material conditions indeed create the basis for class relationships, they say the bourgeoisie is in the position to have power and the proletariat is in the position to want it. These material conditions suggest that the proletariat will finally take power and that then the proletariat will change those material conditions in order to serve the interests of their class.

I understand that, however in my opinion, it was'nt the conditions of russia, it was the ambitions of the bolshevik leaders. The conditions of Russia simply don't explain the needs for what I talked about, mainly, suppression of dissnet, taking away of soviet autonomy, taking away of free speach, and attacking anyone who was'nt loyal to the party. What explains that is not the conditions, but the disdain that lenin and other had of the russian people, the fact is , they did'nt believe in democracy, or socialism, they believed in top down "socialism" which is as oxymoronic as top down "democracy".

When the Bolsheviks ascended to power they only had the full support of a part of the proletariat. The backward conditions of Russia ensured that any Marxist group, no matter how genuinely socialist, could only be assured the full support of a very small minority. Because of this the Bolsheviks were forced into a position where democracy itself was not enough to hold on to power. Terror and the removal of certain political freedoms became essential when it became clear democracy wouldn't be enough to keep a proletarian party in power. In a country where the majority of society is made of class conscious proletarians nothing more than democracy would ever be used as the proletariat would be in the unchallenged position of controlling society in their interests.

I have no problem with the concept of the DotP, however when used by Lenin, it was basterdized, it had nothing to do with the peasents, the fact is Lenin was'nt so popular with the peasants as he was with the proletariat, which is why he put hte enphasis on the proletariat.

The amount of peasents to proletariats does'nt really mean much, or justify anything. You can have a democratic and socialistic society no matter what it produces.

The fact is the NKVD, the camps, the shootings of dissidents and total state control. Was'nt about 'conditions' it was about Lenin and other leaders simply wanting to be in control no matter what. Because they did'nt trust the russian people.

Save your arguments for someone else, I am not a Leninist and have never claimed to be. What the Bolsheviks did was as inexcusable as it was foreseeable, more than a few Marxists at the time stated Russian conditions would not support socialism. Because the party of the Bolsheviks eventually totally abandoned democracy (and they did whether it was Lenin, Stalin, or Khrushchev that should be blamed) they gave socialism the biggest black eye it has ever received.

[Nwoye]

Except in all the attempts of Socialism/Communism out there--almost all end up with a real life honest to God dictator often with aspiration of nepotism like Fidel Castro or Kim Il Jong.

I know the EZLN and maybe the Spanish Anarchists seem(ed) to have a direct democracy (and good for them!)--but the Marxist/Leninist/Maoists never even came close. It seems there was something of an error in their launch program.

Hopefully the problem could be addressed if Communism is ever attempted again.

1. of course there is something wrong with Leninism and Maoism. Hundreds of Marxist theorists all throughout history have shown whats wrong with Leninism and Maoism, and why we shouldn't use them as future revolutionary strategies. But just because there's something wrong with these methods of action doesn't mean there's something wrong with the Marxist method of analysis.

2. This lacks any significant historical analysis. Why did the Bolsheviks fail? What material conditions made them act the way they did? If they had acted differently would it have gone any better? It's not as simple as "Lenin was a bad guy"; to understand past revolutionary experiences we have to go through an in-depth analysis of what happened and what effects it had on all the parties involved, and that was something totally lacking in your post.

[Misanthrope]

Why would the working class relinquish power?

They willingly did so under The Bolsheviks when they decided to implement one man management.

[RGacky3]

It seems there was something of an error in their launch program.

It was'nt a mistake, they did'nt accidently take away the democracy.

When the bourgeois state falls, or when it is apparent that the state will fall I doubt the capitalists will just hand it over. In this moment of history the state does protect their property and they have full confidence it will do so. When the state is no longer as strong and and their confidence in the state police wanes don't be surprised to see them hire their own police. The capitalists have been crafty in their time of domination so don't expect anything different when they are threatened. You are thinking purely in theory and not in the material world.

Thats true, but how does the need to stop vigilantes and the such justify what happened in Russia? With the destruction of all dissent, destruction of democracy, autonomy, free speach and so on. Those things have noething to do with defence against vigilantes.

Again when it is clear the proletariat has the upper hand class relations will clearly be altered in some way. Right now the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is in the position to dictate future policy. When the dictatorship of the proletariat gains power they will be in a position to dictate future policy and that in itself constitutes an alteration of class relations. Material conditions indeed create the basis for class relationships, they say the bourgeoisie is in the position to have power and the proletariat is in the position to want it. These material conditions suggest that the proletariat will finally take power and that then the proletariat will change those material conditions in order to serve the interests of their class.

Ok, however I'm assuming that the proletariate taking state power will (and has in the past) coencide with the taking of the means of production. In that case te class of the bourgeoisie really only has either vigilanteism, or perhaps a resedue of fear he can use, other than that I don't see how he could last as capitalist for more than a year.

Again, I don't see how any of this nessesitates a strong central state, suppression of free speach, top-down "democracy" and so on, I don't see the connection.

When the Bolsheviks ascended to power they only had the full support of a part of the proletariat. The backward conditions of Russia ensured that any Marxist group, no matter how genuinely socialist, could only be assured the full support of a very small minority. Because of this the Bolsheviks were forced into a position where democracy itself was not enough to hold on to power. Terror and the removal of certain political freedoms became essential when it became clear democracy wouldn't be enough to keep a proletarian party in power. In a country where the majority of society is made of class conscious proletarians nothing more than democracy would ever be used as the proletariat would be in the unchallenged position of controlling society in their interests.

I know they were very popular in St Petersburg, and many other cities, whether they ahd full support or jsut simpathy really does'nt make so much of a difference (how many people in the world actually give FULL SUPPORT to a political party, not many.) However Socialism, and democracy were very popular, socialist parties and ideals were very popular, the soviets were extreamly popular.

The fact is democracy may have not keept the Bolshevics in power, thats what they were conserned about, before socialism. They also had the theory that they and ONLY they could bring about socialism, not the people, which in my mind is anti-socialist at its core.

After a revolution, you relaly dont' need the proletariat to be class conscious, the fact is at that point you need to defend from outside forces, internal vigilanteism, but the people can make their own socialism, theres NO WAY, the russian people would have voted Capitalism or feudalism back, they may not have kept the bolsheviks in power, but I'm 100% sure that the socialist system, probably in the form of the soviets would have been their choice.

Save your arguments for someone else, I am not a Leninist and have never claimed to be.

My bad :P, I just assumed.

What the Bolsheviks did was as inexcusable as it was foreseeable, more than a few Marxists at the time stated Russian conditions would not support socialism. Because the party of the Bolsheviks eventually totally abandoned democracy (and they did whether it was Lenin, Stalin, or Khrushchev that should be blamed) they gave socialism the biggest black eye it has ever received.

I agree, although I'm not sure if I agree that it was the conditions perse. In Ukraine, in parts of rural China (before Mao took total control), in the Zapatista territories, even in many African slums, societies that could be considered very poor, unindustrialized, and some would say "backward" have achieved a type of home grown socialism, whereas in Spain it was an industrialized and relatively wealth society. So I'm of hte opinion that socialism can happen anywhere that democracy can happen, which is anywhere.

[Zolken]

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?

It can only be toppled by a counterrevolution in that the prime motivation for revolution is to gain power, and once such is achieved a regime will refuse to relinquish its power.




Braun

[mikelepore]

i guess marx was like me, always trying to confuse people.

As to whether it confuses people, it may help to realize that the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" has something important in common with the phrase "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." For each of these phrases, note that Marx was known to have written it only one in his entire life, when he wrote it he was refering to someone else's already-famous phrase and not composing his own preferred phrase, and it was in a private correspondence to friends which he didn't think someone would later publish.

[Invariance]

No, that's plainly wrong.

Marx and Engels used the phrase several times, both in private correspondence, letters to editors and in their later published work.

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx wrote:

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Engels wrote in the Civil War in France:

Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

In a private letter by Marx:

Now as for myself, I do not claim to have discovered either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.

The phrase captures the essence of what Marx and Engels were advocating as a political objective: the complete control of society by the working class.

[Bud Struggle]

It was'nt a mistake, they did'nt accidently take away the democracy.

I agree. And that's the fatal mistake of the entire venture.

[ChrisK]

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.

Because in the 19th century direct democracy was considered to be the tyranny of the majority and was called a dictatorship for that very reason.

[danyboy27]

Because in the 19th century direct democracy was considered to be the tyranny of the majority and was called a dictatorship for that very reason.

marx should have consulted a PR agent.