Dictatorship of the Proletarait Stays On

[ChrisK]

marx should have consulted a PR agent.

It made sense back then and was a positive in the eyes of common people.

[ZeroNowhere]

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?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the enforcement of the expropriation of the expropriators, or the political form corresponding to revolution. So, for example, through law and such. As such, it doesn't make much sense to say it won't 'relinquish power': as the revolution aims for the abolition of class relations, and by ending them, the political rule of the proletariat ceases to exist, as there is no proletariat to speak of. As the proletariat can't constitute itself as a new ruling class, the dictatorship of the proletariat can't be maintained after revolution. And what's the point of keeping power when the whole point of said power is your liberation (whereas otherwise one would continue to be a slave)? It would be like some slaves going up to their masters with a gun and saying that they would shoot if he didn't set them free, and then just standing there holding the gun to his head for the rest of eternity after he accepted, while perhaps working as his slave at the same time.

Also, the DotP does not exist under communism, let alone a 'communist state', only under capitalism. Which is why it's rather hilarious when certain people say, "The USSR wasn't capitalism, it was a workers' state!"

It made sense back then and was a positive in the eyes of common people.

Um, his general usage of the term was in response to the Blanquist 'educational dictatorship', thus why it was mainly used in texts in the periods after the 1848 and 1871 rebellions. I believe Hal Draper wrote about this. Otherwise, he didn't use it all that much.

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.

Firstly, 'from each... to each' was coined by Blanc, while the DotP was Marx's own creation (though a reference to Blanqui). Also, M+E were planning to release the 'Critique of the Gotha Program', but decided not to due to how said program was being interpreted or something (a shitty reason, IMHO, but anyways). Secondly, he hardly only used it once. From memory, other than the Weydemeyer letter, I can recall reference to the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (as well as the 'dictatorship of the working class') in 'Class Struggles in France' as well as Critique of the Gotha Program. And the former was not exactly private correspondence. And nor was 'Political Indifferentism', where he refers to the proletariat setting up a 'revolutionary dictatorship'.

[mikelepore]

No, that's plainly wrong.

Yes -- correction-- Marx used the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" twice, both times in personal letters: in his letter to Bracke ("Critique of the Gotha Pgm") and in his "my own contribution was...." letter to Weydemeyer.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes -- correction-- Marx used the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" twice, both times in personal letters: in his letter to Bracke ("Critique of the Gotha Pgm") and in his "my own contribution was...." letter to Weydemeyer.

"While this utopian doctrinaire socialism, which subordinates the total movement to one of its stages, which puts in place of common social production the brainwork of individual pedants and, above all, in fantasy does away with the revolutionary struggle of the classes and its requirements by small conjurers' tricks or great sentimentality, while this doctrinaire socialism, which at bottom only idealizes present society, takes a picture of it without shadows, and wants to achieve its ideal athwart the realities of present society; while the proletariat surrenders this socialism to the petty bourgeoisie; while the struggle of the different socialist leaders among themselves sets forth each of the so-called systems as a pretentious adherence to one of the transit points of the social revolution as against another – the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism, for which the bourgeoisie has itself invented the name of Blanqui. This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations."
-Class Struggles in France.

Note that he says that the bourgeoisie invented the name of Blanqui for it (it was used to scare people away), rather than crediting him for it. He was also recorded as saying it, even including the French word 'dictature', in a speech at a banquet with many Blanquist communards who fled from Paris.

Engels also used the term a few times, but we're not discussing him, I suppose.

[RGacky3]

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

Socialism cannot exist without democracy, the same way democracy cannot exist without free speach.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=cb9's_unity;1524044]

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.

The problem though is that revolutions only occured in countries which would have been "alien" to him. Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba et. al. NONE of it should have occurred either. Yet it did.
That is the proper lens upon through which to examine. Not the "Marx did not say it would happen this way, therefore folks like Lenin or Mao ect. did it wrong." Since Marx has been proven wrong in how he thought revolutions would come about, perhaps the proper lens is why did it happen the way it did.

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.

Quite true. The "vanguard" was a method for solving that problem.

.

The DotP is the force that takes control of the means of production and ensures the Proletariat continues to control them.

Ok. The DOTP is also the "force" which exists which defends the revolution against backsliding. But such a "force" cannot be theoretical and existing on the pages of some pamphlet. It actually has to function in some fashion, which means it has to have structure and has to have the ability to use "force" in ensuring the proleteriat remains in control and prevent the tricky bourgeoise from rising up.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Sedrox;1524097]

The concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean one man ruling a country

But it doesn't dissallow- particularly if the proleteriat likes what that one man does.

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).

Yes. Where the state is involved in all aspects of a person's life.

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).

Not really. It also assumes the proleteriat are of a similiar mind 100% of the time.

[Green Dragon]

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.

The fact that the "proleteriat" are made up of actual people who don't always quite behave as prim and proper proleteriat ought, has always been a thorn in the side of the revolutionaries. Usually such oddness is written off as a result of "indoctrination" or some such nefarious machinations. But no matter what, the reality of the situation exists, and must be dealt with. Saying "I don't want to deal with them," doesn't solve the problem.

[Nwoye]

But it doesn't dissallow- particularly if the proleteriat likes what that one man does.

first of all I don't know anyone who thinks one man single-handedly ruling a country is 1) desirable or 2) even an accurate conception of how stalinism worked or how "dictatorships" work.

Yes. Where the state is involved in all aspects of a person's life.

please explain how the state isn't involved in all aspects of life now, and how this is somehow an argument against the DotP.

Not really. It also assumes the proleteriat are of a similiar mind 100% of the time.

in what way?

[StalinFanboy]

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 means of production.


The Marxist definition of state is different than the anarchist one. Learn this.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]

first of all I don't know anyone who thinks one man single-handedly ruling a country is 1) desirable or 2) even an accurate conception of how stalinism worked or how "dictatorships" work.

Well, yes, a "modern" dictatorship gives the illusion that the "people" are in charge, and one has a "leader" who responds to their needs.

please explain how the state isn't involved in all aspects of life now, and how this is somehow an argument against the DotP.

Regretably, it would only get worse. That is, after all, the aim.

[danyboy27]

It made sense back then and was a positive in the eyes of common people.

how so? dictatorship always been a symbol of repression of the basic freedom.

[RGacky3]

Power over the means of production.


The Marxist definition of state is different than the anarchist one. Learn this.

Ok, if you don't mind, what is the marxist definition of a state?

[ZeroNowhere]

The organized power of a class used to suppress another class. Other formulations include an organized means of domination by a class, an organized form of class rule, etc.

[mikelepore]

"........... the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally." -Class Struggles in France.

Thanks, I forgot that one - yes, Marx also said "dictatorship of the proletariat" in sections 1 and 3 of 'The Class Struggles in France", which wasn't a book but an anthology of articles from a theoretical journal. So my point was, when I answered the poster who asked whether Marx used such a phrase just because he was trying to be confusing, no, he wasn't trying to be confusing. He didn't use the phrase often, and when he used it it was when speaking to collaborators who already knew that the phrase was an adaption of Blanqui's earlier use of the word "dictatorship" to mean the the overthrow of oppressors, and not to mean what the word today means to most people, which is a loss of freedom and democracy.

[Havet]

Ok, if you don't mind, what is the marxist definition of a state?

The Marxist Definition: The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.

The Traditional Definition: A State is a monopoly of the use of legitimate force over a geographical area.

The Alternative Definition:A State is a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership.

Check Organized Confusion's post here

[RGacky3]

The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.

The organized power of a class used to suppress another class. Other formulations include an organized means of domination by a class, an organized form of class rule, etc.

Thats not a definition, thats what it does and where it comes from.

The Traditional Definition: A State is a monopoly of the use of legitimate force over a geographical area.

THAT is the definition.

The Alternative Definition:A State is a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership.

Thats silly.

[danyboy27]

Thats silly.

can you give us a meaningful explication in what havemill said is silly?
i would like tio hear it

[Havet]

Thats not a definition, thats what it does and where it comes from.

Unfortunately it is a definition, although definitely not an useful one. Former member Sedrox better explained this:

Although the Marxist argument is both helpful for developing theory and historically accurate, it’s really useless for what we’re trying to figure out here. The Marxist definition is really answering the questions of, “What has been the historical role of the State?” and “How does the State typically do?”. What we’re looking for here, is “what differentiates statist activity from non-statist activity?” If we’re trying to answer the question of, “does violently seizing private property and redistributing it make our anarchist commune a state?” or “does defense from outside aggression make us a state?” or “does taxation make us a state?” then Lenin’s definition is worthless. In those situations, we’re acting just like a modern or historical state would, by enforcing our will (or protecting it) over a geographic area and a population, but we’re not necessarily acting as an organ of class rule, nor are we exhibiting the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. While the state is a product of class antagonisms, and while it could wither away as those antagonisms do the same, it’s not answering our question.

While Engel’s historical analysis of the State and Lenin’s theoretical application of that analysis is applicable to many situations, it doesn’t answer the fundamental question of what constitutes a state.

THAT is the definition.

Again, i'll let former member Sedrox explain his analysis which I fully agree with

While this definition sounds originally appealing, it’s applicability into theory is not great. For example, what differentiates a state under this definition and a landowner? Specifically in an anarchist society, where there is no overriding source of sovereignty that grants authority to landowners through property titles. In an anarchic society (particularly a market anarchist one, where defense was handled privately), a man defending his property from invaders (even legitimately) is engaging in statist behavior, as they are rejecting the aggressors claim to the use of force over the disputed object (claiming a monopoly). Ownership is nothing but claiming a monopoly of the legitimate use of force over a specific object (remember Proudhon’s equation of property with despotism?). When one asserts that they own something they are claiming the right to destroy it, alter it, consume it, trade it, and give it away, and simultaneously that no one else may do the same. To apply this to a genuine communist society, a militia defending a community from outside aggression is claiming a monopoly of the legitimate use of force over that area, by asserting (and backing up with violence) that the aggressors may not impose their will over that area. That being said, even anarchists would support such a measure, and someone defending their property (even collectively) doesn’t make sense as a state in the traditional sense, so I don’t feel like this definition is all that useful.

This definition – developed by Weber and adopted as the primary definition of a state by sociologists – is basically useless for our purposes, as it indiscriminately describes a vast array of situations, which in reality share little in common. To hell with it.

Thats silly.

Why? Once again, I will let Sedrox explain his analysis, with which I agree:

The assumption behind this definition is really that there are no “natural rights” that justify property, or ownership in any form. In reality, standards for obtaining property – like “finders keepers”, or possession and use - are determined by implicit agreements among people and communities. Today, these agreements are for the most part forced upon citizens by the state via property law. Now one could argue this view of property, but that’s a subject for another thread. The point of this definition is that a state is any entity which exercises ownership over property without fulfilling the common and agreed upon methods. For example, in the United States, the common conception of property is finders-keepers, or a Neo-Lockean interpretation of natural rights. A state would be any entity who can obtain property without having, what is considered, a natural right to that property. What qualifies the United Kingdom or the U.S. as states is that they exercise ownership (which, as expanded upon above, is the same as a monopoly of the use of force) over a geographical area, without having any commonly accepted claim to ownership over that area. The usefulness of this definition, is that it draws a line of distinction between someone defending their property (not a state), and someone forcefully taking another persons legitimate property (statist behavior).

As for the example above, if a militia defends the land they occupy, they are not exercising ownership over something they don’t have a claim to; they’re just protecting their own property. In my opinion, one of the biggest questions an anarchist has to answer is whether or not they would go around violently seizing private property, and whether or not such an action would make them a state. Under conventional definitions, it would. Under this definition however, it could be argued that the private property was a claim to property not operating under the conventional implicit agreement (which in an anarchic society would probably be possession), and was therefore a state. So in fact, the anarchists were just rectifying a wrong (statist activity), and were not contradicting their ideology.

To sum up, the Marxist definition and the traditional definition of a state are inadequate (while the former is useful and historically accurate), and the alternative listed above provides the clearest and most coherent description of a state.

[RGacky3]

can you give us a meaningful explication in what havemill said is silly?

Its silly because, its really just a twisting of words to describe something to apply it to other things, it also is'nt a definition because it requires more definitions on what property, what the inter-subjective criterea is and what it is based on, and so on, the definition is more ideological wordplay than an honest definition.

BTW, thanks hayenmill for posting the explinations of the definitions.

While Engel’s historical analysis of the State and Lenin’s theoretical application of that analysis is applicable to many situations, it doesn’t answer the fundamental question of what constitutes a state.

Exactly my point.

For example, what differentiates a state under this definition and a landowner? Specifically in an anarchist society, where there is no overriding source of sovereignty that grants authority to landowners through property titles. In an anarchic society (particularly a market anarchist one, where defense was handled privately), a man defending his property from invaders (even legitimately) is engaging in statist behavior, as they are rejecting the aggressors claim to the use of force over the disputed object (claiming a monopoly). Ownership is nothing but claiming a monopoly of the legitimate use of force over a specific object (remember Proudhon’s equation of property with despotism?).

Ownership in a Statist society would be the State using force to protect the land owner (if that is the law of the land), which would not make the landowner a state because he's not the one with the monopoly of force. In an anarchist society, if a man WAS a landowner and protected it through a monopoly of force (not consensus), then ultimately he would be a state, because he would be able to do all the funtions of a state, make laws, enforce them, and so on.

This definition – developed by Weber and adopted as the primary definition of a state by sociologists – is basically useless for our purposes, as it indiscriminately describes a vast array of situations, which in reality share little in common. To hell with it.

A definition is'nt dependent on your purposes, you have to build it around the accepted definition or use a different word, the State is'nt a theory or idea, its the description of a thing. The base array of situations are hypothetical, not in the real world, in the real world there are only states that fit that definitition sufficiently, you can't base definitions of things on hypotheticals to make ideological points easier.

The point of this definition is that a state is any entity which exercises ownership over property without fulfilling the common and agreed upon methods. For example, in the United States, the common conception of property is finders-keepers, or a Neo-Lockean interpretation of natural rights. A state would be any entity who can obtain property without having, what is considered, a natural right to that property. What qualifies the United Kingdom or the U.S. as states is that they exercise ownership (which, as expanded upon above, is the same as a monopoly of the use of force) over a geographical area, without having any commonly accepted claim to ownership over that area. The usefulness of this definition, is that it draws a line of distinction between someone defending their property (not a state), and someone forcefully taking another persons legitimate property (statist behavior).

That does'nt work, because the State in most countries does'nt "own" the country, it simply makes rules for it and holds an army.