I think what Marx was referring to was class dictatorship not the literal dictatorship of a single person.
Results 1 to 20 of 53
Preventing oppression in socialism
Instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat the revolutionaries should build a one party government of the proletariat. Because that's what the western countries are used to, and will be easier for the population to accept. When Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, there were still a lot of absolute monarchies in Europe. Back then the people would have accepted a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat. As happened in Russia with Lenin after Tsar Nicholas II.
The government would exist out of a chairman that overlooks everything that happens in it. However, in no case can he have absolute power or the ability to take decisions on his own, on matters that also regard one of the ministers.
The ministries have to be structured in such a way, they can not take decisions without consulting another one either. This will counter corruption and make Stalin-like oppression even more impossible.
Thus the decision-making triangle will come to exist: the chairman and two ministers. Imagine a decision having to be made about the production of the state farms. That will regard both the ministries of agriculture and economics. Together with the chairman fulfilling his role as chairman and overlooker. A change can only be made if all three agree.
This way no ones one-person-opinion can be pushed through. A table with one leg can fall all ways. A table with two legs can only fall to the left or the right. However a table with three legs can not fall.
This should apply until socialism has been built up to such a level where democratic centralism can be applied. Allowing the people to vote on all law proposals and other important decisions.
I think what Marx was referring to was class dictatorship not the literal dictatorship of a single person.
I'm not referring to Marx's theories but to the historical application of his theories.I think what Marx was referring to was class dictatorship not the literal dictatorship of a single person.
Socialism is defined as a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are socially owned and democratically administered by the workers themselves and in which production is carried out to satisfy the needs and wants of society under a democratically determined plan.
Some socialists have advanced programs in which the workers establish industrial councils at various levels of planning, production and distribution. These councils are to be democratically elected and recallable at any time. Their function would be to help carry out the decisions made or approved from the rank-and-file workers at the point of production, that is, at the workplace where actual production takes place.
If you start out from that basic definition of socialism, you've pretty much worked out a general outline of a governmental structure that would safeguard against bureaucratic usurpation.
Moreover, any transitional period between the "now" and the "later" should contain the above model, first as a fighting organization an later as the government itself.
I think you're confused over what 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means. DOTP doesn't mean one guy dictates over the country. It means the dictatorship of the working class.
Dude, you don't know what Fascism is. It is liberty!
- FAF
Their are three points to a triangle(really
their are four, but their are no fascists)
- The Red Comet
I'm not confused over what dictatorship of the proletariat means. However, in practice, it has involved into something else in the past. I was trying to come up with a way to build in a safelock.
But maybe you're unsure as to what socialism actually means in practice and how that system is to be achieved.
Well, ok, you're right ... In practice socialism has been attacked by the USA and the other thuggish capitalist nations before it can get off the ground. We can remember that Soviet Russia was invaded by 14 capitalist nations from 1918-1922. How can Marxist doctrine/theories be implemented in the middle of such chaos?
"The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century--without exception--has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement--from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador--not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.
It's as if the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of America looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly."
— William Blum
Killing Hope. Second Edition. 2004. Common Courage Press, Canada.
Last edited by Rakhmetov; 6th June 2011 at 16:40.
A dictatorship in a socialism will most likely not rise up when the society has been established. However, it may occur just after the revolution. In the time frame where, depending on the chosen path, a powerful government will stand up to make the necessary changes during a time of chaos when progressing from capitalism to socialism.
I understand. But try to look at it this way: The immediate task of a workers' revolution is to seize the means of production and place them under democratic control of the majority while simultaneously overthrowing capitalist control of the political state, seizing control of it and dismantling it so as to give way to the new industrial government based at the workplace.
Try not to think in terms of before, during and after the revolution because it may be impossible to tell when a revolution has started and how or when it will end.
[Also, you need to make the distinction between the act of rebellion that leads to a revolution and the revolution itself.]
Last edited by Book O'Dead; 6th June 2011 at 20:44. Reason: Italics for emphasis, added last line in brackets.
That's the definition of Communism, socialism is defined as a Workers' State.
Not to nit pick, but since we're talking about definitions.
You realise that Lenin and Marx are different people, right?
Maybe you are forgetting instances like the Paris Commune.
And that is not a very good reasoning since just because it has some historical background that way (which also failed in that respect) doesn't mean that it is the only way in which it can it applied. Republics and all that jazz were implemented in a far different fashion when first tried than what we are used to today. No reason to set your sights on trying to minimize a bad thing, you might as well get rid of it.
Freedom before Peace
The problem in this thread (and many other) is the basic inability to understand until and unless there are classes, there should be class dictatorship. NO EXCEPTION. The dictators too were class representatives and have support of one or more class of people behind them.
I think you're looking at this upside down. The form of government took place because of the productive forces and level of development of those societies.
This shares the same defects as the USSR had. It takes political power out of the immediate hands of the proletariat and puts into the hands of a caretaker government. Sure, no one person may be able to rule absolutely but that doesn't stop a political caste from forming. A governments first role is to preserve government. The needs of the people comes second (most of the time). So if you have any dissent which threatens government, then the government has to crush it. A better solution would be to allow alternative political organs, independent of the state, to be allowed to crop up. Things like independent trade unions and worker's councils, but you can't subsume these things into official political and law binding governance. They'll lose their edge as a revolutionary tool.
Maybe the problem isn't the threads.
By you, maybe. Not by Marx.
"It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it" - Pirkei Avot
The longer a drought lasts the more likely it is to continue.
I don't think that the concept of a one-party state is exactly new.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
If there is a single dictator then it is not socialism, they may claim to be socialist but that is a false claim. For example the Soviet Union in its final 20 years.
"¡Viva la revolución!"
I support this idea, as long as I get to be the dictator.
