Why is the dictatorship of the proletariat needed?

[Jacob Cliff]

Why not just anarchism?

[RedWorker]

This may not directly answer the question but I think it is something to keep in mind for the discussion:

The withering away of the state is not dependent on individual will, it is a built-in consequence of the structure of the revolutionary dictatorship it self. According to Marxism, contradictions within capitalism produce class antagonisms between the working class and capitalist class which will result, at some point, in a revolutionary situation wherein the working class forms organs of workers' power -- such as workers' councils, workers' associations, committees, communes -- to try and conquer political power. These organs, part of a revolutionary body -- the workers' state or revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat -- is organised from below with power in the lowest organs, and mandated, recallable, rotating workers' deputies in higher organs executing decisions. These decisions are binding on all organs by virtue of the lower organs accepting the decisions of the higher organs. This is important since the revolutionary working class needs to generalise its conditions to consolidate victory. The revolutionary state is a temporary one where councils and such organs will wield political power, while workers' associations will assume control of production. Through this process, socialised production under private property is transformed into social ownership. The state will use violence, pressure, and coercion where necessary to consolidate power and carry the revolution to victory. This violence is directed at the reaction, those using violence to restore property rights and to restore the bourgeois class to the position of ruling class. As the social revolution progresses the reaction is beaten and defeated, and the process of socialisation is completed, revolutionary violence is obsolete and will necessarily disappear -- it's not a matter of giving up power, it's matter of it becoming obsolete. What remains of the workers' state -- the workers' state stripped of its coercive functions -- is the associations of producers and social ownership. In other words, the result is the free association of equal producers and consumers administrating commonly owned productive resources: communism.
The withering away of the state is not optional and it is not reformed out of existence. The structure of workers' state will lose its coercive functions, and the structure that remains is collective administration through freely associated individuals.

[superborys]

I've thought about it long and hard, and my suspicion is that this stage is thought to be necessary for the same reason that transitional states often came about when so-called "uncivilized" nations in the late 1800's changed from absolute monarchies to different kinds of shifting autocracies, then councils and associations, then to ultimately more democratic organizations: a cultural shift.

I believe the thought is that the worker's state would be too weak to survive on the goodwill of its constituents, that the reactionary elements would struggle hard, and so the dictatorship forcing the culture of the proletariat prepares the constituents for a democratic, workers' state.

If that's not clear, think about it in these terms:
If tomorrow President Obama made an emergency statement that he was seizing the control of the government and making it a dictatorship, everyone in America would go absolutely berserk. There would be riots in every city within days.

However, if you told the people of Cuba the same morning that they'd be holding elections the next day for a democratically-elected president (and it was a true offering, not a single-party "election"), either the elections would be absolutely dominated by corruption of new elements, or people would just vote for the most charismatic generalissimo, rather than the best administrator, as perhaps they would need.


I however disagree with this. I think the worker's state will just naturally come about, as it is in places like Sweden and Denmark (e.g. in Denmark, the minimum wage is over $20 USD/hour).

[Blake's Baby]

I think the many people who post on this site from eg Denmark and Sweden (both monarchies, by the way) would laugh in your face if it was close enough.

RedWorker quotes Tim who's completely right that the abolition of the state is not a matter of will. You may as well ask why people who fall of cliffs don't just fly to the ground. I mean, obviously they want to be smashed to bits, otherwise why would they try to be caught by gravity?

[superborys]

I think the many people who post on this site from eg Denmark and Sweden (both monarchies, by the way) would laugh in your face if it was close enough.

RedWorker quotes Tim who's completely right that the abolition of the state is not a matter of will. You may as well ask why people who fall of cliffs don't just fly to the ground. I mean, obviously they want to be smashed to bits, otherwise why would they try to be caught by gravity?

Not to start an argument on here, but just because they are monarchies doesn't mean they can't be social constitutional monarchies in the same vein as social democracy. I would say a tax rate of over 45% minimum and a minimum wage that amounts to almost a $40,000/year job in the US, I would say is fairly worker-oriented (also considering that this minimum wage isn't state mandated, but union negotiated).

And I would further argue that no state is begging to be destroyed. A state almost certainly must exist, whether you regard the state as the formalized organizational body most commonly called government, or even just a loose framework of people who identify as being part of the same group for economic-political reasons. Even places with near-total anarchy and community-driven governance have regarded themselves as belonging to that group, as in Freetown (I think also in Denmark, at least it was).

[Brutus]

Not to start an argument on here, but just because they are monarchies doesn't mean they can't be social constitutional monarchies in the same vein as social democracy. I would say a tax rate of over 45% minimum and a minimum wage that amounts to almost a $40,000/year job in the US, I would say is fairly worker-oriented (also considering that this minimum wage isn't state mandated, but union negotiated).

And I would further argue that no state is begging to be destroyed. A state almost certainly must exist, whether you regard the state as the formalized organizational body most commonly called government, or even just a loose framework of people who identify as being part of the same group for economic-political reasons. Even places with near-total anarchy and community-driven governance have regarded themselves as belonging to that group, as in Freetown (I think also in Denmark, at least it was).

The class content of the state is primary, though. The social-democratic state has been used to shoot strikers and socialists before, and it'll be used in that way again because it's class content it bourgeois- the key role of the bourgeois state is to perpetuate capitalism, and redressing the wounds of the working class with a high minimum wage is a form of doing that. "Fairly worker-orientated": ha.

[superborys]

The class content of the state is primary, though. The social-democratic state has been used to shoot strikers and socialists before, and it'll be used in that way again because it's class content it bourgeois- the key role of the bourgeois state is to perpetuate capitalism, and redressing the wounds of the working class with a high minimum wage is a form of doing that. "Fairly worker-orientated": ha.

Well, then one could make the argument that the USSR under Stalin, while not "bourgeois" definitely favored the intelligentsia and the other members of the Politburo. Denmark today is definitely a better place for the average worker than the USSR was. And, anticipating the argument that Stalin's USSR wasn't a socialist state, we can even look at Lenin's USSR. Before he suspended the soviets in order to keep the peace, there were worker's rights and improvements, but then the reaction happened and Lenin transformed the USSR into what it had been as Russia; an autocracy. I would like to ask you what curatives the Soviet government gave to the worker's masses that made it so much better than today? Bolshevism always ends up the same: suggestions are passed up the hierarchy, but ultimately they mean nothing to a group with an agenda.

As an aside, it's my personal belief that the best socialist state comes from a gradual "leftifying" of the current government, and then a devolution of power from the government to the people.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, then one could make the argument that the USSR under Stalin, while not "bourgeois" definitely favored the intelligentsia and the other members of the Politburo. Denmark today is definitely a better place for the average worker than the USSR was. And, anticipating the argument that Stalin's USSR wasn't a socialist state, we can even look at Lenin's USSR. Before he suspended the soviets in order to keep the peace, there were worker's rights and improvements, but then the reaction happened and Lenin transformed the USSR into what it had been as Russia; an autocracy. I would like to ask you what curatives the Soviet government gave to the worker's masses that made it so much better than today? Bolshevism always ends up the same: suggestions are passed up the hierarchy, but ultimately they mean nothing to a group with an agenda.

As an aside, it's my personal belief that the best socialist state comes from a gradual "leftifying" of the current government, and then a devolution of power from the government to the people.

The thing is, bourgeois dictatorships can't be "leftified", their very structure is set up so the bourgeois class rules. People have tried to "leftify" bourgeois states for quite some time, all that came out of that were strike-breaking, racist, imperialist social-democratic governments. Some improvement.

Modern Denmark is a more pleasant place to live than Russia during the civil war because, among other things, it is not in the middle of the civil war. And for that matter, Denmark is a "classical" imperialist power, whereas Russia was a country of belated capitalist development forced to act as an imperialist power by the international situation, with much of its economy destroyed by the civil war. If you want to compare states, compare capitalist Russia with the Soviet Union - or the RSFSR with the Russian Empire.

"Lenin" never suspended the soviets. The soviets increasingly became irrelevant as most of the proletariat was mobilised to fight in the civil war, or to administer the party and the state machinery that was necessary to fight the civil war.

[superborys]

The thing is, bourgeois dictatorships can't be "leftified", their very structure is set up so the bourgeois class rules. People have tried to "leftify" bourgeois states for quite some time, all that came out of that were strike-breaking, racist, imperialist social-democratic governments. Some improvement.

Modern Denmark is a more pleasant place to live than Russia during the civil war because, among other things, it is not in the middle of the civil war. And for that matter, Denmark is a "classical" imperialist power, whereas Russia was a country of belated capitalist development forced to act as an imperialist power by the international situation, with much of its economy destroyed by the civil war. If you want to compare states, compare capitalist Russia with the Soviet Union - or the RSFSR with the Russian Empire.

"Lenin" never suspended the soviets. The soviets increasingly became irrelevant as most of the proletariat was mobilised to fight in the civil war, or to administer the party and the state machinery that was necessary to fight the civil war.

EDIT: I rewrote this post a few times and realized just now I've forgotten an important thing:
About what I said concerning Lenin: I had read that he suspended the power of the local soviets in order to consolidate power to help the new Russian Soviet survive the war. But now that I have gone looking for it so I'm not a liar, I can't find it. I apologize if I'm mistaken, but it would be nice if someone knew the source and told me.

In order to not get off-topic, I'll continue this conversation with anyone who'd like to, to come to my profile.

Trying to relate to the topic, I think the USSR is a prime example of why the dictatorship of the proletariat leads to, in Trotsky's words, a degenerated worker's state, when the power is concentrated like it was in the USSR.

In a more general sense, I think it's more or less obvious to any American that the dictatorship of the majority is a less-than-optimal solution. 49% to 51% means that almost one-half of the country has to suck it up and take a leader they don't want. In the best case scenario like that, the leaders could be as close as two different sides of the same coin. On the other hand, it could be like in Greece or America, where the two sides vying for power (more so in Greece than America) are diametrically opposed.

To relate this to the dictatorship idea, I think the case is often that while some workers are in favor of it, more would be uncomfortable. Is your Lenin or Mao too extreme for you? Does he want to abolish all currency and make the country an austere, production-centric machine? Is he too lenient and only wants to increase the wage to a comfortable poverty? To me it's obvious that a bolshevik (used here as shorthand for the dictatorship of the majority) system almost invariably leads to unhappy constituents. So, partly to MarxianSocialist's point:

Anarchism maybe wouldn't be a cohesive enough system to defend the new political system, but proletarian dictatorship is perhaps too strong, and doesn't allow for enough wiggle room. So a happy medium, again, in my opinion, would be a confederation of states, each small enough to allow for more-or-less direct community representation, each retaining their own freedoms in large, but in small coalescing for common defense and economic cooperation.

I usually idealize it as a group of confederated Greek city-states, but without all the cities oppressing the nearby farmers and rampant sexism and slavery.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To superborys,

If Trotsky said that a dictatorship of the proletariat leads to a degenerated workers' state, then I'm dumbfounded at how that man could have ever been considered a Marxist. The works of Marx and Engels describe the dictatorship of the proletariat as a mechanism of suppressing the bourgeoisie politically until there ceases to be a bourgeoisie and a proletariat all together.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To superborys,

If Trotsky said that a dictatorship of the proletariat leads to a degenerated workers' state, then I'm dumbfounded at how that man could have ever been considered a Marxist. The works of Marx and Engels describe the dictatorship of the proletariat as a mechanism of suppressing the bourgeoisie politically until there ceases to be a bourgeoisie and a proletariat all together.

Trotsky never said that. In fact one of his last major works was a defence of the proletarian dictatorship against Kautsky and his social-democratic hangers-on.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

It's idealism to imagine a revolution can simply sweep away all the aspects of capitalism in one swoop. There will be a period where the revolutionary class, the proletariat, has seized power but must defend itself from counter-revolution in order to be successful in its goal of achieving socialism. The period where the last vestiges of capital are being dismantled and the bourgeoisie and their puppet allies are scrambling to maintain their political relevance in the face of the ongoing revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx in The Class Struggles in France: "the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary Socialism, around Communism [...] 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."

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

One of the common misconceptions, I think, is the idea that the DOTP is supposed to be a One Party State.

This is not the case. Even Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not intend for the Soviet Union to be a One Party State. The Soviet Republic was supposed to be governed by the Soviets themselves, which in turn would be staffed by representatives of multiple worker-oriented parties that would compete for votes from the workers (something that Lenin and co. had been doing for some time before the Civil War).

A DOTP is meant to be democratic, governed by the workers themselves. In the DOTP, the State is not the master over the people, the people are masters over the State. If the people decide that they would prefer more than one party in the Workers' Republic, they shall have it.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Rage,

I agree with your analysis that the workers are to be the masters of the state, rather than the other way around. I don't agree, though, that the dictatorsip of the proletariat cannot be a single-party state.

In the U.S.A., our two major political parties represent the interests of the same class, being the bourgeoisie, but the reason they are not one single party is because their platforms represent conflicting interests among the bourgeoisie, particularly between the old-money robber-barons and the nouveau riche firms (although different platforms can serve the same sectors of the bourgeoisie at different times).

The proletariat have no conflicting interests as a class. Now, workers can have wildly different opinions on issues, what problems there are with certain things, and how to solve problems. But the differing ideas among the proletariat are less like the major political parties (in my country, the Republicans and the Democrats) and more like the smaller "single issue" parties that exist really to no other end than to raise awareness of certain issues or ideas, like the Temperance Party or the many, many marijuana-legalization parties.

Could there be a kind of communistic political pluralism? Perhaps there can be. Although the Workers' Party is enshrined in the constitution, the D.P.R.K. has two other major political parties with non-trivial influence in national politics, just by way of example. But there are also many other sub-party political organizations, ranging from children's advocacy to women's issues.

A political party is united by a specific platform. If that platform is broad enough, though, it can allow for the emergence of different agonist groups advocating for certain things within the framework of the party. Given that a workers' state must, indeed, be founded on specific principles, it makes sense that permissible political organizations must work within a system that enshrines the proletariat as the ruling class.

Call it the Party or don't, but the central political expression of the proletariat will invariably be a communistic organ.

[RedWorker]

Although the Workers' Party is enshrined in the constitution, the D.P.R.K. has two other major political parties with non-trivial influence in national politics, just by way of example. But there are also many other sub-party political organizations, ranging from children's advocacy to women's issues.

lmfao

Yeah, this totally forgoes the fact that a single-party state (where only one party is allowed) is a dictatorship (in the bourgeois sense) and can (obviously) only work as a dictatorship, with repression, censorship, etc. Your whole post is basically just apologism for Stalinism and its supposed continuity with Marxism and Soviet DOTP (which existed only for a short time after 1917). How is the DPRK a DOTP at all?

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RedWorker,

Your response asserts that a single-party state represents bourgoeis dictatorship, but you failed to explain your reasoning. Really, the only part of your post that isn't a big, fat "nuh uh" is asking how north Korea is a dictatorship of the proletariat.

But even that wasn't a genuine question, now, was it? It was a rhetorical device continuing your proud tradition of contradicting "Stalinism" with no supporting argument whatsoever.

I'll begin accepting your questions when you can demonstrate the civility and maturity characteristic of criticism and questions posited in good faith. Until then, enjoy "winning."

[John Nada]

In a more general sense, I think it's more or less obvious to any American that the dictatorship of the majority is a less-than-optimal solution. 49% to 51% means that almost one-half of the country has to suck it up and take a leader they don't want. In the best case scenario like that, the leaders could be as close as two different sides of the same coin. On the other hand, it could be like in Greece or America, where the two sides vying for power (more so in Greece than America) are diametrically opposed.

In the US it's 50%+1 voters, not the majority of people, let alone the proletariat. It's uncommon for either party to get a majority of Americans to vote for them, nor do they care. In fact there's no guarantee that the Democrats/Republicans even have real support from their voters, rather than "lesser evil" reasons.

Mandatory voting, sometimes with a run-off, is done in some countries. Clearly they haven't voted in socialism. The bourgeois state will use whatever one allows them to keep power.

In the U.S.A., our two major political parties represent the interests of the same class, being the bourgeoisie, but the reason they are not one single party is because their platforms represent conflicting interests among the bourgeoisie, particularly between the old-money robber-barons and the nouveau riche firms (although different platforms can serve the same sectors of the bourgeoisie at different times).

The intent originally in the US was to have no parties. The American revolutionaries were all from the Whig Party. However, two factions emerged. The Federalist, who represented the Bourgeoisie, and the Democrat-Republicans, who appealed to the white peasantry and slave owners. The Democrat-Republicans still exist as the Democratic Party, though ironically they're closer to the Federalist now. And first the new Whig Party replaced the Federalist, then they were replaced by the Republicans, who yet again are closer to the Democrat-Republicans(that part was called Republican for short, but became the Democrats) than the Lincoln's Republicans. Both are bourgeois parties with a general program based on liberalism, but differ on how to apply it. Democrats have a more Keynesian, big tent program. The Republicans a traditionalist, conservative program. Both represent different factions of the bourgeoisie, like you said.

The proletariat have no conflicting interests as a class. Now, workers can have wildly different opinions on issues, what problems there are with certain things, and how to solve problems. But the differing ideas among the proletariat are less like the major political parties (in my country, the Republicans and the Democrats) and more like the smaller "single issue" parties that exist really to no other end than to raise awareness of certain issues or ideas, like the Temperance Party or the many, many marijuana-legalization parties.

Hey, I know the US left is divided, but I'm sure they do more than push for cannabis legalization

The idea behind those single issue parties was to put pressure on the main parties, rather than win. When a new party took power it was after the disintegration an older party. The one time socialist's came close, their candidate for president (Debs) was imprisoned.

Will their be one party, multiple parties or even "no parties" under the dictatorship of the proletariat? Who know? Some countries now they have one party that wins in spite of a possible multiparty system(South Africa, Japan and formally Mexico) and parliaments throughout the world with a fuck-load of parties.Obviously in the end all these represent the bourgeoisie. There will be differing opinions on this and that, it's bound to happen with a large group of people.

[dudell65]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all this a very non-materialist analysis? Whether the DOTP would be governed by democratic centralist majority rule or voluntary association would be determined by the material conditions of the time, no?