How to avoid a dictatorship

[Redhead]

After a socialist revolution, how can we avoid it being turned into a dictatorship? There will always be some greedy persons who just want power.

[motion denied]

We shouldn't avoid it.

[Lord Testicles]

I propose we strangle any would-be masters.

We shouldn't avoid it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Assuming you're talking about a personal dictatorship rather than a class dictatorship (obviously we want a class dictatorship!), what do you mean "how do we avoid it"? Whether the revolution degenerates - which does not necessarily lead to personal dictatorship, mind - depends on the ability of the revolution to spread. If you have a revolution that is limited to one backward country, it will degenerate.

[Magón]

Depends I guess, on how a revolution would go about. I mean, when I think or hear "post-revolution", I equate that to everything having been changed and settled, and society is truly egalitarian. Otherwise, the revolution would still be ongoing (in my way of seeing things,) and how we would handle a possible dictator-type then, probably has a simple answer to it. Like spray them with a squirt-bottle, and tell them, "No! Bad!" Or whatever.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's quite simple. In communism politics has disappeared, and instead we have collective administration. Collective administration concerns collective consumption and the issues that are subject to collective decision-making are of a technical and practical nature. It will be decisions about lampposts, libraries, and such issues. These are far removed from issues of high politics. Therefore, it is (nearly) impossible for a charismatic leader to pursue hegemony through these practical non-political issues -- you cannot stage a 'coup' over lampposts. How will a would-be dictator convince people to give up power then?

[Redhead]

Assuming you're talking about a personal dictatorship rather than a class dictatorship (obviously we want a class dictatorship!), what do you mean "how do we avoid it"? Whether the revolution degenerates - which does not necessarily lead to personal dictatorship, mind - depends on the ability of the revolution to spread. If you have a revolution that is limited to one backward country, it will degenerate.

I am talking about a personal dictatorship as in Kim Jong Il, Stalin etc. Not dictatorship of the proletariat

[Magón]

It would be pretty difficult, post-revolution to have someone try and make themselves dictator over others somewhere. As I said, post-revolution usually means that things have settled and a egalitarian society has been formed. And as Tim said, the biggest discussions between people would be likely local, than anything else, so unless a dictator type tries declaring some sort of hate towards another commune (assuming communes are post-revolution entities,) it would be difficult. And even then, trying to incite hatred towards another commune would be kind of pointless/very hard to achieve.

[Redhead]

I think i have to specify my question. It also concerns during the revolution, where society is at its most vulnerable. One of my points is how did the countries such as USSR, Cuba, China become dictatorships, and thus stride from the path of communism.

[Sinister Intents]

Does it matter? Even anarchy can be defined as a dictatorship, this depends on the tendency though. Certainly an anarchic/communist society will be a dictatorship in some regard.

[Redhead]

Does it matter? Even anarchy can be defined as a dictatorship, this depends on the tendency though. Certainly an anarchic/communist society will be a dictatorship in some regard.

Let me specify even more: im talking about a non-democratic state system where theres a single person/small group who controls everything in a centralized system.

[ChrisK]

I think i have to specify my question. It also concerns during the revolution, where society is at its most vulnerable. One of my points is how did the countries such as USSR, Cuba, China become dictatorships, and thus stride from the path of communism.

Well, the USSR was in the unfortunate position of the German Revolution failing. After that point the revolution wasn't going to succeed, so it was easy for Stalin to take over.

The Chinese Revolution was part of a continuation (with differences) of Stalinist style rule.

The Cuban Revolution was a guerrilla takeover that didn't claim communist sympathies until later.

Edit: Basically dictatorships occur when revolutions fail or they aren't revolutions of the working class.

[Sinister Intents]

Let me specify even more: im talking about a non-democratic state system where theres a single person/small group who controls everything in a centralized system.

A classless society is a dictatorship too though, even without a single party/individual in power, society will be ruled bt individuals, and this will be a dictatorship in the sense they'll maintain that system through force, all individuals will have power, and all individuals will rule society in anarchy. Dictatorship is rather contextual, no?

Anarchy can still be called a classless, stateless, Dictatorship

[Redhead]

Personally im against a vanguard party, because i think havimg an "elite" of revolutionary leaders makes it easy for them to take control of the power and stear the society in their own interest. That is my view of vanguardism, but i am still learning about marxism, so if im wrong or you disagree please say so. My mind is always open for learning

[Lord Testicles]

A classless society is a dictatorship too though, even without a single party/individual in power, society will be ruled bt individuals, and this will be a dictatorship in the sense they'll maintain that system through force, all individuals will have power, and all individuals will rule society in anarchy. Dictatorship is rather contextual, no?

Anarchy can still be called a classless, stateless, Dictatorship

The word dictatorship has a specific meaning for a purpose, if we start to call everything a dictatorship then nothing is a dictatorship. So no, a classless, stateless society is not a dictatorship.

[Creative Destruction]

A classless society is a dictatorship too though, even without a single party/individual in power, society will be ruled bt individuals, and this will be a dictatorship in the sense they'll maintain that system through force, all individuals will have power, and all individuals will rule society in anarchy. Dictatorship is rather contextual, no?

Anarchy can still be called a classless, stateless, Dictatorship

This is getting nitpicky. He was pretty clear in that he was using the common notion of a dictatorship.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

In communism politics has disappeared

On the contrary, "Man is a political animal in the most literal sense: he is not only a social animal, but an animal that can be individualised only within society." - Marx.... (I agree with the sentiment of your post, I'm just being difficult :P )

Personally im against a vanguard party, because i think havimg an "elite" of revolutionary leaders makes it easy for them to take control of the power and stear the society in their own interest. That is my view of vanguardism, but i am still learning about marxism, so if im wrong or you disagree please say so. My mind is always open for learning

In an army, a vanguard advances ahead of the army to test the strength of the opposition, scout out good battlegrounds and is prepared to spring traps and face the opposition first. It is no more or less important than the rest of the army; it couldn't completely defeat the opposition without the bulk of the army supporting it etc. Hence, in the working class the 'vanguard' is that layer of revolutionary workers already striving to smash capital, to bring about socialism etc. A vanguard party, therefore, is the idea that to more effectively destroy capitalism the vanguard, those layer of workers already convinced of revolution, should be organised into one united force.

This is the conception of the vanguard party but material conditions inevitably mean things aren't so neat. However, the failures of the Russian Revolution, as suggested by ChrisK, lay in the failure of the revolution to spread throughout Europe - that's another discussion altogether almost.

[Red Commissar]

We should see if we can even do a revolution before we worry about what happens after it. Not that it's not a legitimate concern, just that I don't really even confident we can reach that stage right now. Best we can do right now is discourage organization structures which encourage power being concentrated into a single figure.

[Sinister Intents]

The word dictatorship has a specific meaning for a purpose, if we start to call everything a dictatorship then nothing is a dictatorship. So no, a classless, stateless society is not a dictatorship.

Very true XD I was over thinking it

Though I did start a thread on TAB about anarchy being a dictatorship in certain contexts before I deleted tge forum

[robbo203]

In an army, a vanguard advances ahead of the army to test the strength of the opposition, scout out good battlegrounds and is prepared to spring traps and face the opposition first. It is no more or less important than the rest of the army; it couldn't completely defeat the opposition without the bulk of the army supporting it etc. Hence, in the working class the 'vanguard' is that layer of revolutionary workers already striving to smash capital, to bring about socialism etc. A vanguard party, therefore, is the idea that to more effectively destroy capitalism the vanguard, those layer of workers already convinced of revolution, should be organised into one united force.
.

But a vanguard party that failed to become a mass party - thereby negating itself as a "vanguard" party - and sought to capture power in advance of becoming a mass party would, in fact, find itself in a position of administering capitalism - a system that can only be operated against the interests of the mass of the population.

Such a vanguard party would then become, quite simply, a new ruling class. Which is precisely what happened in the case of the Bolsheviks. The Bolshevik revolution paved the way to Soviet state capitalism. It was in other words, essentially a capitalist revolution that highjacked the terminology of socialist revolution.