The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[Laika]

November 2017 will be the 100th anniversary of Russian Revolution led by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

In State and Revolution, Lenin wrote: "Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of [the existence of] the class struggle to the recognition of [the necessity of] the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested."

Lenin was blunt in describing this dictatorship as "unlimited power [of the state] based on force, and not on law" and that dictatorship is rule "unrestricted by any laws". As long as the class content of political institutions was proletarian, Lenin argued it did not matter if it was democratic or not because it served the interests of the working class. This was to be achieved by the rule of the Communist Party as the "vanguard of the Proletariat and of the whole mass of working people" through a one party state.

This became the blueprint for Communist rule for the 20th century, with some modifications (including the peasantry in China and Maoism for example) and pockets of Anarchist Communism in Spain and Ukraine that rejected Lenin's model.

Would you agree that a one-party system based on the dictatorial rule of a Communist Party unrestricted by the law as the vanguard of the Proletariat is necessary for the transition from Capitalism to Socialism and Communism? Is rule by Communist Party the same as rule by the Proletariat? And would you support such a system?

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you agree that a one-party system based on the dictatorial rule of a Communist Party unrestricted by the law as the vanguard of the Proletariat is necessary for the transition from Capitalism to Socialism and Communism? Is rule by Communist Party the same as rule by the Proletariat? And would you support such a system?

I've given it a little thought, & have decided that I wouldn't support it.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Would you agree that a one-party system based on the dictatorial rule of a Communist Party unrestricted by the law as the vanguard of the Proletariat is necessary for the transition from Capitalism to Socialism and Communism? Is rule by Communist Party the same as rule by the Proletariat? And would you support such a system?

Absolutely not.

Foe me, Marxism instead implies that we are sufficiently scientifically advanced to be gnostic about every economic and social variable, and can successfully model outcomes.

If we can't do that, then acting in the best interests of the worker is fruitless. Don't get me wrong, I believe that there are absolutely
correct answers to many of these economic problems, but I also know that just because there is a correct answer doesn't mean we can know what it is.

For example, if I asked you how many ants are alive at the moment you read this sentence, you have no way to answer that question. The answer is constantly shifting anyway.But just because you didn't have enough information to answer the question doesn't mean there wasn't a right answer.

Economic and social decisions need debate and dissent because we don't know everything. While there must be absolutely correct answers for all economic productivity, I don't have the hubris to know those answers with certainly. . . Lenin, and every man who's experimented with communism since, continued to made the assumption that they knew everything.

In the far future, I will have no problem ceding economic control to a series of AI programs, honestly. To me, that would be the ultimate expression of Marxism. in fact, much of the world is already run using these thing now, but only to benefit the few instead of the many.

 

[metis]

Would you agree that a one-party system based on the dictatorial rule of a Communist Party unrestricted by the law as the vanguard of the Proletariat is necessary for the transition from Capitalism to Socialism and Communism? Is rule by Communist Party the same as rule by the Proletariat? And would you support such a system?

Marx actually had hoped that the transition could be done democratically, but he was also painfully aware of the fact that back then the wealthy would be unwilling to give up much of any of their wealth and power, thus revolution would likely be necessary, at least in some countries.

Personally, I'm against the use of revolution unless the status quo is so dire that people are dying en masse, but I find it ironic that most of us here in the States condemned the revolutions in Europe and elsewhere while at the same time celebrating the American Revolution. Go figger.

 

[Laika]

My understanding was that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was the masses having the monopoly on political power.

Whether it is one party or not is exterior to democracy, however democracy must be maintained to ensure that the party remains to be the representative of the working class.

The quotes are taken from books on Marxism-Leninism and there are multiple interpretations of Lenin's work. But there is a dialectical relationship between planned development and spontaneous development within Marxism and how the scales are weighed in which side of "democratic centralism" predominates. State and Revolution was a moment when the "democratic" side of Lenin's thinking was more obvious because it was written in the turmoil of the Russian Revolution but the problem is taking a view of it as part of a wider intellectual system.

Some Marxists emphasise the revolutionary spontaneity of the masses and the bottom-up "democratic" popular revolution and read "dictatorship" as tyranny by majority. The phrase "all power to the soviets" was pretty useful in expressing this view in Russia itself. I think Rosa Luxembourg may be an example of this view but again their is a combination of spontaneity and conscious direction or planning of revolution in her thought.

Others emphasise the party as part of the planning process for social development as an intellectual elite possessing a scientific class consciousness. therefore the communist attitude towards democracy is that it must serve the interests of "centralism" and be a technocratic vehicle for mass mobilisation. it is "directed democracy" or "managed democracy" in which the proletariat are led by the Party as the vanguard. This became the "offical" view as the need for planning took precedence over the spontaneous movement of the people such as in the Kronstadt and Tambov Rebellions (among many others).

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Would you agree that a one-party system based on the dictatorial rule of a Communist Party unrestricted by the law as the vanguard of the Proletariat is necessary for the transition from Capitalism to Socialism and Communism? Is rule by Communist Party the same as rule by the Proletariat? And would you support such a system?

1) No...nor do I see such a transition as necessary, necessarily.
2) No, as the Party becomes a separate entity to serve the interest of those within it at the expense of those outside of it...and those at the top at the expense of those lower in the organization...
3) No, as state communism was constructed as a single system for the entire world, and I oppose such systems.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We already know what communism does to people.

 

[Shrew]

Problem: The Proletariat is an awful lot of people.
Consequence: You need to select some persons to represent them.
Result: Those who represent The Proletariat become the new ruling class.

 

[ajay0]

Would you agree that a one-party system based on the dictatorial rule of a Communist Party unrestricted by the law as the vanguard of the Proletariat is necessary for the transition from Capitalism to Socialism and Communism? Is rule by Communist Party the same as rule by the Proletariat? And would you support such a system?

I would say that this was a theoretical blunder committed by Marx , as he could have foreseen the fact that dictatorships are bound to result in a lack of accountability, as shown by the later excesses of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

I would attribute Stalin's excesses as the root cause for the collapse of the Soviet Union later on .

I think communism could have been more successful if it had adopted democratic methods for gaining power and used dialogue and consensus building as ways to build its base instead of extreme violence and force.

 

[ajay0]

Whether it is one party or not is exterior to democracy, however democracy must be maintained to ensure that the party remains to be the representative of the working class.

My point exactly.

I would say that the dictatorship happened to be of a few power-hungry,insecure and paranoid communist leaders claiming themselves to be the representatives of the working class, and sending suspect workers and farmers to concentration camps after farcical trials.

This lack of accountability in the communist system is what lead to its demise, especially in eastern europe and the USSR.