Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

[Free Radical]

The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' has long been a stock phrase of Marxism. What did Marx mean by this? Was it historically relevant? Is it relevant today? And what have dictatorships of the proletariat actually meant in reality?

Should this phrase be consigned to the proverbial dustbin of history?

[Jon Teunon]

'Should this phrase be consigned to the proverbial dustbin of history?'

Yes  - it was never very convincingly defined by Marx, and consequently has been open to widely different interpretations, from the absurd to the psychotic. (And since Marx knew so much about the previous French Revolutionary terror, I find it hard to believe that his phrase did not entail a period of authoritarian and repressive rule of some description by those representing 'proletarian' interests.

In practice since Lenin, it has been used to justify state terror as an intentional tool of control and oppression - a method of eradicating members of the 'bourgeoisie', (the Bolsheviks' point of departure from traditional Marxism of advocating a vanguard party to hijack the revolution in the name of the people etc, was from 'devoping' these ambiguous words written by Marx and Engels).

Time spent trying to update the phrase to fit in with world we live into today (as if Marx can be studied like a evangelist Christian would look at the Bible!) is a diversion from more more pressing matters - like why the 'left' is still so weak despite all the failings in the present mixed economic system.

[rob9443]

The collapse of the Soviet Union has crippled the left just as the failure of the first French Republic lead to a generation of reaction across Europe.

Reformers were denounced as Jacobins just as Marxist or Communist has become a term of abuse now.

But which is closer to Europe today- the first French republic or Metternich's system of absolute monarchies?

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" is a useless phrase. Much better to talk about economic democracy.

[Johnnywas]

Free Radical

I am sure that Marx had in mind in using the term "the political control by the working class of the state" 

Marx clearly preferred Universal suffrage and he refers in the Manifesto to winning the battle for democracy. After that he envisaged a period in which there was a   relatively powerful state which would centralise capital and privatise property.  He also saw that state as utilising the force of the Militia in its defence if necessary. Following a period of centralisation Marx appeared to feel that the repressive apparatus of the state would be largely redundant. Socialism  would create economic harmony and social peace. The state would slowly wither.

However, I think that the term dictatorship of the proletariat was misjudged. The International should have stressed instead the real benefits that were being gained by Universal Suffrage. More should have been invested in defending those gains against erosion.

Morever I think that Marx  theory of the State was misjudged in other important respects -
1) its failure to emphasise the risks inherent in overcentralisation of power. the abuse of state power in socialist countries has led infact to the creation of new ruling classes based on beaurocratic control. 
2) failure to grasps the essentially pluralist nature of modern society. by reducing the issue of social identity to one or two classes Marx underestimated the importance of democratic politics in resolving and mediating conflicts. because the reality is that antagonism will always exist in society and socialist governments will need to create conditions in which those antagonism can be resolved through deliberation 

I think that Socialism can recover its dynamism. The ultra free market remedies of conservatism are hollow. They are neither fair or a good protector of liberty. However socialists need to persuade future generations that socialism is at heart a democratic and pluralist project.

I agree with Jon and Rob - past time to ditch the phrase.

j 

 

[Free Radical]

Comrades

I should state my position, which is that I agree with the responses here. The only reason I raised the issue is that there are still some on the Marxist left who stand by this concept - a concept that I think has been deeply damaging to any kind of practical socialism - and I wanted to bring this discussion out into the open a bit.

But, also, teasing apart and unpicking the history of this idea is also interesting and perhaps has some relevance to ideas of radical socialism. Because it is a challenge to propose radical socialism and think about how it fits with democracy. The Sandinistas after all relinquished power in Nicaragua, rightly in my opinion, upon losing an election.

I take a view (following Tony Benn really) that democracy is itself a radical idea that ought not be dismissed as bourgeois as some on the left have done, at least historically.

But yes, for me, it's the dustbin of history for the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

[dj1917]

Firstly, all revolutionaries must (contrary to their image) be realists.  We cannot expect any putative revolution to instantly sweep away, overnight, the institutions and individuals who made up the former ruling class.  The French revolutionaries recognised this, which is why you won't read about The French Restoration in history books.  There is a period of months, or years, after any revolution when the embryonic revolutionary state is fragile- like a new-born lamb that hasn't found it's legs.  In this period the revolutionary class must stamp out the possibility of counter-revolution for the sake of it's own future.  It is easy for us to forget that revolution is war, and that liberal niceties like human rights will mean nothing to the bastards we are fighting. I fear that the "nice" revolution a lot of bourgeois radicals would hope for would be crushed in days.

[Brigg57]

dj1917,
who constitutes the counter-revolution??
In Russia, it was the czarists..the liberals?? the Anarchists??? anyone opposed to the Bolshevik party? anyone within the bolshevik party from Trotsky to Bukharin opposed to the bolshevik leadership? any general who might disagree with leadership??

[rodge]

dj1917.....i dont know any bourgeious radicals...even on these postings .If any are ...perhaps you could reveal yourselves to us...! revolution is indeed a war even the terms strike and picket are military terms in origin.the bolshevik cry for land peace and bread was answered by the russian people and if there was any doubt which trench they were in , then the first whiff of british mustard gas or volley from a lewis gun would certainly have concentrated their minds.lets hope we have become a little more civilised than in those bad old days..we certainly need to know who are our friends and who are our enemies.....thats obvious !

[Jon Teunon]

In this period the revolutionary class must stamp out the possibility of counter-revolution for the sake of it's own future.

And exactly what would the criteria be for establishing who qualifies for being a member of the reactionary faction to be liquidated? And more importantly who gets to decide this decision of life and death?

It seems reasonable for (insurrectionary) anarchists to exterminate all and every Leninist/Stalinist first, before the real action takes place against the ruling elites, because they know what happened to their predecessors in 1917 Russia and 1937 in Spain. You may find that you're not alone in claiming to possess the right to deliver 'revolutionary Justice'...

And since France has been run by imperialists capitalists ever since, including their own unique de Gaulle (was he really the kind of future that those who stormed the Bastille had fought, killed  and died for?), I don't see how the French Revolution serves as a role model for 2009.

[Brigg57]

I hope that the trials and executions are televised, because it's quite cold to go out.

Can we have Judge Judy presiding? Now that would be unmissable. She is great. last week she described a woman who went out with unemployed drunks a bum-magnet. I would love to watch counter-revolutionaries drawn up before her smiling face. Real counter-revolutionaries..real threats. Welcome to the court of judge judy Scheindlin, wiht her matriarchal face giving that irresistible smile.

and ol' dj seems to want to continue this heavy dictatorship for quite some time. I always thought there was a French Restoration, but I was taught in an age when History lessons were about more than Hitler.

I can hardly wait for the Revolution and the daily series of Judge Judy*jumping up and down

[Free Radical]

It's good to see that somebody has had the courage to take the dictatorship of the proletariat out of the dustbin of history, and stick it into the recycling.

[Jon Teunon]

.....i dont know any bourgeious radicals...even on these postings .If any are ...perhaps you could reveal yourselves to us...!

Karl Marx was 'bourgeious', and some would say he was pretty radical, so perhaps he would  qualify for liquidation under the Bolshevik-Leninist-Stalinist dictatorship..?

[Free Radical]

And I think Engels was a factory owner, so he should have been for the chop.

[willp]

Free Radical writes that the dictatorship of the proletariat  is "a concept that I think has been deeply damaging to any kind of practical socialism." Well, let's look at those who have used it - the Russian people, the Chinese people, the Vietnamese, the Cubans. Did it stop them taking control of their countries and trying, under enormous attacks, to create socialist societies?

Then let's look at all those great democratic parties that have rejected the concept, like the Labour party - ooh yes, it's taken us such a long way towards socialism, hasn't it?

Of course, the CIA doesn't like the concept much, and all the great heroes of failed socialism (like Rosa Luxemburg) didn't like it either, saying that it was unnecessary.
Now what killed poor Rosa? Oh yes, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, against which the dictatorship of the proletariat is a necessary defence.

In the real world, it would seem that those who have made practical efforts to create socialism have used the concept and found it useful. Those who reject it have got nowhere at all. Happy with that?

[Brigg57]

Ahoy, Cap'n thinks-he's-Lenin,

we've been told by dj17 that the dictatorship of the proletariat could last quite a while as counter-revolutionaries are sniffed out. During this period, civil rights, human rights, are to be 'suspended'.

Several people who have suddenly appeared on this board have sniffed us out as counter-revolutionaries, and seem psychologically all tooled-up for exercising this dictatorship. They rightly point to the Tory party, Lord Mandelson, the Labour Party, the EU bureaucrats, the Nazi party, the labour party, the LibDems, most of the left, in fact pretty nearly everybody, as opposed to them.

So...boy, this dictatorship is going to be lasting quite a while.

In my younger days when the Left was stronger and the groups of the Wacky-Woo had something of a vogue among students, I remember attending one meeting where one gentle woman advocated public whippings as a way in which counter-revolutionaries would be kept in a state of fear (not making this up). Can anybody here deny the truth of that brave, sensitive argument?? Are we not wimps, pansies, snivelling boojwah radicals unless we advocate such measures as death courts, informers, paramilitary police to keep an eye on dissent??? Comrades, only a breath - and some good whippings - keeps us from a socialist utopia where we will all be happy, smiling as we work together for the common good, always alert for backsliding but content in the knowledge that all is well in the best of all worlds.

duh...didn't a character in Dosoevsky's The Possessed say "I don't understand. I start with the premise of total freedom and somehow I've worked myself round into the conclusion of total despotism". Worra reactionary, having doubts? Doubts??? Nasty things doubts are, which keep us away from our happy task.

Just one more heave, Comrades! Just one more!!!

[willp]

Yes, once again, Brigg, you rely on unverifiable, ancient anecdotes.

And quoting Dostoyevsky now - just  how far back are you going to reach in order to find fellow-reactionaries?

Have you not noticed yet that nobody is threatening you? Nobody is threatening 'dissent' - we are arguing with you, debating with you - is that so intolerable?

We are not threatening your person, but we certainly seem to be upsetting your archaic, McCarthyite prejudices, and - in increasing numbers - defeating your arguments for your reactionary policies.

[Free Radical]

Willp

You seem bothered by the antiquity of Dostoyevsky but less worried by that of Karl Marx. It's a poor critique.

I think as long as your party honestly sets out the planned abrogation of civil liberties, the end of 'bourgeois' democracy, perhaps the charm of the firing squad and the knock on the door in the middle of the night then people can make up their minds. The problem is that the Leninist left has so often masqueraded as a defender of liberty while planning all the while to suspend it for... well, who knows how long - until the proverbial withering away of the state no doubt.

[willp]

It's not dear Fyodor's age or talents that is the point here, but his reactionary politics.
What counts is what parties actually do, not what their enemies say they might do in the future.
I repeat from earlier posts that our party has consistently opposed extraordinary renditions (unlike Obama, who is keeping them), the 42-day detention proposal, the connivance in torture by its CIA friends, and all the other attacks on civil liberties pursued by the Labour government.
And where did you find that "your party honestly sets out the planned abrogation of civil liberties, the end of 'bourgeois' democracy"? Aren't you just making this up? It's not what we say or do.
Aren't you just red-baiting?

[rodge]

"In Congress there are still many shady characters, political clowns, place-seekers, saboteurs, provocateurs, informers and policemen who masquerade as progressives but who are in fact the bitterest enemies of our organisation. Outside appearances are highly deceptive and we cannot classify these men by looking at their faces or by listening to their sweet tongues or their vehement speeches demanding immediate action. The friends of the people are distinguishable by the ready and disciplined manner in which they rally behind their organisation and their readiness to sacrifice when the preservation of the organisation has become a matter of life and death. Similarly, enemies and shady characters are detected by the extent to which they consistently attempt to wreck the organisation by creating fratricidal strife, disseminating confusion and undermining and even opposing important plans of action to vitalize the organisation".

mandela is always well measured and thoughtfull ........and grounded in the real world.

[Brigg57]

FR
Dostoevesky's politics embarrassed the Tsar. He thought Konstantin Pobedonostvev, the arch-reactionary who became the 'gray cardinal' to the repressive regime of Alexander III, was too liberal.
Needless to say, it's not his politics which leaves any impression on anyone who can think.
As a scientist, I mention him because among his late novels (which are noted for an unusual degree of psychological insight) is The Brothers Karamazov, whihc seems to have blown Einstein's mind into thinking about relativity theory. If you don't have time for long Russian novels, then read the book selectively for Ivan's discussions wiht his brother, Alyosha. The Legend of the Grand Inquistor is one of them, b8ut there are quite striking discussions of a universe where parallel lines meet.

Rodge,
scary quote...I can imagine it being used in the SWP to refer to anyone who disagrees with the party line. Where did you get it from? At what party congress was he speaking? Was he referring to his wife, Winnie, or to Jacob Zuma? It's sort of out of the ether as it stands, but I would love to know when it was made, and about what?? If you quote your source, that would be even better.