Dictatorship of the Proletariat

I feel that the DotP is not necessarily a top-down leadership structure and that it could be a form of democracy in which only the workers participate, like the soviets without the coming bureaucracy in the USSR. What does everyone else think of this version of the DotP? I'm sure that I'm sure that I'm not the first person to have this idea, so if there is already a working theory of this more democratic as opposed to party based DotP, please let me know. On the otherhand, if you have the view that the DotP should take another form, please tell me that also.

In a socialist state, who else would there be to vote but the workers? Everyone would be working in some capacity. Apart from that, I think this makes a lot more sense than what seems to keep occurring.

I think that the vanguards placed their parties into the leadership positions instead of guiding the workers towards completely new forms of collective democratic government. Authoritarianism may be more efficient, but so was fascism. I think that the new governing bodies should look like the GAs in the occupy movements, any thoughts?

I agree with your statement about vanguards, and I particularly approve of the current Zapatista practice of not using visible leaders, limiting the terms of said leaders, and actively seeking the input of the people in all decisions. Although using pseudonyms and black balaclavas may be going a bit too far, I think any measures we can take to make it more democratic and less 'representative' or, God forbid, outright authoritarian, are a step in the right direction.

Much as I hate to double-post, I also think that the term 'dictatorship' suggests practically the exact opposite of what we are attempting, being almost universally defined as totalitarian and despotic state control. We need another term. 'Democracy of the Proletariat'?

Once I began thinking of it as excluding the bourgeoisie from the democratic process, the term dictatorship made sense despite the connotations. If the DotP does not take into account bourgeois wishes, the bourgeoisie truly would be under the heel of the proletariat, hence dictatorship. That said, it would be a democracy of the proletariat, by the proletariat, and for the proletariat to the exclusion of the capitalists.

In my opinion, a socialist state would have no bourgeoisie. Everyone who had been bourgeoisie would end up working just like everybody else. If we're just going to oppress them right back I don't think we can claim much moral superiority. They're few enough that, stripped of their monetary advantage, they wouldn't be able to affect policy, and their children would grow up understanding the socialist way.

I would assume that the DotP would only last as excluding the capitalists until there were no more capitalists. I see what you're trying to say, but I think that the issue would resolve itself, as long as the proletarians would be willing to accept the former capitalists after they lose control of the means of production.

So socialism would be established first, and only when the bourgeois apparatus had been dismantled would its overlords be given suffrage?

That's what I'm stepping in.

I still don't think we can justify depriving them of the vote. Isn't it enough to establish a government they can't influence and then take away their power? Even to dismiss them because they wouldn't vote for any of us anyway still sets dangerous precedents.

Well, once they stop owning the means of production they stop being bourgeoisie, so when they get their unfairly acquired stuff taken away they'll be workers. I'm not advocating french revolution style be-headings here.

There is such a thing as revolutionary hegemony, and authority or charisma should not be avoided. We see these vehicles as the force of superstructure that spreads bourgeois ideology and communists will need to seize this vehicle if we're going to disseminate the culture of the proletariat. The best sources for understanding what this means, and how it should be achieved is Gramsci and Lenin. We must analyze the special bodies of the state on a case to case basis and determine if they can be seized and wielded against the capitalist class. To dismiss all "oppression" as "wrong" is a little silly.

There's a difference between using the tools of the state against capitalists (actively creating a socialist society) and removing the vote from people who disagree with us.
However, in a transitional period like this I can see the necessity of protecting a new and vulnerable socialist state. I think that the business of declawing the capitalists should be done quickly, before they have a chance to strike back, so that the change can be made as quickly as possible and we don't have to take the step of removing universal suffrage.
I also think that the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' should apply specifically to that stage of overrunning the capitalists, because once the proletariat is the only class in society, the term 'dictatorship' will no longer apply, will indeed be counterproductive.

The term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' itself is ambiguous and has occasionally been opportunistically employed, in order to justify certain policies or views that do not necessarily correspond with its proper implications. As such, it is important to understand that while term indeed denotes the post-revolutionary political hegemony of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, it in no way suggests that establishing centralized, anti-democratic institutions is the only manner by which to structure a post-revolutionary state. Certainly, a great deal of socialists and communists have criticized the expropriation of such terms by various regimes whose policies fail(ed) to adequately serve the best interests of the proletariat.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat," in my mind, simply indicates a social condition under which the working class maintains hegemony. This stands in contrast to bourgeois dictatorship (irregardless of the nominal basis of government; e.g., representative democracy, etc.) and as such is a concept I very much support. I believe that this is quite implicit in Marx's work, particularly in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, Critique of the Gotha Programme, and some of his letters regarding the Paris Commune. "Dictatorship" is simply an imposition of rule upon others without their consent, and democracy requires some degree of this compelling will in order to function. The Marxian conception of "dictatorship" describes the underlying social position in terms of power. A dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is democracy for an opulent (capitalist) minority; conversely, a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is democracy for the vast majority (the working class). Contemporary notions of "dictatorship" and (liberal) "democracy" lead to apparent, but false, contradictions and confusion with respect to understanding the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin actually expounded upon this theory to quite an extent. As I wish to retire for the night, I will here provide only two sufficient quotes from him regarding the dictatorships of the proletariat and bourgeoisie along with their relationships to democracy:

"The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists.

Even in the most democratic bourgeois republic "freedom of assembly" is a hollow phrase, for the rich have the best public and private buildings at their disposal, and enough leisure to assemble at meetings, which are protected by the bourgeois machine of power. The rural and urban workers and small peasants – the overwhelming majority of the population – are denied all these things. As long as that state of affairs prevails, "equality", i.e., "pure democracy", is a fraud.

"Freedom of the press" is another of the principal slogans of "pure democracy". And here, too, the workers know – and Socialists everywhere have explained millions of times – that this freedom is a deception because the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists, and while capitalist rule over the press remains – a rule that is manifested throughout the whole world all the more strikingly, sharply and cynically – the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example...

The capitalists have always use the term "freedom" to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of "pure democracy" prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement."
First Congress of the Communist International



"What, then, is the relation of this dictatorship [of the proletariat] to democracy?

We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to communism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence."
The State and Revolution

Sigh. You have a good point. All I can say in response is that the sooner the capitalists are transformed into voting proletariat, the better.

Voting does not aid the proletariat, in its current capacity it is a weapon against the proletariat. Freedom is not inclusive with a right to vote, that's what the populists would like you to think. The war of democracy is won with revolution, not by bickering about the formation of liberal policy. At the same time, I am not opposed to voting or collective effort by representation through a combine. No one votes "I want to die this year" but too many people die from a lack of appropriate health care. How can it possibly be said that voting intrinsically creates the most good?

RedSun wrote:Sigh. You have a good point. All I can say in response is that the sooner the capitalists are transformed into voting proletariat, the better.

That will come about only in the wake of revolutionary action on the part of the proletariat.

It doesn't necessarily create the most good; it merely ensures that the proletariat have a say in government.

RedSun wrote:It doesn't necessarily create the most good; it merely ensures that the proletariat have a say in government.

The proletariat should be the government. The capitalist class would be eliminated due to the transformation of the mode of production.

I think the argument is on a somewhat more minor point, Rev Scare. Red Aegis was saying that 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means that while the means of production is being transformed (and bourgeoisie temporarily still exist) said bourgeoisie should be denied the vote, and I disagreed, thinking this would set a worrying precedent. What I'm doing is trying to find an interpretation of DotP that doesn't leave openings for totalitarianism.

Also, no-maps, I'd argue that the main reason voting is hurting the proletariat is that the current system gives more power to businessmen than to voters themselves and even when the voters exert influence, they are poorly educated, indeed often outright lied to, about the results of their decisions.

RevScare, That's pretty much what I was saying in different words sans vanguard. I advocated straight movement towards democracy of the people.

No-Maps, you have to be more specific when you talk of "the most good." That phrase can mean so many different things depending on your definition.

RedSun, after the revolution there should be no bourgeoisie, meaning that the DotP only has meaning during the revolution. How long this period lasts likely depends on the progression of the revolution in question and whether that revolution needed or developed a vanguard. I think that what you said about being uneducated politically is a little harsh. When people feel that they have no control, they can either grow angry or apathetic. People now are shifting from apathetic to angry, just look at the occupy movement. If that anger leads to a revolutionary fervor and education, great things may happen. Besides, the voting system is at least partially rigged, at least here in the U.S..

Well of course they're politically uneducated. If they weren't, they'd all be good socialists like us.
But I see your point now about DotP.

There were some other questions/comments about DotP that fell by the wayside while I was debating votes for the bourgeoisie. I think we should discuss them.

Red Aegis wrote:I think that the vanguards placed their parties into the leadership positions instead of guiding the workers towards completely new forms of collective democratic government. Authoritarianism may be more efficient, but so was fascism. I think that the new governing bodies should look like the GAs in the occupy movements, any thoughts?

RedSun wrote:I particularly approve of the current Zapatista practice of not using visible leaders, limiting the terms of said leaders, and actively seeking the input of the people in all decisions. Although using pseudonyms and black balaclavas may be going a bit too far, I think any measures we can take to make it more democratic and less 'representative' or, God forbid, outright authoritarian, are a step in the right direction.