NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I've heard that socialism is supposed to be the route to communism, and that after a "dictatorship of the proletariat", the state will cease to be and a nation becomes truly communist.

My question is: what causes the dictatorship of the proletariat to end?

This is Marxism, or "perverted Communism". I wouldn't get into it, if I were you. It's shit, and that's that.

This is Marxism, or "perverted Communism". I wouldn't get into it, if I were you. It's shit, and that's that.

Perverted? I was under the impression that Marx invented the first communism. Well, history was never my area of expertise.

Ok, I've heard that socialism is supposed to be the route to communism, and that after a "dictatorship of the proletariat", the state will cease to be and a nation becomes truly communist.

My question is: what causes the dictatorship of the proletariat to end?

Generally it ends in a revolt after the economy collapses. Of course it never becomes communist. It either becomes capitalist, or just a mess.

Perverted? I was under the impression that Marx invented the first communism. Well, history was never my area of expertise.

He did no such thing. He popularised it, though only his unique brand of it. Real Communism, or "Anarcho-Communism", has existed for centuries.

Perverted? I was under the impression that Marx invented the first communism. Well, history was never my area of expertise.

All former failed attempts have to be "perverted" or "not true" forms of communism, otherwise they would have to admit the entire concept is for shit. It leaves the door open for their own version.

He did no such thing. He popularised it, though only his unique brand of it. Real Communism, or "Anarcho-Communism", has existed for centuries.

And, hypothetically speaking, how would a nation achieve successful anarcho-communism (starting from a capitalist situation, obviously)?

Perverted? I was under the impression that Marx invented the first communism. Well, history was never my area of expertise.

Marxim did "invent" communism (well not exactly, when pre-state societies are considered) so his views can hardly be considered perverted. Anarcho-communism is different. For the original question, the dictator is supposed to step down after having wealth redistributed equally and having the nations infrastructure restructured in order to allow an authentic communist society. Obviously a dictator would be quite reluctant to step down causing a large stumbling block in the implementation of a pure communist state.

Perverted? I was under the impression that Marx invented the first communism. Well, history was never my area of expertise.
i'd "blame" Robert Owen myself.

but to the OP: once all people are equal, there is no need for government redistribution of wealth and income. the government has no purpose.
i'm not too hot on the specifics, but in that sense the government/dictatorship should "dissolve" over time

i think thats BS tbh, as the government has many, many more uses than just redistribution... off the top of my head: enforcing environmental standards in industry and the like

My question is: what causes the dictatorship of the proletariat to end?
In full, the concept should mean "dictatorship of the proletariat over other classes" - which is why it could accomodate its version of "people's democracy" (understood as democracy limited to the previously underprivileged majority). In pure terms, it is not synonimous with "personal dictatorship", and is a harsher term for "class hegemony" (which was also in use). In fact, you should be less alarmed at the pure concept than at what it excuses in political terms: all regimes using it turned into personal (or group-smaller-than-class) dictatorship, but that is more incidental than deterministic.
There being no one else left but proletarians is what ends it (not making this up). To be fair, this does not mean extermination - which was the method of choice - but rather full industrialisation, urbanizing, the equitable share of income, full planning, full employment etc.

Those slow people out there that could still read this as an apology for Marxism revised or whatever should note that I am not a Marxist.

And, hypothetically speaking, how would a nation achieve successful anarcho-communism (starting from a capitalist situation, obviously)?

Infection or violent overthrow.

i'd "blame" Robert Owen myself.
I have no idea who that is.

but to the OP:
I am the OP! :p

once all people are equal, there is no need for government redistribution of wealth and income. the government has no purpose.
i'm not too hot on the specifics, but in that sense the government/dictatorship should "dissolve" over time

i think thats BS tbh, as the government has many, many more uses than just redistribution... off the top of my head: enforcing environmental standards in industry and the like

Law enforcement too - if there's one thing we know about humans it that they don't like being equal - it would fall apart in no time.

Law enforcement too - if there's one thing we know about humans it that they don't like being equal - it would fall apart in no time.

That is not necessarily true. During the vast majority of human history (or more accurately, pre-history) everyone lived as equals without private property. Class division and private property are just recent occurences in the big scheme of things.

I have no idea who that is.
look him up. more a socialist but before Marx... not a revolutionary. much of his thinking rings through into marxism. whether or not marx was influenced by him i don't know, but the similarities are there (IIRC - haven't studied any of his stuff in over a year)

I am the OP! :p
lol good point :p



Law enforcement too - if there's one thing we know about humans it that they don't like being equal - it would fall apart in no time.
not necessarily. that assumes human nature is such that can and will willingly exploit others for their benefit - a la capitalism.
assume human nature was to change to a more altruistic form... law enforcement might only be necessary for violent crimes and the like that are part of our biological human nature

That is not necessarily true. During the vast majority of human history (or more accurately, pre-history) everyone lived as equals without private property. Class division and private property are just recent occurences in the big scheme of things.

I'm no prehistorian, but I'd expect people to have lived in tribes, with one's place in society determined by physical attributes, i.e. the eldest healthy male being in charge, and getting first pick of any food or suchlike.

law enforcement might only be necessary for violent crimes and the like that are part of our biological human nature

Wouldn't the non-biological stuff be nurture?

As for violent crimes, these are very rarely done purely out of bloodlust - they are done in order to steal, or to give oneself a feeling of superiority.

My question is: what causes the dictatorship of the proletariat to end?

That seems to be one of the main problems with Marxism, actually.

Ok, I've heard that socialism is supposed to be the route to communism, and that after a "dictatorship of the proletariat", the state will cease to be and a nation becomes truly communist.

My question is: what causes the dictatorship of the proletariat to end?


The dictatorship of the proleteriat ends when there are no classes no more. Simple as.

Also, dont get the wrong idea about dictatorship of the proleteriat- we call the current system dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

He did no such thing. He popularised it, though only his unique brand of it. Real Communism, or "Anarcho-Communism", has existed for centuries.

Anarchists make me laugh. and cry.

Thats dialectics for you

I'm no prehistorian, but I'd expect people to have lived in tribes, with one's place in society determined by physical attributes, i.e. the eldest healthy male being in charge, and getting first pick of any food or suchlike.

I'm mainly referring to the pre-tribe societies (bands) which were the only form of society for some 50-70 thousand years. Generally for leadership, who ever was charasmatic and good at leading (some people are naturally good at telling others what to do) gave direction to the group; but they were still only the first among equals. I'm not sure of exactly how food was distributed, since it wouldn't make sense for everyone to eat the exact same amount.

Anarchists make me laugh. and cry.
Did they do that for all Trotskyists when they formed alliances in the Spanish Civil War? Also, did Trotsky laugh and cry when he armed Makhno against the Rada? Or did he do that after, when he exterminated Ukrainian anarchists?

Here's another question: in this "class warfare", how is "class" determined? Can someone change class?

The real problem is I believe he never even defines what the dictatorship of the prolatariat is.

Oh, and the fact he oversimplifies history, and if you ask me his model (and anarcho-communism. Well any form of anarchism in fact.) is far too untopian to work. Relies too much on this rather bizarre unexplained change in human behaviour. Does have some useful things to say though, and I think a true Communist society (and a true anarcho-communist society. Have a friend whos an anarcho-commie) would be quite good to live in. Just too utopian to work.

Oh, and the problem that revolutions rarely lead to what they were intended to.
Thats why I dont agree with revolutions.

Personally I am a more democratic socialist type. Though of course, that has its flaws as well.

Oh, and I think the classes are the different social groups who each have conflicting interests. Ie in a capitalist society a worker wants to get the most money etc for the least work, while the bosses want to get the most work out of their workers while spending as little as possible on wages and other costs.

Here's another question: in this "class warfare", how is "class" determined? Can someone change class?
A million differnt answers have been given to that question, all within the same ideological practice, and all relying on circumstance.

Did they do that for all Trotskyists when they formed alliances in the Spanish Civil War? Also, did Trotsky laugh and cry when he armed Makhno against the Rada? Or did he do that after, when he exterminated Ukrainian anarchists?

Oh god, what next? "Remember Kronstadt!"

If we can work with anarchists then we will. However, I do find it funny when anarchists claim to be revolutionary, especially seeing as violence is the exertion of one person's physical authority over the other. Then there are numerous times anarchists have created power structures for temporary situations while still claiming to be against all authority. Then theres the whole "living in a squat and not shopping at a supermarket is a political action" thing.

Ah sorry, probably patronising you there. Oh well, thats pretty much how Im treated every day.

Here's another question: in this "class warfare", how is "class" determined? Can someone change class?

Class is determined my your relationship to the means of production-

the proleteriate does not own the means of production, they work and produce. (eg. football stitcher)

the bourgeoisie does own the means of production, most their money is made from what the proleteriate produce. (eg. factory owner)

the petty-bourgeoisie owns part of the means of production, or occassionally all of it. They have to work along side the proleteriate though (eg. grocery shop owner)

This is for Marxism.

What caused Feudalism to end? Economic Pressures.
Tradesmen and merchants were making money due to trade routes with the Middle East being opened for good, they were becoming richer and more powerful than the feudal overlords. At the same time, guns rendered fortresses, where the princes could protect their serfs, unnecessary.
And so the practical purpose of the feudalistic rulers faded away. People still called themselves "count" and all sorts of other things, but it was just a matter of time until that disappeared as well.

It's important to understand that Marx believed that the dictatorship of the proletariat would massively increase productive capacity. I suppose that is because now workers are no longer exploited, but are working for themselves and their cause, thus being more motivated.
The job of the socialist government is to coordinate and distribute production in the economy. Everyone needs to get everything they need.

But after a while, because the economy is now being so effective, so efficient, so awesome, scarcity becomes a thing of the past. So much is being produced that everyone can eventually have everything they need, or even want.
And so, you don't need a government to coordinate and distribute anymore.

And once the need for the government ended, the government itself will slowly fade away, just as Feudalism did.

The problem with all this is of course that Marx and Engels wrote astonishingly little on it. Essentially, what I wrote here is an interpretation of things that were never really said straight-out. And that left following revolutionaries to figure out themselves what to do after the revolution.

Lenin thought he might allow a little private property in order to keep building up the capital stock until scarcity can seize to exist. Trotsky thought that the revolution first had to come to every corner of the world before the next thing could be tackled. Stalin thought he could eliminate scarcity by starting massive top-down projects to modernise the country. Mao thought he might make the great leap to communism by taking apart society completely and creating a total collectivism. Pol Pot thought he had to completely sever all links to the past and create a new human by annihilating everything that had been before the revolution.

Most of these things ended in tears. And that is the greatest failure of Marx and Engels and classical communism - that they never bothered with what should happen after the revolution.

And just to make sure you know: I'm not a commie myself. ;)

Class is determined my your relationship to the means of production-

the proleteriate does not own the means of production, they work and produce. (eg. football stitcher)

the bourgeoisie does own the means of production, most their money is made from what the proleteriate produce. (eg. factory owner)

the petty-bourgeoisie owns part of the means of production, or occassionally all of it. They have to work along side the proleteriate though (eg. grocery shop owner)

Ok. My next question is whether the bourgeoisie are considered inherently evil, or merely the result of circumstance.

And then there is that other group... what they called? The underclass? The ones supposedly used by the bourgious to destabalise and destroy any workers movements etc from within the lower classes?

Oh, and identifying the British newspapers by those classes can be quite fun.

And basically the petty bourgiousie are one of the most unstable and dangerous elements. Oh, and they are like daily mail readers, and cant form a coherant political objective. If I remember correctly.

Oh god, what next? "Remember Kronstadt!"

If we can work with anarchists then we will. However, I do find it funny when anarchists claim to be revolutionary, especially seeing as violence is the exertion of one person's physical authority over the other. Then there are numerous times anarchists have created power structures for temporary situations while still claiming to be against all authority. Then theres the whole "living in a squat and not shopping at a supermarket is a political action" thing.

Ah sorry, probably patronising you there. Oh well, thats pretty much how Im treated every day.
You would not be patronising me, since I'm not an Anarchist.
Your description of violence befits Trotskyist tactics as nothing else would.

Risking to seem patronising: smoking pot and daydreaming about being a younger Daniel Cohn-Bendit is not a political action (although modern, post-factum, Trotskyism has been mostly liberal). If you're looking for political coherence, that is not the place to look: check out Posadas.
My main point was not about collaborating with, then slandering Anarchists. It is about collaborating with and relying on, then murdering, then collaborating, then slandering, then effacing the past. Surely, Anarchists as well have done un-understandable and hillarious things in the process. But, compared with the vagueries of Trotskyism, it's nothing: let me remind you, for one, that Entryism was being developed at the exact moment STALIN was inventing Popular Front action. The two, my friend, are the exact same tactic.

Ok. My next question is whether the bourgeoisie are considered inherently evil, or merely the result of circumstance.

No, I dont think they are thought of as inherantly evil. They do expliot the workers, but I think that, yes it is meant to be result of circumstance (ie the economic system).

No, I dont think they are thought of as inherantly evil. They do expliot the workers, but I think that, yes it is meant to be result of circumstance (ie the economic system).
Yeah, I don't think Dialectical Materialism does "evil" very well. Everyone is just a product of their circumstances.

Yeah, I don't think Dialectical Materialism does "evil" very well. Everyone is just a product of their circumstances.

Ok, I was under the impression that certain kinds of people (bourgeoisie?) were to be put to death in the revolution.

Ok, I was under the impression that certain kinds of people (bourgeoisie?) were to be put to death in the revolution.
Maybe, although that is probably not really necessary. The point is that their stuff, the thing that makes the capitalists, is supposed to be taken away.

But even then, that doesn't mean that anyone is really evil. At least scientific marxism stays away from those considerations, and just considers what happens a necessity born out of economic circumstances. People getting killed is therefore no different than the horse carriage industry going under, on a moral level.

He did no such thing. He popularised it, though only his unique brand of it. Real Communism, or "Anarcho-Communism", has existed for centuries.
Only it cannot exist outside of itsy-bitsy-teeny-tiny enclaves.

No, Spain in the mid-1930s wasn't anarchocommunist. Don't give me that nonsense.

Marx gave communism for a large scale, but it doesn't matter, since it can't effectively exist anyway.

Ok, I've heard that socialism is supposed to be the route to communism, and that after a "dictatorship of the proletariat", the state will cease to be and a nation becomes truly communist.

My question is: what causes the dictatorship of the proletariat to end?

The technical answer is "nothing", but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. You see, when he talks about "dictatorship of the proletariat", he isn't necessarily using the term dictatorship in the way we would: to refer to a system of government that deprives citizens of rights. Rather, he's using it in the narrower Hegelian sense of who has absolute control. As such, a more Lockean way of stating the concept would be "dictatorship by the proletariat over themselves and the means of production". In other words, he's effectively speaking about much the same thing we talk about when we say things like "democracy" and "power of the people", although it also has an economic dimension usually lacking in our analysis.

let me remind you, for one, that Entryism was being developed at the exact moment STALIN was inventing Popular Front action. The two, my friend, are the exact same tactic.

Okay, I cant be arsed with the rest right now (mainly because its an incoherent rant). But for this point-
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

They aren't the same tactic at all!

Popular front- aligning with capitalist parties to defeat fascist parties (well, thats what they started with initially). Reducing your demands within the popular front to essentially liberal or social-democratic ones, as long as it defeats the enemy.

Entryism- secretly entering a larger party either with the aim of attracting more members to your party and splitting the other group or entering a larger party to change its policy and take control.

Ok, I was under the impression that certain kinds of people (bourgeoisie?) were to be put to death in the revolution.

It's a necessity- the bourgeoisie want to hold onto power through use of violence, so we have to use violence to counter their hold on society.

Also, through the process of violent revolution the working class will be able to estbalish their own instruments of power

Ok, I was under the impression that certain kinds of people (bourgeoisie?) were to be put to death in the revolution.

erm... as far as I know, Marx did not say the bourgiousie would be put to death. I think that it was thought in the case of a violent revolution, those who tried to suppress the reovlution would be killed (as any enemy is in war), but I have never really heard evidence it meant the wisespread extermination of a certain class. Are you mixing communist revolution up with the Great Terror during the French Revolution?

Basically, they wouldnt be put to death for being a certain class, but instead killed if the fought against revolution. Now this may have been abused to lead to widespread murder, or it could be said that it is inevitable that the bourgious would be killed because they are inevitably going to try to prevent the revolution occuring, but I dont think it was meant that people were meant to be killed just for being bougious.

Though personally I think communism is a load of bunkam.

Socialism was seen by Marx as the domination of one class - the proletariat - over another - the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie has lost control over the state apparatus, but not over its property. The proletariat, because it is oppressed by the existing property relations, seeks to expropriate the private property of the bourgeoisie, in a manner Marx saw as being more or less gradual. With the eventual elimination of private proverty, class differences have evaporated, and the centralized state apparatus - whose only purpose is the domination of a class - withers away, because it no longer has any purpose.

Ok, I was under the impression that certain kinds of people (bourgeoisie?) were to be put to death in the revolution.

Actually, Marx and Engels were not particularly interested in killing people. You will never hear this from orthodox Marxists these days, who tend to be a pretty ardently revolutionary bunch, but both Marx and Engels were somewhat open to the idea of peaceful change, especially in the more liberal countries like the US and England, and preferred it to violent revolution.

Marx did, I believe, speak explicitly against the death penalty as well.

He was not a man easy to put into boxes, and to this day his quip to Lafargue ("all I know is that I am not a Marxist") is applicable in some cases.

Ok, I've heard that socialism is supposed to be the route to communism, and that after a "dictatorship of the proletariat", the state will cease to be and a nation becomes truly communist.

My question is: what causes the dictatorship of the proletariat to end?
if you have to ask it, instead of getting a hell of alot MORE confused, go and google it =D google IS the best =)

Here's another question: in this "class warfare", how is "class" determined? Can someone change class?


Speaking as a young person, the deal with class is that you can effectively choose what side you're on in a class war regardless of the class you've inherited. Someone who is raised middle class, or even as part of the aristocracy can choose the side of justice and equality by acting in solidarity with the working class.

I'm from a middle class family, but I'm an anarcho-communist because I understand that an injury to one is an injury to all.

Uhm... let me get this straight.

Anarcho-Communism, in theory, means that if you took everyone in the world, and redistributed all the wealth until everyone had the same amount, this would eventually lead to the end of a need for government?

Early tribes lived in a state of Anarcho-Communism? Uh... even the most rudimentary tribe has it's share of Alpha males willing to dominate to get ahead. Basic tribealism is where class stratification begins. The natives of North America lived in a semi-nomadic capacity, without any large scale agriculture. Being much closer to nature than most of us, the degree of class stratification is different, but it's there. Slavery wasn't uncommon after all.

So, how exactly would we stop needing a government? Or would people do sewage treatment work just because they knew it had to be done? Who settles domestic disputes or settles the temper tantrums when the guy who picks rocks all day thinks he deserves more than the guy who shovels shit all day?

Nice magical fantasy world some people live in, but even in a high-tech futureworld where all our basic needs are met, some form or government would be required to maintain order, and keep the wheels in motion.

Nice magical fantasy world some people live in, but even in a high-tech futureworld where all our basic needs are met, some form or government would be required to maintain order, and keep the wheels in motion.

Well obviously in a future high-tech world we would all be lobotomized by robots at birth, so as to require nothing except the basic needs of life, being unaware of anything else. In this way we can achieve a true communsit paradise. Ok...well..unless you count the robots as a government, but I choose to turn a blind eye to that hole in my theory in the name of the greater good.:rolleyes:

This is Marxism, or "perverted Communism". I wouldn't get into it, if I were you. It's shit, and that's that.
All forms of State control are inherently perverted. Even so, I prefer Monarchy. Anarcho-capitalism is the way to go.

All forms of State control are inherently perverted. Even so, I prefer Monarchy. Anarcho-capitalism is the way to go.

I think you should probably read the definition of perverted. Since the natural state of human existance seems to include some form of government, the LACK of govenment would in fact be perverted.

On an unrelated note, how could someone who promotes anarcho-capitalism even consider liking Monarchy as a form of government?

Anarcho-Communism is one of the proscribed cures for the disease, the State. Personally, I’m for anything that cures it, but that’s besides the point.

Taking Communism (Marxism) for the disease of the State, is like taking antibiotics when you have mononucleosis. It won't do anything, and things have the potential to get much worse.

I'd say Anarchism's more of a placebo- you think it's gonna make a change, but then... it doesn't.

Marxism is like a supposetory (sic?) - do it right and it works. Do it wrong and it's not good for all involved.

I'd say Anarchism's more of a placebo- you think it's gonna make a change, but then... it doesn't.

Why do you say so?

I have no idea who that is.
I think he was a british dude during the industrial revolution who started a company and then got his workers to live in community and educated them all well adn got them to live in commnity...