Bruce Buchan and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
iwp.ilo at ix.netcom.com
Mon Feb 19 01:57:42 MST 1996
I do agreed with your positions on the Dictatorship of the
proletariat on several areas:
1. The dictatorship of the proletariat *need to be conveived*
only as a transitional regime. The self-perpetuating aspect
of power is, in itself, *against* the very foundation of the
dictoarship of the proletariat as defended by Marx and, to
a certain degree, by Lenin and Trotsky.
2. Revolution should be international or won't be. The Stalinist
cinicysm of confusing the stge of the dictatorship of the
proletariat with socialism and communism is no more than the
attempt to a) perpetuate the priviledges of the bureucracy and b)
do this through changing gthe transitory character of the
dictatorship of the proletariat into a perpetual dictatorship.
Logically then, the dictatorship was shifted from a class to an
apparatus: first the party, then the Central Committee, further
along the way to the Politbureau and finally to the dictator
himself. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not only devised
to defend the class against counter-revolution, but to prepare the
stage of its own dissolution as a regime.
3. The objective of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to
prepare, organize and carry out the defeat of
capitalism-imperialism at the world scale and prepare the basis
of the "withering away" of the state. An stateless society is
what both anarchists and Marxists (real Marxists and real
Anarchists) have in common. Only in the process of "withering
away of the state" at an international level, can Socialism and
communism be realizable (which in essence have much in common
with ultimate goals of the anarchists).
4. The dictatorship of the proletariat, if you wish, cannot but
be a necessary evil rather than the whole objective of revolution.
I think we agree on this ... Maybe ... Who knows ...
As to the assertion of the term "Dicatorship of the Proletariat"
as something tactically not adecquated, I kind of agree. The
question is that science needs a concrete language to be expressed.
Revolutionary politics, too. "Rule of the Working Class" was
mentioned but have not the same meaning since "Rule" is only the
exercise of government, not the oppression of other classes to
impose the future of the new society without classes.
In relationship with the utopian, idealist assertions of "after
the revolution".. cannot thrust it. Power is in itself a
powerhouse for abuse that it is inherent to it. Once the exercise
of power is transferred from the class to the apparatus and the
"policemen are put to guard the lines for bread" what you have
is a dictatorship of the bureaucracy, a cancer to be extirpated,
not to be 'understood' because the "difficult objective
If something we learned from the fall of the FSU is that we need to
work on the definition of "transitional regime" as applied to the
Dictatorship of the proletariat as we worked (or rather Lenin did)
in 1917-1920 to the definitive no role of the state under communism
and socialism. What was incredible is that there were Stalinists
who really believed that the FSU and other Eastern countries were
socialist/communists while maintaining a bureaucratic dictatorship
and a solid nationalist conception of Socialism/Communism.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism