Can someone who likes the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat explain how they see it functioning (is it just...

Can someone who likes the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat explain how they see it functioning (is it just the way they historically have?). Also how do you see the state dissolving into communism? This seems to be the main cause of the largest split in radical leftist thought, and I honestly don't know that much about the other side. Thanks.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is there to prevent bourgeois ideals and bourgeois politics from infiltrating the revolutionary government and turning it over to Revisionism.

The problem arises when people like Khruschev and Deng get into power and remove the building of Socialism that past leaders have done.

It functioned well under Stalin and Mao and there was a good level of democratic process and the combat against counter-revolutionary methods but there was still flaws within the system that allowed a rise for revisionists into the party and into positions of power.

The goal of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is like Marx and Engels stated; To utilise the state to combat the interests of the bourgeoisie and to prevent them from destroying the workers state. It is to protect the proletariat within the transitional stage of Socialism and to combat both internal and external threats.

Essentially in regards to the withering away of teh state, once there is a significant global backing of the idea of Socialism and Communism and external threats (Imperialism) and internal threats (Revisionism) have finally been destroyed then the material conditions will be right for the workers state to be dissolved and for the proletariat to act as an independent unit.

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

Well…
The main problem is to stop beurocrats from taking over, cause a faggot wanted to have all the power and abused the position of the General Secretary.
It also helps if your country is industrialized before the revolution.

In order for the state to then wither away, the people have to constantly be … revolting…

I would say that technology should allow it to function in a much less brutal manner. For example, surveillance of party members would prevent any purges, arrests etc. on the scale seen in the 20th century.

I would also advocate for a more participatory system, in some ways drawing from the cultural revolution, in order to encourage people to question their leaders and challenge developing power structures (of course this would only be implemented after several years of marxist education to prevent subversion)

The DotP can only function as a tool of destroying the bourgeois class. Where it fails to do this, as all the revolutions thus far have, it necessarily leads to a collapse of the worker's state into the hands of the international bourgeoisie. Where the revolution fails to extend itself aggressively the forces of capitalist imperialism will tirelessly subvert it or invade it. This was the case in the USSR and it was the case in China.

This was absolutely the problem with the system in the Soviet Union. The dictatorship of the proletariat is just that: absolute political power held by the working class, not a bureaucracy. In order for the dictatorship of the proletariat to serve its intended function it must be a democratic institution composed of the entire working class.

The DotP is necessary for the building of socialism/communism. I'm writing a pseudo-article about my thoughts on it, but essentially I think the theory of the vanguard party is what has wrecked the building of socialism worldwide (aside from material conditions of course).
Basically, I think that the vanguard party consolidates too much power, so corrupting the vanguard would destroy the progress towards socialism. I also don't view the vanguard party as being effective for the practice of the mass line anymore.

inb4 muh new democracy which is more a strategy for the peripheral countries rather than the 1st world.

We should be clear from the beginning that when it comes to marxism, in all class societies, the dominant class rulse through "dictatorship" so DotP does not necessarily mean scare old Joey Stalin invading on your personal freedoms, but rather the state (lenin defined the state in "the state and revolution as an armed body of men which resolves class conflict and enforces the will of one class on others). In this sense, revolution, an armed body enforcing its will on society, is a part of the DotP, as is any sort of armed body which looks after proletarian interests and defends the state against bourg/reactionaries post revolution. Thus a workers' council system, or even whatever they had in Kekalonia would be a DotP provided the state is suppressing others on behalf of the proletariat (this is where things get kinda difficult because there's some contention about how a state can properly look after proletarian interests, and what groups constitute threats that should be suppressed etc).

Marxists will often say that the state will wither away when class conflict goes away, thus rendering the state useless. I agree with this, but I think it could be more clearly put. Of course not everything that is no longer useful withers away. The bourgeois, afterall is still here :^). In order for the state to wither away, there must be no incentive for those in the state to wish to maintain state power. That means that there must be a degree of abundance and security such that no one with the power to do so will feel the need to suppress and exploit the rest of society (which is one of the reasons why global revolution is necessary before the state can wither away).

It may sound very "authoritarian" to an anarchist. That's understandable, but it's more just a very broad definition of the state. It is not something that one "supports" as post revolutionary praxis, but rather something that inevitably comes about during and possibly after revolution which Marxists and other socialists wish to analyze in order to clarify revolutionary practice.

"The state and revolution" is a good starting point for understanding this. If you don't like tankie shit, maybe read some luxemburg, or some councilist, stuff or something like that.

...

I believe he means that it functioned well in the sense that power remained concentrated in the hands of Marxist-Leninist hardliners under their rule, who are of course totally proletarian and therefore perfect representatives of the working class.