Re: two concepts of dictatorship of the proletariat

[bruceb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bruce Buchan)]

I am pleased that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' has proven itself a
worthy topic for discussion, and I have found all the contributions
interesting and informative.  But I am still to be convinced that the
dictatorship idea is one worth maintaining.

I think Justin hit upon a very good point when he argued that the term
'dictatorship' is simply not going to appeal today.  The term has been so
closely associated with oppressive military rule, that its use in
progressive revolutionary contexts is going to take an enormous amount of
effort to sustain.  The expenditure of this effort is, I suspect, simply not
worthwhile.

The quotation Louis Godena provided points to a similar problem:
"As always there will be passionate controversy about what Marx, Engels,
and Lenin had to say [about the DP] and even more about whether their
thinking has anything to offer a world which is very different from the one
they knew..."
Part of the problem here is that Marx and Engels were educated in a ge when
a study of the classics was mandatory.  For them, the term 'dictatorship'
would have been associated with the ancient Roman institution of
dictatorship, i.e. the limited rule of one person who is given extraordinary
powers to meet and solve a pressing military crisis.  This meaning of
dictatorship however, no longer has a wide currency.

Louis' quote however, reveals another problem:
"[I hold to] the orthodox claim that the theory is a democratic
one,  that it rests at the heart of the socialist project, and that it cannot
be easily abandoned even as its concrete meaning must be reassessed."
Similarly, Jerry writes:
"Does anyone believe that *Marx's* understanding of the term precluded
workers' democracy under socialism? I believe it did not. The democratic
form of governance, IMO, is just as possible (if not more possible) under
workers rule as under capitalist rule, i.e. there is a distinction
between class rule and the particular *form* of political governance."

There seems to be a real problem here in that democracy is assumed to be a
non-problematic form of government in which oppression is a thing of the
past.  Democracy is a complex idea, and although it has taken many forms -
from direct and participatory forms to mediated, representative forms, - no
democratic system has yet fulfilled its promise of full community
self-government.  This is part of the problem to which I referred in my
original post - that is, it is very easy for us to say that 'after the
revolution, things will be different...' but this amounts to blind faith or
disingenuousness. It is no use throwing the term 'democrcay' about as
bourgeois idealists do, for the term has no content.  This is the kernel of
Bakunin's criticism of Marx - he was never clear on how democractic his
democracy was going to be, would it be direct participation, workers'
representatives, or some form of syndicalism, etc.?

Part of what bothers me about the use of the term 'dictatorship of the
proletariat' is that it is often used in the context of what could be called
'classic' images of revolution, of a rapid take-over of power, an
insurrection, barricades, etc.  This was the dominant imagery of 19th
century theorising on revolution, and its influence is still very strong.
But are we fooling ourselves in thinking that such a 'revolution' is the
only way in which capitalism will be replaced with communism?  Is it
possible that history will move much more slowly, and that, if there is to
be a 'communist revolution', it may take the form of the 'scientific
revolution', i.e. a very prolonged period of advances and setbacks, of
periods of bloodshed and peace, eventually resulting in a concrete change in
public attitudes, sentiments, technology, etc.  Indeed, let us not forget
that capitalism replaced feudalism, not overnight, but over a long period
(of which the Reformation, and scientific revolution were contributing
forces), of which the outcome was never certain.

This was the last point I raised in my original post - perhaps it is time
for us to finally branch out from some of the more influential but
problematic of Marx' (and others') 19th century assumptions and formulations?

Best Wishes,

Bruce.



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------