Jump to content

Marxist theory


Figleaf

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As we all know, according to Marx, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a temporary phase which, ultimately will lead to the fading away of the state.

My question is, when will party members be able to recognize the time for this transition to take place?

You're asking the wrong question. The right question is when will the capitalist pigs like Dion, Harper, Bush, Clinton, et. al. yield to People Power? When will people learn of the glories of the Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, Stalin's Agrarian Reforms against the kulaks?

Hugo Chavez Rocks and Rules!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we all know, according to Marx, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a temporary phase which, ultimately will lead to the fading away of the state.

My question is, when will party members be able to recognize the time for this transition to take place?

When they have as much power as they do (under the dictatorship of the proletariat), they would never just turn over their power. Communism is one of the biggest lies in history. We need to give the power to the people by removing and reducing the power of the government. Jbg gives three good examples of some of the worst economic/social policies in history. I propose that we have a non-force economic/social policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jbg gives three good examples of some of the worst economic/social policies in history. I propose that we have a non-force economic/social policy.

Thanks. But remember I'm an extreme leftist. I was saying those three policies were wonderful beyond measure.

Maybe the Molotov Cocktail I'm sipping is a mite bit strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been under the impression that the dictatorship would eventually serve no purpose and at that time would "whither away."

Here's a bit more info:

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx/Engels

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Part IV

This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

Rosa Luxemburg

The Russian Revolution

Democracy and Dictatorship

What, then, is the relation of this dictatorship 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.

V.I. Lenin

The State and Revolution

Chpt. 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State

The real tasks of the workers' state do not consist in policing public opinion, but in freeing it from the yoke of capital. This can only be done by placing the means of production - which includes the production of information - in the hands of society in its entirety. Once this essential step towards socialism has been taken, all currents of opinion which have not taken arms against the dictatorship of the proletariat must be able to express themselves freely. It is the duty of the workers' state to put in their hands, to all according to their numeric importance, the technical means necessary for this, printing presses, paper, means of transportation.

Leon Trotsky

Freedom of the Press and Working Class

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i...hip-proletariat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's very informative and aposite. Still, to clarify and restate my question: Given that the cadres and party leadership will be active and energetic in carrying out the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, do they need to be aware of, and undertake any particular actions in response to, the coming withering away of the state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we all know, according to Marx, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a temporary phase which, ultimately will lead to the fading away of the state.

Not a word in Marx about this.

What you speak of is doctrinaire Leninism.

My question is, when will party members be able to recognize the time for this transition to take place?

They won't which is why this 'vanguard' theory is completely disreputable (just like everything involving Lenin).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we all know, according to Marx, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a temporary phase which, ultimately will lead to the fading away of the state.

Not a word in Marx about this.

What you speak of is doctrinaire Leninism.

Are you sure? I've never read Lenin, but I have read Marx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class

I'm a very firm believer that the oppressed will always become the oppressors if given the chance.

We are human. It's the same forces made the "ruling class" want to rule.

JBG, I don't think you're in any shape to drive. Give me the keys to Trabby....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure? I've never read Lenin, but I have read Marx.

While Lenin read a book on Marx the quartet practiced in the park and we sang dirges in the dark the day the music died. And they were singing:___________________ (fiill in the blank).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when im think Marx, i think a recipe for Mass democide. Just on the off chance that someone does not know what that is; its the Mass murder of a people by its own government. I hate it when people tell me that theres never been a communist state and the reason why is Every state That has attempted a communist society has failed at it, and the cost has made the Nazi's look like alter boys. Marxism theory has failed in practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every state That has attempted a communist society has failed at it, and the cost has made the Nazi's look like alter boys. Marxism theory has failed in practice.
They fail because of Bush, Israel, Harper, Olmert, Soiuth African apartheid, and colonialism. Zionism and homophobia make things even harder for the proletariat of the world.

Eventually, the capitalist pigs will be deprived of the economic rents of their oppression of the working class.

Mao Mao Mao Tse Tung!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

Although Marx did not plan out the details of how such a dictatorship would be implemented, he pointed to the Paris Commune as a model of transition to communism. He stated that "The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time."[1] This has some similarity to the modern conception of direct democracy.

Friedrich Engels, in his 1891 postscript to The Civil War in France, stated that "Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." He criticized what he saw as corruption among politicians and stated that "the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts — administrative, judicial, and educational — by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion." He also stated that the state is "at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works.../postscript.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory and on paper, Communism is the perfect system - everyone cares about one another and looks out for one another, and everything works out fine. There is a problem however, and that lies within people. People look out for one person first, and that is themselves - the world is not populated with Mother Teresas.

Because of this, Communism has never worked, and will never work - people were, are, and always will be corrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we all know, according to Marx, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a temporary phase which, ultimately will lead to the fading away of the state.

Not a word in Marx about this.

What you speak of is doctrinaire Leninism.

Are you sure? I've never read Lenin, but I have read Marx.

Yes.

Please cite a Marx reference for this crap about the dictatorship of the proletariat. The whole 'vanguard' theory belongs to Lenin.

Btw, merely reading the "Communist Manifesto" does not constitute having 'read Marx'. The Manifesto is nothing more than a polemic or a propaganda. It contains no actual scholarship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory and on paper, Communism is the perfect system - everyone cares about one another and looks out for one another, and everything works out fine.

Please cite where "on paper" it says this. You are describing utopian socialism - that has nothing to do with Marx's theory of history.

It really is amazing how much crap gets attributed to Marx.

There is a problem however, and that lies within people. People look out for one person first, and that is themselves - the world is not populated with Mother Teresas.

Because of this, Communism has never worked, and will never work - people were, are, and always will be corrupt.

This is absurd. Communism doesn't need anyone to share anything. Indeed, they don't have to be moral or non-corrupt either. Those are all irrelevant to communism.

As a matter of fact, communism, according to Marx, is 100% predicated upon self-interest. But please, don't let any actual facts get in the way of your utopian socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact, communism, according to Marx, is 100% predicated upon self-interest

I'll agree with you on that, however his proposed notion of self interest was flawed in that zero-sum game will be the exception and not the rule. We're human. And Marxism overlooked that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit, I've done no in-depth investigation of Marx. If you would care to enlighten me, what is the driving force behind Marx's society?

It's a long, long winding road. I doubt any of us have done a very indepth investigation of Marxism and the hundreds of branches it has split into.

He was a smart man, and I believe his analysis (on it's own) was credible, but his solutions to the problems found by his analysis were flawed, and further skewed by it's various interpreters.

He was also a very idealistic man. Many modern Marxists will claim that communism was a perversion of Marxism, and that true Marxism will lead to a wonderful world, and so forth and so forth.

But this is what I mean by idealism. He believed that an idea can be promulgated into practice in it's pure form. It can't. Capitalist theory is not the capitalism we know (and hopefully love) today, in fact, the sandwich I made for myself today is not nearly as perfect as the one I had envisioned in my head.

But that's life. This perfect economic system is what spawned communism. And as we know, it was a giant failure.

Here is a brief, rather unscientific and quickly drawn illustration/explanation on why it was destined to fail. Note, this is far, far, far from genuine Game Theory, for all I did was borrow a Game Matrix.

But before you start, let me ask you two questions. Do you lock your car door (or home) when you're not using it? Why?

LE VOILA: My Webpage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit, I've done no in-depth investigation of Marx. If you would care to enlighten me, what is the driving force behind Marx's society?

The fact that Marx was a pompous, self-important @ss, as are the university professors who still teach him despite the fact that every Marxist society has failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we all know, according to Marx, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a temporary phase which, ultimately will lead to the fading away of the state.

Not a word in Marx about this.

What you speak of is doctrinaire Leninism.

Are you sure? I've never read Lenin, but I have read Marx.

Yes.

Please cite a Marx reference for this crap about the dictatorship of the proletariat.

How about starting simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

And consider: http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis...u/msg02794.html

The whole 'vanguard' theory belongs to Lenin.

I know nothing of the vanguard theory and suspect it is different from the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Btw, merely reading the "Communist Manifesto" does not constitute having 'read Marx'. The Manifesto is nothing more than a polemic or a propaganda. It contains no actual scholarship.

Any idiot knows there's more to Marx than the Manifesto. But the Manifesto does contain substanial distillations of his scholarship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any idiot knows there's more to Marx than the Manifesto. But the Manifesto does contain substanial distillations of his scholarship.
Why not just tell us idiots the answer to this highly important riddle?

You started this whole thread with "As we all know" which is utterly ridiculous. Can you also give one good reason why anybody should give a hoot about Marxist scholarship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please cite a Marx reference for this crap about the dictatorship of the proletariat.

How about starting simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

And consider: http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis...u/msg02794.html

Thanks for your links. The first one confirms my assertion - it is a Marxist notion, not a theory of Marx.

The second one shows Marx using the phrase - though in the context Marx uses it suggests the term is meaningless and contradicts Marx's own theory of history (not uncommon).

On the basis of the second link, I will admit that Marx obviously used the term.

However, I do stand by the meaning of my original assertion that the phrase has no theoretical basis in Marx. A casual reference in an letter that in itself devalues the phrase by stating, "that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition..." does not provide any theoretical structure or support.

Indeed, if the forces of history are immutable, there is no place in the theory for any active 'dictatorship' of anything. Thus, the phrase contradicts Marx's core theory of history.

The whole 'vanguard' theory belongs to Lenin.

I know nothing of the vanguard theory and suspect it is different from the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

No, it is the same. The vanguard are the ones who will run the dictatorship. They are the self-appointed leaders of the movement.

This is contradictory to the immutable character of Marx's theory of history. One cannot 'make' a communist revolution. It is categorically impossible according to Marx's own theory of history.

Btw, merely reading the "Communist Manifesto" does not constitute having 'read Marx'. The Manifesto is nothing more than a polemic or a propaganda. It contains no actual scholarship.

Any idiot knows there's more to Marx than the Manifesto. But the Manifesto does contain substanial distillations of his scholarship.

1. You are being needlessly insulting here.

2. The Manifesto contains nothing of the sort. It is a polemic pamphlet, nothing more - a speech designed to rouse the faithful at the 2nd International.

For example, please show me where in Marx's substantive works the argument is made that revolution is the normative form of changes in the dominant mode of production. Marx's theory holds that evolution is the core mechanism of changes in the dominant mode of production over time. Marx's theory also holds that communism is inevitable. Yet the Manifesto holds that active revolution is the only way to make communist society. This is illogical and a contradiction. Exactly the kind of thing the Manifesto is full of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...