Dictatorship of the Proletariat

I feel that the DotP is not necessarily a top-down leadership structure and that it could be a form of democracy in which only the workers participate, like the soviets without the coming bureaucracy in the USSR. What does everyone else think of this version of the DotP? I'm sure that I'm sure that I'm not the first person to have this idea, so if there is already a working theory of this more democratic as opposed to party based DotP, please let me know. On the otherhand, if you have the view that the DotP should take another form, please tell me that also.

In a socialist state, who else would there be to vote but the workers? Everyone would be working in some capacity. Apart from that, I think this makes a lot more sense than what seems to keep occurring.

I think that the vanguards placed their parties into the leadership positions instead of guiding the workers towards completely new forms of collective democratic government. Authoritarianism may be more efficient, but so was fascism. I think that the new governing bodies should look like the GAs in the occupy movements, any thoughts?

I agree with your statement about vanguards, and I particularly approve of the current Zapatista practice of not using visible leaders, limiting the terms of said leaders, and actively seeking the input of the people in all decisions. Although using pseudonyms and black balaclavas may be going a bit too far, I think any measures we can take to make it more democratic and less 'representative' or, God forbid, outright authoritarian, are a step in the right direction.

Much as I hate to double-post, I also think that the term 'dictatorship' suggests practically the exact opposite of what we are attempting, being almost universally defined as totalitarian and despotic state control. We need another term. 'Democracy of the Proletariat'?

Once I began thinking of it as excluding the bourgeoisie from the democratic process, the term dictatorship made sense despite the connotations. If the DotP does not take into account bourgeois wishes, the bourgeoisie truly would be under the heel of the proletariat, hence dictatorship. That said, it would be a democracy of the proletariat, by the proletariat, and for the proletariat to the exclusion of the capitalists.

In my opinion, a socialist state would have no bourgeoisie. Everyone who had been bourgeoisie would end up working just like everybody else. If we're just going to oppress them right back I don't think we can claim much moral superiority. They're few enough that, stripped of their monetary advantage, they wouldn't be able to affect policy, and their children would grow up understanding the socialist way.

I would assume that the DotP would only last as excluding the capitalists until there were no more capitalists. I see what you're trying to say, but I think that the issue would resolve itself, as long as the proletarians would be willing to accept the former capitalists after they lose control of the means of production.

So socialism would be established first, and only when the bourgeois apparatus had been dismantled would its overlords be given suffrage?

That's what I'm stepping in.

I still don't think we can justify depriving them of the vote. Isn't it enough to establish a government they can't influence and then take away their power? Even to dismiss them because they wouldn't vote for any of us anyway still sets dangerous precedents.

Well, once they stop owning the means of production they stop being bourgeoisie, so when they get their unfairly acquired stuff taken away they'll be workers. I'm not advocating french revolution style be-headings here.

There is such a thing as revolutionary hegemony, and authority or charisma should not be avoided. We see these vehicles as the force of superstructure that spreads bourgeois ideology and communists will need to seize this vehicle if we're going to disseminate the culture of the proletariat. The best sources for understanding what this means, and how it should be achieved is Gramsci and Lenin. We must analyze the special bodies of the state on a case to case basis and determine if they can be seized and wielded against the capitalist class. To dismiss all "oppression" as "wrong" is a little silly.

There's a difference between using the tools of the state against capitalists (actively creating a socialist society) and removing the vote from people who disagree with us.
However, in a transitional period like this I can see the necessity of protecting a new and vulnerable socialist state. I think that the business of declawing the capitalists should be done quickly, before they have a chance to strike back, so that the change can be made as quickly as possible and we don't have to take the step of removing universal suffrage.
I also think that the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' should apply specifically to that stage of overrunning the capitalists, because once the proletariat is the only class in society, the term 'dictatorship' will no longer apply, will indeed be counterproductive.

The term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' itself is ambiguous and has occasionally been opportunistically employed, in order to justify certain policies or views that do not necessarily correspond with its proper implications. As such, it is important to understand that while term indeed denotes the post-revolutionary political hegemony of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, it in no way suggests that establishing centralized, anti-democratic institutions is the only manner by which to structure a post-revolutionary state. Certainly, a great deal of socialists and communists have criticized the expropriation of such terms by various regimes whose policies fail(ed) to adequately serve the best interests of the proletariat.