Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Calm down. The question of democracy does not come down to whether or not a person supports communism. In answer to your question, the people who lie to and mislead the proletariat are going to be given their freedom of speech. It is therefore the job of the dictatorship of said proletariat to sufficiently educate the proletariat that they don't get fooled again.

I intend to avoid restricting liberties as much as possible; I think we've seen where that goes.

Red Sun, I would like to ask whether or not you support giving the bourgeoisie voting rights before or after they lose all their assets and cease to be bourgeoisie? I support after, personally, as you know.

I fail to see the purpose in granting the bourgeois establishment any say in matters. This seems redundant and counterrevolutionary. What is the rationale behind allowing a class knowingly opposed to proletarian emancipation any political leverage? Is not the entire reason behind revolution to wrest political power from the capitalists? To fall short of uprooting the system as a whole by squabbling with the bourgeoisie in the political arena is to illogically frustrate the revolution.

Red Aegis, it's been convincingly argued to me that the capitalists shouldn't be given voting, so I changed my mind from my original position.

The purpose of giving bourgeoisie a say in matters (while they're still bourgeoisie), Rev Scare, was simply a matter of principle. I didn't want at first to create a situation where the vote was denied to a certain group of people. It was pointed out to me, however, that allowing them to retain political say and economic power at the same time would pose a danger to the revolution (you were the one who quoted Lenin to support this).

RedSun wrote:We need another term. 'Democracy of the Proletariat'?

I actually like the sound of this. One of the political theories I was going to make a video about was to be called "democratic corporations", where in that all business models, decisions, and economic planning was decided by the corporation as a whole. Everyone involved. As if everyone was an equal share holder to the company.

This is not communism, more like hard lined socialism... But it would be a definite improvement, and I see communism more as a transitional goal then an actual end that can be achieved directly.

This is why labor unions are so important.


As far as letting the bourgeois vote after their assets have been taken, that is a tough one. I want to say yes, everyone should have the right to an opinion, voice that opinion, and act on it. But they hate everyone, even themselves... bourgeois is more then a result of "the system", it's a state of mind. These people are sociopaths, and will exploit any opportunity they can. Some people just should not be voting.

But the first amendment is paramount. Capitalists don't appreciate it, and try to squash it every chance they get... and many leftists outright ignore it. Freedom of speech, freedom to assembly, and freedom to vote as a byproduct of those things should not be taken from anyone. I've had it done to me too many times, and there's no amount of "it's the will of the people" or "it's for the greater good" that can justify it.

Red Aegis wrote: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.

It should be a democracy, but I don't think it can be one right away, and for how long depends on how much popular support the socialist revolution had. For a while, the state will have to be strong enough to ensure stability and that a proper ideology is guiding the people. After that, a democratic system is good to go. (hopefully)

Jaycm610 wrote:It should be a democracy, but I don't think it can be one right away, and for how long depends on how much popular support the socialist revolution had. For a while, the state will have to be strong enough to ensure stability and that a proper ideology is guiding the people. After that, a democratic system is good to go. (hopefully)

Tell me what the alternative to a democratic set up would be, if you would. It seems to me as though you are trying to vouch for a party bureaucracy that would dictate policy to the people until it decides when to step down. If that is the case then do you really think that the party would ever step down?

Red Aegis wrote:Tell me what the alternative to a democratic set up would be, if you would. It seems to me as though you are trying to vouch for a party bureaucracy that would dictate policy to the people until it decides when to step down. If that is the case then do you really think that the party would ever step down?

Until the workers can be sure that it is safe to proceed with a democracy, I think something along the lines of a workers oligarchy would be sufficient.

Jaycm610 wrote:Until the workers can be sure that it is safe to proceed with a democracy, I think something along the lines of a workers oligarchy would be sufficient.

And you don't believe that the history of 20th century socialism has sufficiently demonstrated that such a paternalistic approach inevitably leads to resentment within the working class, and that it's dangerous to bestow onto a class of people unaccountable authority?

Celtiberian wrote:And you don't believe that the history of 20th century socialism has sufficiently demonstrated that such a paternalistic approach inevitably leads to resentment within the working class, and that it's dangerous to bestow onto a class of people unaccountable authority?

I feel that a p arty dictatorship does lead to resentment and hostility, and it also leads to totalitarianism, because the party hierarchy becomes the government. However, since the the majority of people in any given country sell their labor in exchange for money, and are then my definition part of the working class, then a "workers oligarchy" would actually comprise most of the population. This is a lot different from what occurred in the Soviet Union and other Soviet bloc countries.

Jaycm610 wrote:I feel that a p arty dictatorship does lead to resentment and hostility, and it also leads to totalitarianism, because the party hierarchy becomes the government. However, since the the majority of people in any given country sell their labor in exchange for money, and are then my definition part of the working class, then a "workers oligarchy" would actually comprise most of the population. This is a lot different from what occurred in the Soviet Union and other Soviet bloc countries.

In that case, a "workers' oligarchy" wouldn't be any different than a socialist democracy. Considering the bourgeoisie will be expropriated immediately following the revolution, they will themselves become workers and therefore afforded the right to participate in political decisions. However, I realize you're a member of the CPUSA, which is a reformist party, and are therefore probably envisioning a longer process regarding the collectivization of the means of production—which is a topic onto itself.

Celtiberian wrote:In that case, a "workers' oligarchy" wouldn't be any different than a socialist democracy. Considering the bourgeoisie will be expropriated immediately following the revolution, they will themselves become workers and therefore afforded the right to participate in political decisions. However, I realize you're a member of the CPUSA, which is a reformist party, and are therefore probably envisioning a longer process regarding the collectivization of the means of production—which is a topic onto itself.

I should have been clearer, I apologize. I don't believe the former capitalist class should be given the right to participate in political decisions, because, of their former status as capitalists, will be ideologically opposed to socialism. By letting them have political say, I feel it would be the same as letting known enemies of the working class have political power. And yes, the CPUSA does have some reformist tendencies, many of which I am opposed to. However, I don't think a longer collectivization process is necessarily a bad thing, as each countries conditions should determine how communism is reached. But, as you said, this is a different topic.

Jaycm610 wrote:I should have been clearer, I apologize. I don't believe the former capitalist class should be given the right to participate in political decisions, because, of their former status as capitalists, will be ideologically opposed to socialism. By letting them have political say, I feel it would be the same as letting known enemies of the working class have political power.

They will obviously be ideologically opposed to socialism, but they're too numerically insignificant to cause any damage. In order for a socialist revolution to occur, it's going to take the commitment of literally hundreds of millions of workers in the United States alone. Even if the state were to disenfranchise the bourgeoisie, they would still have the ability to attempt to persuade the voting public of their views as individuals. And what of former upper managers, the children of the bourgeoisie, and ideologically right-wing workers? Are we to deprive them of suffrage as well? Under such a scheme, Friedrich Engels would have been deprived of the right to vote. Once you begin to arbitrarily restrict suffrage, you deprive it of its meaning as a human right.

Moreover, it wouldn't be as if the bourgeoisie would have the ability to vote to restore capitalist property relations. A socialist constitution, the crowning achievement of the revolution itself, will curtail the sort of legislation that people can vote on regarding society's economic institutions.

don't think a longer collectivization process is necessarily a bad thing

I disagree, but we can debate that matter elsewhere.

Celtiberian wrote:They will obviously be ideologically opposed to socialism, but they're too numerically insignificant to cause any damage. In order for a socialist revolution to occur, it's going to take the commitment of literally hundreds of millions of workers in the United States alone. Even if the state were to disenfranchise the bourgeoisie, they would still have the ability to attempt to persuade the voting public of their views as individuals. And what of former upper managers, the children of the bourgeoisie, and ideologically right-wing workers? Are we to deprive them of suffrage as well? Under such a scheme, Friedrich Engels would have been deprived of the right to vote. Once you begin to arbitrarily restrict suffrage, you deprive it of its meaning as a human right.

Moreover, it wouldn't be as if the bourgeoisie would have the ability to vote to restore capitalist property relations. A socialist constitution, the crowning achievement of the revolution itself, will curtail the sort of legislation that people can vote on regarding society's economic institutions.

Good point. Still, I think some suppression of that class should be enacted in the very beginning to make sure they couldn't organize a counter revolution, but agree with what you said about voting rights towards the end of your first paragraph. And yes, a socialist constitution is the goal of a revolution. This is actually what the CPUSA wants, they call it "Bill of Rights socialism," and this is one of the main reasons I joined them, their adapting socialism to the American political system.

Jaycm610 wrote:Still, I think some suppression of that class should be enacted in the very beginning to make sure they couldn't organize a counter revolution

Depriving them of their ability to make money through the exploitation of labor, in conjunction with the state's socialization of finance, will significantly restrict the bourgeoisie's ability to organize a counter-revolution. So too will maintaining the right of the people to bear arms. In other words, in a political climate consisting of hundreds of millions of armed citizens ideologically committed to socialism and the bourgeoisie being dispossessed, I doubt very many former capitalists would even contemplate attempting to overthrow the workers' state. Reactionary external threats, on the other hand, are more likely.

This is actually what the CPUSA wants, they call it "Bill of Rights socialism," and this is one of the main reasons I joined them, their adapting socialism to the American political system.

The CPUSA's "Bill of Rights Socialism" is thoroughly reformist in nature. In fact, it only seeks to nationalize "major industries, financial institutions, and large corporations." What of petit-bourgeois firms or small corporations? Why isn't workers' self-management explicitly mentioned? Attempting to retain aspects of the United States' bourgeois constitution is a complete waste of time, in my opinion—as are the rest of the CPUSA's piecemeal reforms. But, again, we can discuss this further another time.