Talk:Dictatorship of the proletariat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs a rewrite: it's sloppy at best. --Ed Poor

Removed this sentence:

The term has been used by opponenents of socialism to imply that socialism means absolutism by a sovereign ruler because that is what dictatorship means today.

If there really is semantic confusion over the dictatorship part of dictatorship of the proletariat we should explain it better than the above, which sounds more like advocacy to me. --Ed Poor

"In practice, the new regime winds up oppressing workers just as much as the old regime, becoming not a government which serves the proleteriat but rather oppresses the proletariat." -- As it stands, this says that this will happen, automatically. Is this intended to be a doctrinaire statement of Marxist theory, or an assertion by a Wikipedian? If the latter, I'd like to see some evidence, or rewrite for more NPOV, or both.

No, not will happen automatically, but tragically has happened in every case I know about. If you know of some counterexamples, why not add them to the article? --Ed Poor

However, the Bolsheviks later adopted very different forms of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", and used the concept to justify limiting the acceptable range of political discourse.

Isn't it true that the term 'proletariat' is applicable only to "capitalist states" and in "transitional period"? In the state of "victorious proletariat" the proper parlance was "working class". The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was in 1918 Soviet Constitution, but 1936 Soviet Constitution the term is no longer used. Hence IMO the phrase must be clarified in terms of time frame. Mikkalai 00:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Pink glasses of Marx

Phrase removed:

Some scholars, Jacques Barzun among them, have maintained that Marx and Engels saw the Commune through rose-coloed glasses

This article is not about someone's opinion about Marx. It is well-known that many people thought that Marx was wrong, and many hated him. But we need here arguments, not opinions.

If you want to say that (someone maintained that ) Paris Commune was not dictatorship of proletariat, please explain, but without "rose glasses" and other poetry. Mikkalai 19:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since the Paris Commune is here offered as the only example of the subject of the article, dictatorships of the proletariat, we should avoid giving the impression that everybody who has looked into the subject raves about how wonderful Paris was in that springtime. --Christofurio 23:04, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Once again: Write facts, not poetry. Did someone disagree with the statment that paris commune was dict pro? The "glasses" phrase says zilch. Mikkalai 01:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The disagreement is with such statements as that the Commune had to

"do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself," and that it "safeguard[ed] itself against its own deputies and officials," etc. Those sound like rosey assessments to me, and you aren't allowing even an acknowledgement of the fact that they have been challenged. Your comment above, that anyone who disagrees with Engels must have been blinded by "hate," is just another example of the bad skewing you are giving to this article. --Christofurio 01:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Once more The "glasses" phrase says zilch. It only presents an opinion that marx's opinion about paris commune was wrong. It doesn't say in what respect it was wrong and how it is related to the topic of the article, dict prol. I am surprised I have to explain such trivial things no an editor of encyclopedia.
Also, I didn't say anything about Engels and hate. Mikkalai 01:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, what you said was about Marx and hate. You said that "it is well known that ... many people hated him." Unless that was an utter irrelevance, it was a charge that the only reason for putting a non-Marxist perspective inhere at all would be to express hate. That is very poor reasoning. As a matter of fact, not opinion, there are scholars with a less cheery appraisal of the Paris Commune than the only appraisal's you are allowing into this article at all. --Christofurio 13:49, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
OK. I see. I didn't write anything nowhere near this in articles. In the talk you may allow yourself some sloppiness. Of course there was a whole continuous spectrum of attitudes towards marx. And my phrase doesn't lend the conclusion that all who criticized Marx hated him or even disliked him. His friends criticized him as well.
But you are shifting the point of discussion. My point is that an article needs facts and reasons, not just statements that someone disagreed with marx (especially without explanation why disagreed and in what respects). I myself can find several reasons why marx was seeing P.K. through pink glasses and I believe the phrase itself and that the opinion had serious reasons. But the phrase didnt say anything informative. Mikkalai 17:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, as I see that the whole article is sloppily written. I will not edit it more. I will only point out some suspicious places. Mikkalai 01:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the "rose-colored glasses" comment. That's like saying "some scholars criticize Marx", which is self-evident. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Paris commune and Marx

The language of the article leaves an impression that Paris commune was somehow based on Marxism. E.g.: "society in his own lifetime that put his ideas into practice", "no other serious attempt at implementing Marx's ideas ", etc. Can someone say it clearly: did communars read Marx or not and if yes, did they implement his ideas? Mikkalai 01:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] So, what is D.P?

The article says nothing what D.P. is, but the vague phrase: "use of state power by working class". The rest is 50% Paris commune and 40% criticism. Is it really nothing more to say about the essense of D.P.? Also, what exactly is "working class" here? I strongly suspect that proletariat is not the same as working class, so even this very first phrase is sloppy. Mikkalai 02:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] D.P. concept altered

concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat was later altered

How? I'd like to see the altered definitions. (I already see one: in this very article, but this is not what is probably meant). The official Soviet definition was "power of the worker class". Who else had other definitions? Mikkalai

[edit] communist states "oppress workers"

From personal experience I must say that with the exception of privileged classes and criminals a decent industrial worker in the Soviet Union lived much better than, say scientist or teacher, or doctor, or peasant (whose life was worst of all). Within the overall quality of life workers were hardly "oppressed". Mikkalai 02:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Marx and DP

I'm rather surprised by this article. It's been my understanding for many years that, while it has been aleged that Marx used the concept in conversation, he never actually used the phrase DP in his writing. I'll give it a couple of days, but if I don't get a reference for these claims about Marx and DP, I'm going to sustantially change this article accordingly.--XmarkX 13:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's been more than a couple of days, but he did, in fact, use the phrase in his writing. So did Engels, who used it more extensively. The phrase appears verbatim in Critique of the Gotha Programme, and the phrase "Dictatorship of the Working Class" appears as a section heading in the abstract to Chapter One of The Civil War in France, in terms of what Marx himself wrote. Engels uses it in his preface to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, his Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891, and The Housing Question in England. There are various mentions to dictatorships in conjunction with a discussion of the outcome of the proletarian revolution, also. I'd say the concept has a firm grounding in M&E. --Eric 05:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I would like to clarify a couple things in this article. First, Marx used the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably; to him, they were one and the same. It was Lenin who first explicitly identified socialism with the "lower phase," which Marx had always referred to as the dictatorship. I propose to do the following:

In the third paragraph, the sentence, "Thus Marx called capitalism the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which he believed would be superseded by socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat), which in turn would be superseded by a classless and stateless society known as communism," will be amended to read: "Thus Marx called capitalism the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which he believed would be superseded by the dictatorship of the proletariat, which in turn would be superseded by a classless and stateless society known as communism or socialism (Marx used the terms interchangeably)."
In the fifth paragraph, after the sentence, "Lenin believed that the political form of the Paris Commune was revived in the councils of workers and soldiers that appeared after the 1905 Russian revolution and called themselves soviets," a sentence will be inserted reading, "Their task, according to Lenin, was to overthrow the state and establish socialism, which he identified as the stage preceding communism."

I invite your feedback on this matter.--Eric 03:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Lenin quotes

172, you have without any explanation deleted the quotes used by Lenin. Please explain. Ultramarine 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I simply cannot grasp the point of the content that you are inserting: Lenin quoted these [2] and other[3] statements by Marx and Engels as support for using the authoritarian principle of democratic centralism during the dictatorship of the proletariat. This excluded democracy even in theory outside the ruling Communist party. Lenin's regime also banned fractions within the party. This made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality.

First, external links embedded inside the body of articles are supposed to be used as inline citations, not as alternatives to summarizing, paraphrasing, or quoting subjects to be addressed in the article. The practice is fine on article talk pages, but not in articles. Second, the insertion of the word "authoritarian" is one with which I agree, but it should be attributed to critics of Leninism. Third, the following sentence is too vague: This excluded democracy even in theory outside the ruling Communist party. I understand the point you are making; but I think that it is alreay stated more clearly elsewhere in the article. Try to work on improving the writing and then reinsert the content. 172 23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made several changes. I suggest that you do not delete the sourced material before discussions here.Ultramarine 12:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Ultramarine is an adamant anti-communist, he claims capitalism is best. Unfortunately instead of being constructive to capitalist and libertarian articles, he spends most of his time adding critisisms to marxist and soviet articles(as you can see by his contribution history). (similar to how intelligent design proponents are always attacking evolution rather than trying to validate and add to their own theory. It's too bad because it seems he has lots of useful information to contribute, but squanders it on attacking communism related articles. Solidusspriggan 04:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Spare me your ad hominem, discuss the facts instead. Ultramarine 12:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
no matter how factual the argument i present is you will always be selective of the facts you see fit to further your bourgeois interests.
Please read what ad hominem is. Discuss the facts. Ultramarine 12:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
we know what ad hominem is especially considering you linked twice, lets look at some of the criticisms of out favorite soviet leaders though, selective release of information to further ones own interest, in that case, you would be all for exposing and recording that information widely on wikipedia. So really the fact that you adhere to principles as a proponent of capitalism that you would criticize were it a proponent of communism or socialism is merely an example of the nature of your constant pov edits.
Again, discuss the facts, not the persons.
More ad hominem: Ultramarine is in fact a robot. Check his contribution contributions). He's on WP all day every day, making an edit every couple of minutes. Phenomenal! Camillustalk 13:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the praise.Ultramarine 13:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
ah yes youre the guy who i found that wonderful "no ads on wikipedia" template on his userpage and inspired me to add it to my own. Solidusspriggan 13:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Seriously though, these quotes are taken out of context, these quotes were not at all given under such specifications, let us clean this article for the best of the academic community with a clear cut quote out of the same pamphlet summing these up in primary points. Solidusspriggan 13:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources are given for the statements. Give sources for your claims.Ultramarine 13:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/equality.htm

Please explain, this is the text where Lenin quotes Marx and Engels.Ultramarine 14:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Why have you deleted the quotes Lenin used? Why have you deleted that the ban on fractions made the democratic procedure an empty formatlity? Ultramarine 14:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
please read the article more carefully, i have not deleted the ban on fractions, that is very true and i have actually encountered it within the CPUSA myself, the "empty formality" part is most definately pov.

as for the quotes they are long and messy, there is room for that on wikiquote, best to put lenin's point across as lenin put the point across himself to make it straightforward in the pamphlet.

The quotes are obviously important as one the main justifications used by Lenin. They should be included. "Empty formality" has source and should not be removed. You have also made POV changes by stating as an undisputed facts that Marx supported direct democracy. The article is very POV now by removing sourced information and gives a false picture of how Lenin used and advocated these concepts. Ultramarine 14:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
umm, how much marx have you read? marx supported democracy and presented it as a necessity to socialism and the way to a classless society, just not bourgeois democracy which is what most countries live with today and what we are used to as the only type of democracy. lenin himself said "Democracy is essential to socialism" MOST IMPORTANTLY...I am afraid your source ([1]) for the "empty formality" bit is very unreliable, not only is the writing there extremely pov itself but if you actually read the entire page that you referenced, at the bottom it says this "No claims are made regarding the accuracy of Soviet Union (former) Democratic Centralism information contained here." this is not a good source for wikipedia. Please read the ENTIRETY of the source material before putting it in a context because the problem with the majority these edits I and many others dispute is not usually incorrect information, but improper context, when writing an article I always try to keep my mind on the exact title and if i find myself meandering i make my notes on a subpage under my userpage so i can add it where it is appropriate, i find it very helpful. also you are always free to start new articles if you see fit as we all are. Solidusspriggan 15:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Add sourced material if you have any. NPOV is not an excuse for deleting well-referenced material. By deleting this material, you are violating NPOV.Ultramarine 15:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The country studies from the Library of Congress is a reliable source. You can find the same information here [2].Ultramarine 15:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
just because material is sourced doesnt mean you should add it, if that were the case this would just be an archive of all the information on the internet. also that page containing "empty formality" is not "well-referenced material". just because the united states government says so doesnt make it true. MORE IMPORTANTLY the fact is that once again this is out fo context, this is information about democratic centralism not dictatorship of the proletariat. I was trying to share advice when i said i kept my mind on the name of the article. not only that but i said nothing about direct democracy, but marx DID expect the victorious workers to behave in a democratic and civil manner. I have violated no NPOV here, NPOV is a word you just throw around when you don't get what you want it seems, it doesnt change the facts. I am done debating with you on these issues, From now on I will only enter into civil discussions about the betterment of articles with you. youre turning all the talk pages that relate to any remotely uncapitalist idea into flame filled arguments over POV, leave these articles alone please, for the sake of the academic community and for the reputation of wikipedia. Solidusspriggan 15:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, you can add sourced material to the article, but there is no excuse for deleting important such material. How Lenin justified his state by quoting Marx and Engels is obviously important and should be included. Regarding the ban of fractions, are you actually arguing that democracy worked within the party? If not, what is the problem with stating "empty formality"? Ultramarine 15:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
it is fine how it is, not only that but as a matter of fact I am arguing that democracy worked within the party originally, the civil war caused a decline in the democracy and stalin pretty much put an end to democracy within the party until his death, but as for this article concerning dictatorship of the proletariat what is her is truly even more than sufficient.Solidusspriggan 15:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Please read about No original research. Your own opinion is not very interesting, you need to cite sources. Ultramarine 15:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
that is why i voiced my opinion on the talk page and not in the article, and you shouldnt either. once again, this article is about dictatorship of the proletariat, please include the "empty formality" in the democratic centralism article, after all the .gov page sourced is actually titled "democratic centralism". The End.Solidusspriggan 15:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Going aournd in circles: 1. NPOV is not an excuse for deleting or hiding well-referenced important material. You can add your own cited material if something is mssing, this is not an excuse for deleting such cited material. 2. How Lenin justified his "Dictatorship of the proletariat" by quoting Marx and Engels is obviously of central importance. Lenin used these quotes primarily against having liberal democracy in Communist staes which all claimed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat. As such they should be included in this article. 3. Your own opinion or experience is not valid, you need to cite sources or it is original research which is not allowed. Ultramarine 16:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] template

The totally disputed template placed by user:ultramarine has been removed due to the fact that it was only placed there by him after multiple deletions and disputes of his chronic and critical far out right winged edits. This user makes a habit of adding (or threatening to add) this or other similar templates to all articles in which his edits are not left unchanged. He constantly violates NPOV, constantly takes place in edit wars, constantly floods the talk pages with disputesm and constantly shouts POV/NPOV to justify all his edits and deletions. He also has a bad habit of making tangental edits in articles where they dont belong just to critiize the main article entry.

[edit] stalinism

the article already covers the stalinist dictatorship directly under the paragraph that it was re addressed in, deleted redundant statement.

[edit] teplates 2

since the actual user who added the template didnt put any justification for it here in the talk page I will do it. The current custom template is part of an edit war being waged by user:ultramarine. user ultramarine combs wikipedia for just about any article related to marxism, especially leninism, and adds biased, tangental, and in many cases incorrect information. I will not be discussing the issue with ultramarine directly on this talk page although I'm sure he will try to intimidate me into an argument right here or throw some wiki-linked insults at me. Ultramarine does not post on talk page wishing for comprimise, rational discussion, or anything other than the acceptance of his agenda and his edits, if he doesn't get to keep his edit he adds a POV template. The consensus among editors of this article according to the edit history seems to be the act of omitting ultramarines preferred version. anyone that would like to weigh in on the issue may, user nikodemos has already commented once in his edit comment. I agree with him.Solidusspriggan 06:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As noted, the opposing user refuse to engage in factual discussions and delete sourced material contradicting their view. A gross attempt to turn Wikipedia into their soapbox! Ultramarine 06:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, please note that the Marx and Engels quotes you are inserting were used by Lenin to support his views against the views of other Marxists, such as Karl Kautsky. Your edits seem to be endorsing a Leninist POV (ironic, isn't it?). For balance, it would be necessary to also insert the views of Kautsky and other non-Leninist Marxists - see, for example, here: [3]

However, I believe that would represent an excessive and unwarranted use of quotes. It is much better to simply state the terms of the dispute between Lenin and Kautsky, as I have. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The irony is rich, however, ultramarine tries inserting these quotes in a terrific manner after adding something along the lines of "lenins reason for not implementing true liberal democracy" or something similar to that, liberal democracy being one of the things ultrmarine advocates on his userpage. It should be noted that this "liberal democracy" is usually considered bourgeois democracy (which kindly compliments ultramarine's other favorites, capitalism. Solidusspriggan 09:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted well-sourced material

Marx: ...When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by their revolutionary dictatorship ... to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie ... the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form ...
Engels: ...And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?...
Engels: As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist ....

Lenin quoted these [4] and other[5] statements by Marx and Engels as support for using the authoritarian principle of democratic centralism during the dictatorship of the proletariat. This excluded democracy even in theory outside the ruling Communist party. Lenin's regime also banned fractions within the party. This made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality."

This is the material the communist supporters are very afraid to let others see. Despite that this was the quotes used by Lenin to support his vision.Ultramarine 12:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would "communist supporters" (I assume you mean Leninists) be "afraid to let others see" things written by the founders of the Communist movement? Are you suggesting that Leninists have fundamental disagreements with Lenin...? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why have you removed this?

"Some also say that the degeneration of the russian revolution began before lenin's death, and that he and Trotsky played a crucial role in it (for example, by crushing the Kronstadt uprising and eliminating opposing factions like the workers opposition)."

I beleive that it is pertinent information, anarchists denounced the dictatorship of the party in the times of lenin and trotsky, it is important to say that, otherwise it would seem that all agree things started to go wrong when stalin took power and tht lenin and trotsky had nothing to do.

I will restore it unless you give me arguments for its deletion.

[edit] Another page's See Also.

Hi. Anyone know the reason this page belongs (assuming it does) in the see also for tyranny of the majority? The Literate Engineer 04:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First use of the term

1852, letter from Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05.htm

Gothaer Programm was first published in 1891 (by Engels)

Auguste Blanqui used the term first, according to german wiki (dont know if thats right)

--Tets1 14:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Added.Ultramarine 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Auguste Blanqui used the term first --84.113.52.244 19:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC) - i have to correct this, in fact there are doubts regarding this question --84.113.52.244 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/c/Talk%7EDictatorship_of_the_proletariat_a4b8.html"