At some times, we can fit reality into many ideological frames. But beyond some point, ideology becomes like a masturbation (in mild cases). Stalin was probably aware of how far were Marx-Lenin's ideals and the real world. Trying too hard to realize a "perfection" in practice is certainly dangerous. Working ideology should be respectful of existing background, and give people time to adjust. This smells like conservativism a bit. But modern conservativism allows this wild race economical transformations, while being very narrow-minded how the whole world should adjust.
There may be times when we need to guess the right view of the world, for mere survival or civilization continuation. Otherwise no one would have a vision nor determination. Collective thinking may not be in the human nature (even without so much rationalization of individualism), but if this is this is necessary for adaption, it is within our capabilities to adopt that collective way.
i'm starting to wonder if stalin hijacked marx in the same way bush hijacked jesus... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
"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." - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Fortunately he was quite produtive and his writings has studied extensively.
Dictatorship of the proletariat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term "dictatorship" describes control by an entire class, rather than a single individual (dictator rei gerendae causa). According to Marx, the bourgeois state, being a system of class rule, amounts to a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.' When workers take state power into their hands, they become the new ruling class and rule in their own interest, temporarily using the state machinery to prevent the bourgeoisie mounting a counterrevolution. 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 councilors, 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 social order with its emphasis on recallable delegates and maximal public participation in governance has many similarities 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."[2] Marx's attention to the Paris Commune would make the commune take a central place in the thought of later Marxists.
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 councilors, 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 social order with its emphasis on recallable delegates and maximal public participation in governance has many similarities 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."[2] Marx's attention to the Paris Commune would make the commune take a central place in the thought of later Marxists.
Sounds a bit different to Lenins defintions. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
But speaking of your excerpt, I knew this, I just didn't want to get into that much detail, because seeing a situation as the enemy class' dictatorship is a part of the same manicheist and violent vision. One can always argue violence can be justified when nothing else works, but the point was about the term communist dictatorship being a contradictio in termine.
We can discuss all this in detail, I only feared, as before, that this blog too will become about each and every social and political issue today or in the past.
Or is it me managing to systematically position myself opposite each and every "truth" established through previous ET debates. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/common_liberal.htm#fw03
...it must be a democracy for the exploited, ‘and a means of suppressing the exploiters; and the suppression of a class means inequality for that class, its exclusion from “democracy”. The indispensable characteristic, the necessary condition of dictatorship is the forcible suppression of the exploiters as a class, and, consequently, the infringement of “pure democracy”, i.e., of equality and freedom, in regard to that class. The proletariat cannot achieve victory without breaking the resistance of the bourgeoisie, without forcibly suppressing its adversaries, and that, where there is “forcible suppression”, where there is no “freedom”, there is, of course, no democracy
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/equality.htm Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
