Dictatorship of the Proletariat for the 21st Century

What is a Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

Between capitalist and communist society 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 Programme

In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional phase between capitalism and communism in which the economy is further developed to ready society for communism in its lower and higher stages. It’s characterized by the existence of class society (although its abolition is a goal) as well as the existence of a temporary state.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a widely misunderstood term and period of historical development. To put it simply, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the proletarian revolution. A proletarian state has seized power and class society, the value form of products and production as we know it are being challenged. This sounds simple, but to understand you must truly understand what Marx meant when he says “state”.

The State and Revolution

Blanqui is essentially a political revolutionist. He is a socialist only through sentiment, through his sympathy with the sufferings of the people, but he has neither a socialist theory nor any definite practical suggestions for social remedies. In his political activity he was mainly a “man of action”, believing that a small and well organized minority, who would attempt a political stroke of force at the opportune moment, could carry the mass of the people with them by a few successes at the start and thus make a victorious revolution. — Friedrich Engels

The proletarian state is not the same as a nation-state. Most definitions of the state seem to be centered around the liberal idea of the national-State. This definition is fine for liberalism and many other offshoots of it, but it’s not what Marx meant. To Marx, a state was one class enacting its will upon another. Governmental means could be used, but this doesn’t mean the establishment of a highly centralized nation-state is a proletarian state.

In many historical cases, “proletarian states” ended up filling the historical role of the bourgeoisie. These systems may have seemed like new ideas then, but they actually had roots in the International Workingmen’s Association. The International Workingmen’s Association, or First Internationale, was an association aimed at uniting many different shades of labor movement ideas. From the First Internationale, many theories were developed. One of these theories was Blanquism, named for Louis Auguste Blanqui.

Blanqui’s ideas consisted of many things that may sound familiar. A small group of conspirators overthrows the state and establishes a new state, one that would introduce socialism from the top down. The reason this sounds so familiar is because this is what has happened many times in history. The October Revolution has been criticized to death by just about everyone, so I will shy away from that and focus on another prominent revolution. Cuba.

The Cuban revolution could quite possibly be the most prominent example of Blanquism, despite that not being the aim. In December 1956, 82 revolutionaries landed on the shores of Cuba with the aims to liberate the country from Fulgencio Batista, the United States-backed dictator. In 1959, Batista was deposed and the 26th of July Movement (the organization led by Fidel Castro) became the Communist Party of Cuba. They then attempted to introduce socialism using the state. Despite criticism of this program by Marx and Engels years before it was carried out, people still point to Cuba as either a failure or success of Marxism.

The problem of the state introducing (or failing to introduce) socialism is not a problem of leadership, it is a problem of the state. As mentioned before, the proletarian state is simply the proletariat in revolution, the proletariat enacting its will on the bourgeoisie. By now you may be asking yourself if worker’s states of the past weren’t truly worker’s states, what does a true dictatorship of the proletariat look like?

Paris, 1871: The First Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentleman, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. — Friedrich Engels

The Paris Commune was the capital of France under worker’s control for a few months in 1871. Workers were seizing the means of production, although there was still a bourgeois presence. Liberal representative democracy was replaced with a participatory democracy in which elected delegates were chosen by the people and were instantly recallable. They practiced what is a primitive form of what was developed into libertarian municipalism or stateless democracy. Production was being aimed towards use rather than exchange. Wage labor was being replaced with distribution according to contribution, a step towards distribution according to need.

Many of the problems that lead to the collapse of the Commune (outside of the invasion by the French government, which had been in exile in Versailles) ended up splitting members of the First Internationale. The flaws of the Commune developed theories further and even influence radical politics to this day.

From Point A to Point B: 19th to 21st Century

The thing about the theoretical dictatorship of the proletariat in the 19th century was that capitalism was still developing and growing. Economies needed to develop further. For this reason, the dictatorship of the proletariat was generally viewed as needing to further the economy while in the transitional period between capitalism and communism.

What parts of the dictatorship of the proletariat should be remained and what parts should be revisited? Obviously we don’t live in the 19th century anymore. Just as obviously, the capitalist mode of production still reigns supreme worldwide. The economy has developed further than economists in the 19th century could’ve ever predicted. Why then must the dictatorship of the proletariat be restrained by outdated notions of developing the economy (read as: the marketplace of exchange values) further? Could a revolution in our modern times perhaps be swifter than theorized?

The Next Revolution

Compulsory labor is out of the question: what we want is the abolition of work as such, as an activity separate from the rest of life. For example, putting an end to garbage collection as a job some have to do for years, will be a lot more than job rotation: it will imply changes in the process and logic of garbage creation and disposal. — Gilles Dauvé

With the need to develop the economy further behind us, a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat could focus on the elimination of social classes, the value form of products and work as it’s viewed in today’s liberal society. A new revolution could truly break free from the liberal form of bourgeois revolution we’ve seen from 1776 to 1917. Social relations could truly be questioned and changed.

The responsibility of questioning and changing social relations lies on us, as workers and theorists. We must strive for the abolition of class society. We must strive for the abolition of value. Our next revolution will have the ability to do what previous revolutions have failed to do in the past.

What does this mean? This means that communism is not just within our realm of possibility, but is within our reach and keeps coming closer as the days go by. The cycle of capital can finally be broken, the division of labor can be dissolved, the full and free development of every individual can truly form the ruling principle.