The State and Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Marxist-Leninist Analysis of This Theoretical Staple

By Brian Rice, published Mar 20, 2006
Published Content: 112  Total Views: 232,028  Favorited By: 9 CPs
Rating: 3.2 of 5


Rather than undergoing the exhausting process of evaluating, analyzing, and reviewing Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ masterpiece, The Communist Manifesto, I’ve taken it upon myself to scrutinize (constructively of course) in a Marxist nature some of the most fundamental (and often times overlooked) principles of the philosophy. The nature of the state in which Marx (and his subsequent successors) is an important question of class antagonisms that are just as prevalent today as they were over 150 years ago. In regarding the questions of the state it’s imperative to identify another key tenet of Marxism, and that is the dictatorship of the proletariat. These concepts, as well as the other numerous points of particular importance, require a significant amount of study as well as putting things into context, and this is the ultimate aim of my work (Marx 382).

Before we begin, it is understood that when describing the state, Marx is actually talking about two important stages in the development of society. Marx defines the state in the following context: 

The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the    battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. (Karl Marx 384) 

Takeaways
  • The nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat
  • The role of the "state"
  • Applicable useage of the dictatorship of the proletariat
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
 
 
Grant: You speak from the misperception of a view of Marxism ideologically twisted by capitalists. In fact, under a socialist system, people would benefit even more because they would get paid more. Wages are the only resource that business owners have any control over--as opposed to energy, material, etc.--and so to ensure they make a profit they can only pay you for 80% of times, the other 20% you are essentially doing volunteer work. In addition, without business ownership, the workers would share in profits instead of watching people like billionaires like Bill Gates, Donald Trump and, eventually, Paris Hilton rule the world.

Posted on 05/28/2006 at 6:05:00 AM

 
Under which circumstances do those (that you listed) define human nature? Secondly, you're taking an antagonistic approach to Marxism/Socialism/Communism sipmly out of your own predisposed beliefs. You're assertions, in this most basic sense, are no more/less valid than the ones I have conveyed through my piece. In regards to "ruthless" suppression, these means are justified in their ends. I wouldn't expect most critics of communism to understand this aspect. I will reply in much more detailed with a new piece by the end of the week.

Posted on 03/21/2006 at 2:03:00 PM

 
Marxism, Socialism, Communism...they're all wonderful theories. Problem is, they don't work. Why? Because they disregard human nature as a factor. There are two main aspects of human nature that prevent these "-isms" from being viable. The first is that people won't work hard if they don't benefit directly. A real feeling of ownership is necessary for a productive society. Whether that ownership manifests itself in the material goods people acquire as a result of their work (house, car, etc.), or through their work itself(satisfaction, a feeling of usefulness, pride, prestige), they will not perform at a level comparable to that of a market-driven, cometitive economy. Second, human nature demands that those who achieve power spend more energy keeping that power than using it to improve their societies. A corollary of this is that those in power will suppress (often ruthlessly) those they see as a threat. When these two factors are combined, you end up with an unworkable system--b

Posted on 03/21/2006 at 9:03:00 AM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
 
Most Commented On