Talk:Dictatorship of the proletariat/Archive 1

Archive 1

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! Camillus^talk 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)

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)

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)

That's a good point, and there is an explination for that. The 40% critizism is the project of bourgeois idialists who are trying to prevent the natural progression of human development into socialism then communism...however that may just be my POV. The 50% paris commune is simpler than that, Karl Marx almost completely based his theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat on the paris commune. Anyone who has read the Civil War in France knows that. In short DP is when the working class (proletariat) claims the state and destroys the old machinery (the parliament) and replaces it with their state machine (the commune). That's it, I can reduce this article to three sentences, but this way makes it more interesting. (Demigod Ron 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Examples

Should we include examples of past DoPs? While some may be contended (such as the Soviet Union) I think most are agreeable, if not then we can have another list of those which are contended. Some off the top of my head:
Paris Commune -1871 Petrograd Soviet -1917 Shanghai Commune -1927 Oaxaca Commune -2006 Taboo Tongue 05:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

the definition on the page scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be comparable in cruelty to "tyrannical" despots. seems like it could be applied to Lenin's idea for implementation of DotP simply because the former ruling class were so harshly dealt with due to the perception of retained advantages, if one were to take the liberty of assuming that workers were in the majority. Of course, what actually happened looked a lot more like power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely than any sort of tyranny of the masses. Zaphraud (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

What did you say about using arguments, not opinions?--189.175.209.207 (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

How do the special privileges afforded to a segment of the working class negate the oppression of the working class as a whole? It is true that certain segments of the working class in the USSR (also my birthland by the way) received certain privileges that others did not. But simply because industrial workers received privileges that education workers, medical workers and farm workers did not, and that political workers received the highest privileges of all, does not erase the oppression experienced in that society by the whole of the working class- it only accents it. Your apparent use of the term 'privileged class' to mean 'members of a class which would have been privileged in the pre-Bolshevik Russian Empire' is also interesting. Since that old society had been dead by the time we were born (or at least in by the time you were in your teens if you are indeed over a century old) I do not see why you call these classes 'privileged.' In the Bolshavik period, it was the political bureaucracy that was the new privileged class. Unless of course you mean Ivan Grozny's Stalin's oppression of some privilaged Boyars party bureaucrats. 24.47.154.230 (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Proletocracy???

I've heard this term being discussed sparsely, but given the popular confusion surrounding the word "dictatorship" in "dictatorship of the proletariat" (the wiki says "The term does not refer to a concentration of power by a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat (working class) would hold power and replace the current political system"), and given the neologism surrounding newer "-cracies" like corporatocracy and particracy / partocracy, I'd like to propose adding this word. Darth Sidious (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to ensure it explores "dictatorship of the proletariat" and not get captured by other uses of the word "dictatorship"

Wilcannia (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Temporary" bans on internal factions

It's incoherent to refer to the USSR's bans on internal factions as temporary when the bans lated until the USSR fell. I think either the term "temporary" should be removed from this section or, if there are citations to back it up, it should be explained that the bans were declared and/or intended to be temporary but were never removed. --67.177.245.150 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody spoke up over months, so I removed it. Anyone who wants to describe the USSR's bans on internal factions as temporary when they in fact lasted until the Soviet Union's dissolution ought to explain what was temporary about them -- whether they were intended to be temporary and failed to end in a timely manner, or whether they were declared to be temporary, etc.--67.176.4.243 (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

reference to dictatorship of the proletariat in the gotha program

To the sentence 'Marx expanded upon his ideas about the dictatorship of the proletariat in his short 1875 work, Critique of the Gotha Program' we could add this quote:

'Between capitalist and communist society lies a period of revolutionary transformation from one to the other. There corresponds also to this a political transition period during which the state can be nothing else than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" (Marx, critique of the gotha programme, p.44 International Publishers, NY, 1933 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Marx's letter to Weydemeyer

Reading up on this topic, I discovered a very interesting section of Marx's letter to Weydemeyer that is not included in this article. I was thinking perhaps we could amend that. "In context, dictatorship denotes the political control (government) by a social class, not by a man (dictator rei gerendae causa); likewise, being a system of class rule, the bourgeois State is a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”. When the workers (the proletariat) assume State power, they become the (new) ruling class, and rule in their own interests, temporarily using the State’s institution in preventing a bourgeois counterrevolution." An easily understandable analogy, explaining why dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean arbitrary rule by a totalitarian dictator, or even dictatorship in the modern sense at all. Sarg Pepper (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Kronstdat Rebellion

"the Kronstadt Uprising in 1921 represented a minority rebellion partly sponsored by White forces"- This definitely need a citation. I've not seen any evidence of this and, while that dose't mean it's not true, I've seen this same claim in pro Bolshevik propaganda. Kronstdat is a very contentious issue on the Left so if you're going to claim that they were in league with the tsarists you def need to back that claim up.

Moreover it's not clear to me how this sentence is related to its larger paragraph. It seems like a gratuitous and provocative assertion that has little to do with its larger context. It should either be deleted or expanded (with citations!). Roryfla (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Roryfla

• Fully agree, fixed. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge

Should Marx's theory of the state (which would be moved to Marxist theory of the state to include Lenin's thought etc. from the other articles), dictatorship of the proletariat and dictatorship of the bourgeoisie be merged?

The discussion is here:Talk:Marx's theory of the state#Merge. Zozs (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Does not mean the dictatorship of the proletariat

This part, and the paragraph preceding it:

In the Critique, he noted however that "defects are inevitable" and there would be many difficulties in initially running such a workers' state "as it emerges from capitalistic society" because it would be "economically, morally and intellectually... still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges", thereby still containing capitalist elements.[10]

This is not Marx's description of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He says explicitly in the Critique, that this is the "lower phase of communism." The lower phase of communism is a distinct stage from the dictatorship of the proletariat, according to Marx. post-Lenin Marxists (Trotsky, Stalin, etc.) made an influential, though erroneous (in terms of Marx), revision that the lower stage and that the dictatorship of the proletariat were the same. They're emphatically not. This part needs to be removed or revised to reflect as such. The full quote from Marx, referring to the communist society:

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

A quote from Marx, referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat as something else distinct from communism:

The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'. 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.

Another formulation, to think about, is that communism is the era of society where we live stateless, moneyless and classless. Just going off this simple, and in Marxist terms, correct, formulation, it'd be impossible to have communism within the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat implies that there is still a class system and a state (albeit a radically different conception of the state), thus not communism.

Again, this part of the article needs to be revised heavily. It follows the exact same theoretical errors that people have committed, who have misread and misinterpreted Marx in the last century.

• You seem to be forcing a single, own interpretation of Marx as the only one that is correct. Taking into account the vagueness of Marx writings, it can be interpreted in infinite number of ways, which was happening over the whole 20th century, and saying that one particular interpretation should be considered as "correct" is simply WP:OR. Unlike with natural sciences, in marxism there's no point of reference that could be used to determine correctness or falseness of particular interpretation (that was the point of Popper's critique), so all interpretations are essentially about selective choice and interpretation of this or that sentence in the holy script of Marx works. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit

First off, my apologies for reverting. That was a mistake, and I apologize. I'll try to do this in a more collegiate way from now on. Just wanted to say that I was sorry.

I do not support the edit for a few reasons:

• It removes the Marx, Luxemburg and Trotsky quotes, as well as a sentence about opposition to socialist parties, which seems excessive.
• The revised second paragraph's first sentence is a bit absolutist: "The dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic, and cannot take the form of single-party rule." I have no problem with this if it was clarified that this is the view of some thinkers -- that would be fine.
• It removes the whole paragraph starting with "The Bolsheviks in 1917–1924," which I see no real issue with.

Once again, I hope we can resolve this here.

GAB (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that this is not a "proposed" edit. This is the original version of the article which was briefly edit-warred until references to "democracy" were sanitized away for questionable reasons (the edit log mentions the Soviet Union, which does not qualify as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat). These edits were never discussed and hid away a clarification of one of the most prevalent sources of popular misconceptions regarding Marx. It seems like a clear violation of NPOV to remove properly sourced statements that clarify a murky point if, as the aforementioned reason for editing would suggest, there is a political motive to avoid clarity. I would be fine with some less assertive wording such as "xyz argued that it was always intended to be democratic", but among Marxists this isn't a controversial point: of course, Marx died before the Soviet Union was established so he could never have used it as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat; instead, both he and Engels chose the Paris Commune, which they specifically noted employed universal suffrage.

As far as your other points, they are well taken. As I said, I wasn't proposing a 'new' edit and I take no credit for the words in it. I was merely reverting the article to the last good version before the first edit war. That unfortunately deleted good content as well, which I am in no way opposed to bringing back.

Cheers, and thanks for discussing this.

189.68.223.213 (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not true and it can be easily traced in the edits history. The first large scale arbitrary removals from what we can consider "the original version" started in April 2014, when someone called Trust Is All You Need , possibly even yourself under a sock puppet nick, started removing parts of the article giving reasons such as "irrelevant" or "because that is criticism of Soviet communism" [6], effectively turning the deletion log into a discussion forum and forcing an edit war. Soon after that Zozs came[7], again introducing major rewrites and deletions from the article to suit his personal taste. This particular edit[8] from January 2015 introduced exactly the same changes as forced now by the IP user. These were very significant changes and they whole explanation given was "unrelated information". Zozs edits were reverted by a number of editors on the same basis as I did: they were radical, based on a very narrow interpretation of theoretical marxist state. Back in February 2015 Zozs gave up and now he returned as an IP. Kravietz (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also worth noting that Zozs was forcing similar large scale POV edits in other articles like Marxism–Leninism - [9], where it also caused controversies and resistance from other editors. Kravietz (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations of sock puppetry are ludicrous and can be verified as false by any administrator. I don't care what Zosz did or didn't do; I care that you are POV pushing in this article and this has to stop.

189.68.223.213 (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

They were verified, and here is the result: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zozs

Protected edit request on 15 July 2015

Can you please revert the changes introduced by the IP user here[10]? His edits distort the whole article and they were previously discussed in February, with several people opposing his version. Back then he just abandoned the discussion and returned recently forcing his edit again without any attempt to discuss. As it comes to the actual content of his changes, the main problem with them is that they force just one interpretation of the concept, which is contrary to many mainstream interpretations. original marxist sources and the reality. For example, when he writes "dictatorship of the proletariat is a democratic state" or "dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic", it's not an observation of any existing marxist state or mainstream interpretation, but merely a wishful thinking based on very limited, theoretical interpretation of an ideal marxist state. This marginal interpretation in the current version now makes the core of the article. I don't have any problem with adding these interpretations to the article in the typical WP:NPOV form ("according to X ... should be a democratic state"), but in the current form they are just false. Kravietz (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"it's not an observation of any existing marxist state"

I'll be fine with the removal of a properly sourced statement about the nature of a *theoretical* concept within Marxist theory when you point to a source showing Marx's endorsement of soviet socialism, proving that he or Engels indeed consider them to be "Marxist states". You're also welcome to prove that he and Engels did not in fact mention universal suffrage specifically when talking about the Paris Commune as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that all the evidence that they did in fact argue for suffrage has been a fraud or interpolation by other authors. Without such evidence you are trying to argue something Orwellianly counterfactual. And, once again, stop pretending that the people who disagree with you are only one person.

189.68.223.213 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The concept of dictatorship of proletariat evolved with the marxist movement. It cannot be only analyzed only in scope of XIX century Marx writings if the later marxists - such as Lenin - have also used the same term as a foundation for their new political system. This is the main argument why your ultimate statements ("dictatorship of the proletariat is a democratic state") are not compliant with the WP:NPOV. Apart from Wikipedia rules, you cannot say that dictatorship of the proletariat was democratic by its nature if numerous writing by Marx and Engels themselves (most present in the text, some of them you've removed) contain appraisal of violent revolution, which by definition not democratic. Kravietz (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about a violent revolution. A violent revolution that involved most of the population would be by definition democratic. Furthermore, the process whereby the dictatorship of the proletariat is to be brought about is of no consequence to the nature of the political system itself. As far as Lenin, there is a reason his ideology was later called Marxist-_Leninism_ and not pure Marxism. The term has to be understood within the context of the theory that spawned it, not the political activism of those who have used it for their own ends. Marx argued for universal suffrage, and Marx is the ultimate authority on Marxism. Once more, the prototypical example of Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the Paris Commune, not the USSR. Using the USSR despite its near universal rejection by Marxist philosophers is a clear case of POV pushing and undue weight. 189.68.223.213 (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Limiting the scope of the "pure marxism" and marxism-leninism is your own point of view that is definitely not shared in the mainstream. For example Main Currents of Marxism, which is one of they key meta analyses of the ideology and practice, in its three volumes builds a rather clear causal link between the original Marxist teaching and the Soviet implementation. Also each single marxist-leninist work, starting from State and Revolution, brings wealth of citations from Marx and Engels to support their case and their interpretation. In any case, you have absolutely no base for forcing your private interpretation of both marxism-leninism and dictatorship of the proletariat as the sole interpretation in the article especially if it contradicts the mainstream interpretations. As I wrote before, I have absolutely no problem with you adding your paragraphs to the article, but you should in no case replace the article with your own ideas, which you just did. Kravietz (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about a violent revolution

Actually, there is. Your understanding of "democracy" as a rule of violent crowd is actually known under the name of ochlocracy. Democracy on the other hand is generally peaceful rule of majority through elections and other techniques known as democratic process (elected representatives, public debate etc). A revolution is thus a negation and failure of democracy, as it involves a crowd overthrowing current government with no democratic process. Kravietz (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no. If a democratic government were overthrown by a mob, then sure, but if an illegitimate government is deposed and a true democracy is installed via violent revolution, it is by definition democratic. And still you ignored the fact that the process whereby a political system was installed has no direct bearing on the nature of the system itself. A single actor might by means of a coup take power and install a democratic government, and the undemocratic nature of the takeover does not take away from the democracy of the end result.

Nothing that you have said so far is an argument against the *fact* that Marx and Engels argued for a democratic "dictatorship of the proletariat" and your POV pushing is as obvious as it was initially.

PS: Yeah, showing a text where Lenin explicitly mentions his _rejection_ of standard Marxist thought will certainly prove your case. 189.68.223.213 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Instead of discussing endless hypothetical border scenarios I would just like to reiterate: according to any mainstream definition of democracy, a violent revolution is its antithesis. Citing the very article on democracy: "Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution". If you believe otherwise, go and "fix" democracy article and you will see that the reaction of other editors will be exactly the same as here. Kravietz (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, so you can go to the article on the revolution and claim it's not a democracy. The dictatorship of the proletariat, as the _theoretical concept_ it is, is democratic, as amply supported by mainstream scholarship present in the cited sources. 189.68.223.213 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to do so, as article on Revolutions does not state they are democratic. I have a feeling that majority of your clashes with Wikipedia comes from the fact that you're using the marxist semantic space, where every single word has meaning that is very different from its mainstream equivalent ("War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength", now we have "violence is democracy" and so on). If you prefer to continue forcing the marxist point of view as the only one on Wikipedia, I would suggest starting your own branch of articles that will clearly denominate their marxist origin, such as Democracy (marxism), Peace (marxism), Freedom (marxism) etc. This will all help avoid the semantic clashes. Kravietz (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have conflicts with Wikipedia. You do, as you are violating multiple policies. Now the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a concept within Marxism, so what you're suggesting as about as sensible as ensuring that an article about protons be called "proton (physics)". Furthermore, this response with makes it even clearer that you are POV pushing. ANY theory of any type defines its own terms. Please refrain from writing articles about theories you do not understand simply because you have a political disagreement with it. 189.68.223.213 (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Long history of your conflicts is visible in the Revision history for this article[11] where your edits have been reverted by at least six different editors over the last few months as well as in Marxism-leninism revision history[12] where your edits were reverted by at least 4 distinct editors. And this particular edit was was started by your edition from 11 July[13] where you have replaced large part of the artciel without a word of explanation. Kravietz (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Now the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a concept within Marxism But democracy is not "a concept within Marxism, which is precisely why you should not be describing revolution or dictatorship as examples of democracy because they are not democratic accoring to any mainstream definion of democracy. Which is exactly what you did in this edit from 11 July[14] which started the edit war. Kravietz (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am neither a Marxist nor an anti-Communist, though I have friends who are both. GAB (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"where your edits have been reverted by at least six different editors over the last few months"

Please bring proof that I am the same person as Zosz. Thanks.

"But democracy is not "a concept within Marxism, which is precisely why you should not be describing revolution or dictatorship as examples of democracy because they are not democratic accoring to any mainstream definion of democracy"

And yet, the dictatorship of the proletariat is democratic, according the the cited sources. All you have to back you up is your ideology.189.68.223.213 (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Revolution nor dictatorship is not democratic according to the mainstream definitions of democracy, which I have cited many times above. Yes, according to Marx dictatorship and revolution were democratic, because he was using non-mainstream definition of democracy (and many other things). As I also stated above I don't have a problem with a statement like "according to Marx the dictatorship was democratic because..." but in the current form it's confusing and false. Kravietz (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"Revolution nor dictatorship is not democratic"

The dictatorship of the proletariat is. See sources.

"Yes, according to Marx dictatorship and revolution were democratic, because he was using non-mainstream definition of democracy (and many other things)"

Orwellian levels of POV pushing.189.68.223.213 (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have initiated the following actions that you might be interested in @My very best wishes:, @Zozs:, @GeneralizationsAreBad:, @Bobrayner:, @NeilN:, @KrakatoaKatie::

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zozs - just FYI: the outcome of the investigation was (verbatim from the investigating volunteer): "I'm sure at least one of those IPs is Zozs. IPs are not active any more, so no need to block them. I'm going to issue a formal warning to Zozs. Next time he makes logged-out edits, he'll be blocked. Closing this now."

FYI: I'm not any of these IPs. That "investigation" concluded that only on behaviour similarity. Zozs (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

Proposed content changes

I don't see any point in discussing your views on marxism here as it's not WP:FORUM, so instead let's try to work a consensus on how the article should look like. Before moving any further I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples because it's the key to understanding why your edits were so frequently reverted by other editors. Commenting on specific items from your edit[15]:

• It is a democratic state where the whole of the public authority... — this is opinnion, not a fact. This should be moved to a later section as it definitely does not belong to the lead of the article (WP:UNDUE) and should be reworded as "According to X, it should be a democratic state...". You are using a book on Trotsky as a source here which suggests that this is a trotskyite view which is definitely not an ultimate interpretation for the marxist theory. Please read WP:NPOV, especially the section stat starts with "Avoid stating opinions as facts".
• The dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic, and cannot take the form of single-party rule — same story here. You are using someone's (Trotsky?) definitive statement what it should or should not be, but this is again someone's opinnion, not a fact. And you're using an apparently popular book for this definitive statement (WP:SOURCE)
• Research into the origin of the term has shown that it was never intended to mean a dictatorship — this is again a radical statement which is an opinnion really and should be reworded as such: "according to Elster and Ollman ... was never intended" etc. In the current version it's a textbook example of WP:WEASEL
• The view of modern Marxists critical of the Soviet Union-style states is that they did not form in any way a practical application of the dictatorship of the proletariat — this is a valid statement and an example how all the previous statements should be worded.
• In the same year, commenting on Hungarian Revolution — you have completely removed this paragraph because...? Please read WP:REMOVAL. In the same way you have removed Wiki links to Reformism and Revolutionary socialism and Karl Kautsky which are even harder to explain.
• and these socialist movements that did not support the Bolshevik party line were condemned by the Communist International and called social fascism — again, you removed this piece without any explanation, perhaps using the "missing sources" tag you added in March as a pretext. But this topic is very well sourced in the social fascism article, if it was a problem you could just copy the sources from there, couldn't you?
• The whole paragraph starting from The Bolsheviks in 1917–1924 did not claim to have achieved —again, absolutely not reason given for removal of this sourced paragraph, see WP:REMOVAL
• Removal of the whole citation from Leon Trotsky — same story, didn't like what he said? But that's not reason to remove whole paragraphs on Wikipedia.
• Kravietz (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I tire of your baseless accusations of sock puppetry. I will continue this discussion once you either retract those accusations or provide evidence that I am in fact Zosz's sock puppet.177.189.211.204 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh. But the specific edit I was commenting wasn't signed as Zozs but as 189.68.223.213 — just check[16]. How can you accuse me of accusations if one day you're 189.68.223.213 and the other day you're 201.68.91.224 and then 189.68.223.213? Do you really want to discuss the details of the article or just keep on trolling? Kravietz (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to retract/demonstrate your accusations of sock puppetry or not? Simple question.177.189.211.204 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is not a place to discuss behavior by users. This is an "edit warring only" account. If you wish to edit controversial subjects and avoid being suspected of sockpuppetry, please open named account. Speaking on the content, this is one of cases when EB did it right. The last version is bad because it tells that proletarian "dictatorship ... is democracy" as was claimed by Rosa Luxemburg. This is obviously a doublespeak ("War is Peace"). There are many other problems, such as excessive quotations. Actually, nothing should be quoted on this page unless it has been quoted in direct relation to the subject in a secondary, rather than a primary source. My very best wishes (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

" please open named account."

No, thank you.

" This is obviously a doublespeak ("War is Peace")"

If it's so obvious, surely you can prove it. Please do so. Thanks.177.189.46.5 (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the subject of this page. But here is the biggest problem. The "Dictatorship of the proletariat" was misrepresented on this page as a purely theoretical concept, but it was in fact the practical/official approach by the CPSU during the Stalinism and later - according to official documents by the CPSU itself. The approach was officially declared not needed only in 1961, as was written in every Soviet textbook [17]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"This is not relevant to the subject of this page. "

Yes, it very much is, because you people are attempting to pretend that Marx never argued for a democracy when in fact he did, as can be seen on the original sources AND on other sources that have been provided. And all you have to justify your radical position with is some deeply ironic reference to "doublespeak". Demonstrate it. Shouldn't be that hard, since you said it was obvious.

"but it was in fact the practical/official approach by the CPSU during the Stalinism and later - according to official documents by the CPSU itself. The approach was officially declared not needed only in 1961, as was written in every Soviet textbook"

Deepak Chopra also claims a host of things about quantum mechanics which are not present on the Wiki pages on quantum mechanics, for obvious reasons. Stalin CALLING his government a dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't make it one any more than North Korea calling itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea make it democratic.177.189.46.5 (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Marx was talking about dictatorship to suppress ruling classes by force, as written everywhere, including even Encylopedia Britannica (link above). That is what Lenin and Stalin had experimentally implemented, except that it was not dictatorship by the proletariat (only declared as such), but dictatorship by the Party, by the Leader, or by the Nomenklatura. Did they accomplish the "dictatorship of the proletariat" exactly as it was envisioned by Marx? No. They accomplished his ideas only to the degree it was practically possible (some argue that Pol Pot did it better). That's how this has been described in reliable sources and should be described here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"except that it was not dictatorship by the proletariat (only declared as such), but dictatorship by the Party, by the Leader, or by the Nomenklatura."

So there we go. We're in agreement. It wasn't a dictatorship of the proletariat.177.189.46.5 (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the Paris Commune served as a prototype for the "proletarian dictatorship" by Marx. This must be noted. Yes, the meaning of the term has partly changed in the Soviet Union and other places, where it has been officially used. This should also be described. I do not see any problem. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Me neither. The only reason we're having this discussion is because some people are ideologically opposed to describing Marx's ideas as they were and not some easily dismissed straw man.177.189.46.5 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to remember that every single way of interpreting Marx (what you now call a "deviation") in Soviet Union had a pretty strong rationale. Just read the first chapter of the State and Revolution to understand how Lenin used citations from Marx and Engels to justify revolutionary terror — and just must admit that he did not "deviate" a lot as Marx and Engels themselves rationalised the need for terror and violence. Trotsky, Bukharin and later Stalin did exactly the same. Each of their theories, like "revolution in one country" was supported by some kind of arguments, either ideological ("Marx said that and here's citation") or practical ("this is temporary"). And you must admit it was rather convincing, if in 20's there was really not much opposition among the Western communists to the Soviet interpretation of marxism, including all the terror and violence (Bertrand Russell being a notable exception). Only after Trotsky was kicked out and changed his position radically, there was some criticism in the West (then there was Khruschev etc). What worries me more is the fact that our anonymous and ambiguous friend hiding behind an IP (but taking a lot of offence about anyone mistaking his identity) did not comment on even a single proposed change from the list above and instead makes another attempt to divert this discussion into a WP:FORUM on marxism, which it is not. Let's focus on the article, as it's physically impossible to make unambigous arguments on a topic as fuzzy and religion-like as marxism. Kravietz (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"a topic as fuzzy and religion-like as marxism"

Once more your ideological motivations are clear. You don't want to describe Marxism as it is: you just want to propagate your own personal version of it because you find it politically convenient. It's clear you have an emotional stake in this, which I must kindly ask for you to keep out of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV must be respected. I'm sorry, but it must.

"What worries me more is the fact that our anonymous and ambiguous friend hiding behind an IP (but taking a lot of offence about anyone mistaking his identity)"

Again, I'm sorry that I have to be the bearer of bad news but WP:HUMAN. I don't want to get an account. There's no point to it. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate allegations of sockpuppetry, not on me to disprove them. As far as the points above, it's simple: either retract or demonstrate your unproductive allegations and I'll promptly reply to each one.

PS: To be clear, I agree with many of the points you outlined. All I'm asking is that you drop the passive aggressiveness so that we can reach a consensus without any more unpleasantness than what we've already had. As I stated, I'm not Zosz so I don't care about some of his edits and I'm willing to compromise on others. I don't think my request is unreasonable.177.189.46.5 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This page includes a lot of WP:OR. It should be reverted to the older version and seriously reduced. The entire section with arbitrary "Quotations" of primary sources should be removed as WP:OR. The quotations can only be included in the body of text if used by secondary RS in connection with subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"This page includes a lot of WP:OR"

Please demonstrate your assertion. Thanks.177.189.46.5 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been demonstrated to you about a million times on this page with examples and links to your specific edits, but you have chosen to ignore these parts of the discussion. Regarding your WP:HUMAN reference, your position is not very convincing, mostly because your current identity 177.189.46.5 has no edits in the Dictatorship of the proletariat article itself, just here in the talk page. You are very sensitive about some edits done by some other IPs, some of them which were authored by yourself under a different IP, and at the same time you deny authorship of some of them, some done under an IP identity or a logged-in account, even though they are identical in their content. Hopefully you now understand why people are rather confused by your position. And about the unscientific nature of marxism it's again not my own oppinion, but Karl Popper and Leszek Kolakowski, both respected experts on that matter. Kravietz (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it has never been demonstrated. Every single edit whose presence I care about is duly and properly sourced so assertions of WP:OR are senseless.

" your position is not very convincing, mostly because your current identity 177.189.46.5 has no edits in the Dictatorship of the proletariat article itself, just here in the talk page."

Ever heard of a dynamic IP?

"and at the same time you deny authorship of some of them, some done under an IP identity or a logged-in account, even though they are identical in their content."

I deny authorship of the edits made by logged in accounts. The IP-authored edits in current consideration have been made by me, but as I said, I haven't written a single word of their text.

"even though they are identical in their content"

Like I said. Reverting article to last good version before ideological sanitization.

"And about the unscientific nature of marxism "

You didn't say it was "unscientific". You said it was "religious". Very different assertion, very different burden of proof. That you called it religious, however, called into question your ability to even recognize what NPOV is in this issue.177.139.29.8 (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Kolakowski in Main Currents of Marxism specifically compared marxism to a religion, so no issue here. . Kravietz (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why this an original research? Consider section "Proletarian government", for example. It is completely written by a wikipdia participant without using any secondary sources. This participant wrote whatever he wanted and quoted primary writings by Lenin as he thinks Lenin should be quoted. No, the reliable published secondary sources used very different quotations from Lenin on this subject. This whole section should be either removed or rewritten per policy. Same with many other sections. My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The dictatorship of the proletariat (DOTP) is a Marxist concept which belongs to theory. Therefore the lead has to explain the conception of the DOTP theoretically. In theory it is a "It is a democratic state where the whole of the public authority is elected and recallable under the basis of universal suffrage"; this is true according to reliable sources which examined Marx and Engels' viewpoints in the matter -- sources which are cited and which have been tried to eliminated by other editors through tagteaming and edit warring. For example, Kravietz gave up debating me on the issue and then started edit warring to get his version through. Later others joined. I was the only one who had debated the issue (on Kravietz's talk page) -- everyone else simply reverted. That exposes the illegitimate behaviour of the other editors here.

The sections "Banning of opposition parties and factions", "Stalinism and 'dictatorship'" and "Post-Stalin" should be removed as-is. They are only a copy-paste of Russian history; in none of the sentences contained in these sections it is explained how these actions were related to the DOTP. Nor do any of the sources say that such actions were done because of the concept of DOTP. Therefore it is only an original research attempt to stain the name of DOTP. They should either be removed or information should be added on how such actions are considered a follow-up of DOTP idea by historians.

In any case the lead must explain what the concept "DOTP" means in Marxist theory -- which others here have tried to purge, for ideological reasons (anyone who knows the Wikipedia history of these illegitimate editors knows their political bias and their tagteaming/editwarring in all articles), despite the fact that reliable sources state the contrary. Zozs (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment, I came here by accident … … at present the lead 'The dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic, and cannot take the form of single-party rule. Research into the origin of the term has shown that it was never intended to mean a dictatorship — as the term is currently understood — in any way, and that it was always conceived of as a democratic society' , is pure doublespeak, it makes no attempt to make clear what Marx's intended meaning WAS, (in what sense dictatorship, in what sense democratic) nor that this was HIS meaning (subsequently interpreted variously). While I am not competent to weigh later use/interpretation, the general tone of discussion above is rather as though only the original Athenians should be allowed in an article on Democracy. This is patently absurd, any political/social concept has a history of use and interpretation in addition to its original coinage.Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, this is completely misleading. "Democracy" in contemporary sources means respecting human rights and minorities. Marx meant exactly the opposite: a violent oppression (hence the "dictatorship") of minorities by the alleged "majority" of working class. His prototype example, the Paris Commune was full of violence/dictatorship. I am not even sure if Marx used word "democracy", rather than "bourgeois democracy". My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a problem here is that the terms dictator and democracy have different meanings and connotations today than they did in 1848. Also, there was no Communist Party or even a concept of one. TFD (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Four Deuces, if that is correct, then obviously the reader wishes to understand what the meaning WAS, not to have it shoe-horned into an inherently subjective evaluation that the term was 'democratic really', which is questionable given our modern understanding of 'democratic'. Modern understanding usually includes protection of minority views and free expression, as well as the implementation of majority wishes and interests. Pincrete (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC) … … ps I'm no expert, but I suspect that the actual words have not changed much in their meaning (dictatorship perhaps having become more odious and democratic having a more inclusive meaning), and that the term always had a particular (and counter intuitive?), meaning.Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Which of two versions of lede and Proletarian Government?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is that the proposed version should be used. The consensus was clear with really only one editor opposing. AlbinoFerret 17:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Which of two versions of the lede section and the Proletarian Government subsection within the Lenin section of the article should be used? The two versions are listed below as #Proposed version and #Current version. Provide your opinions in the Survey. Do not edit the two draft versions. Threaded discussion may take place in the Threaded Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Obviously, not the lede written first just below. Telling that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic, and cannot take the form of single-party rule" is nonsense and WP:OR. It took in fact the form of the single party rule, for example in the Soviet Union. Soviet CPSU officially decided that "the dictatorship of the proletariat" does not longer apply only in 1961. Was it democratic? Yes, the original ideas by Marx have evolved into something partly different on practice. So what? This should be simply described on this page per sources. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

How is it OR when it is based on reliable independent sources? What is OR is you claiming that "it can take the form of single-party rule". Just because Soviet officials claimed that the USSR was a "dictatorship of the proletariat" pre-1961, doesn't mean that reliable sources consider that a possible genu9ine variation of DOTP concept. Zozs (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I support the "proposed version" (by Kravietz below) or the older version (restored here) as a starting point for further improvements. Obviously, these versions have some shortcomings that must be fixed, but they are not as terrible as version by Sozs below. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I prefer the current version for the reasons I stated extensively on the talk page and dispute resolution. Zozs (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• I propose the version proposed below, which can then be further improved in normal mode. @Robert McClenon: may we ask for some kind of action? Zozs apparently left the discussion and majority of the editors support any version other than the current one. Kravietz (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - First, this RFC will normally run for 30 days, and I see no reason to close it prematurely. Second, the article should now have been unlocked, so that you can edit to restore the previous version, but be careful to discuss your edits on the talk page and not to edit-war, or the article may be locked again. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I have given enough counter-arguments and they were never refuted (they were replied to, and I'm sure Kravietz will consider them "refuted", but between what I consider and what Kravietz considers there is quite a bit of a difference). I have no need to give more counter-arguments until some strong arguments are presented. Zozs (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Proposed version for the lede as it's clearly more neutral and non-weaselly. The current version is full of apologetic OR and is frankly, a joke.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Restore the WP:Reliably sourced material deleted without consensus by Zozs and alleged-sockpuppet IPs, whether by reversion or by reintroduction through proposed version. It's clear no one supports the current version but Zozs. Total WP:BOLLOCKS like "the dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic", no matter who added it, cannot stand in this article. The proposed wording has copyediting issues, e.g "Both Marx and Engels have been giving the short-lived Paris Commune". Huh? If WP:CIVILPOV editwarring continues, use WP:ANI, then ultimately WP:RFARB. The whole communism/socialism sphere is one of the most obvious loci of endless dispute, mostly generated by WP:NOTHERE PoV-pushing activists (both far-left and far-right), and WP:ACDS would do it a world of good, encouraging more everyday editors to work on these pages more if they're not drowning in interminable flamewarring.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

No material has been deleted since January 2015, and you'd know this if you'd actually bothered understanding this situation instead of throwing your opinion around as fast as possible. You're good at accusing others of POV pushing, but what proof do we have that the above comment wasn't motivated by your political biases? Note: knowing how to throw a lot of WP: abbreviations doesn't make you anywhere near remotely correct. Zozs (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support the one labeled below as "Proposed version" - definitely superior, other is quite ridiculous.--Staberinde (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous argument. Zozs (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I can only repeat what I have already written in the section Talk:Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat#Proposed_content_changes above. I have commented on precisely this disputed version as pasted below. Please note that large part of my arguments were about the content removed by Zozs without a word of explanation. The content he removed is not presented below, so we're asked to debate on a version that is already extremely biased. Kravietz (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to add on the above: English is not my native language so this can be perhaps significantly improved in style, but I would propose the lead to looks something like the following:

Dictatorship of the proletariat is a Marxist concept of transitional period following the proletarian revolution during which the working class executes full power over other classes, suppressing the bourgeois class and indendedly transitioning into a classless society. The concept was further developed by Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky into a political system of early Soviet Union.

• @Robert McClenon: I don't think the debating here brings any added value and brings us closer to conflit resolution. This dispute is not over some editors rejecting one user' additions to the article, it's about one user categorically rejecting any content from the article that is not coming from his own sources. The previous version of the article was reliably sourced already. No one questioned Zozs' added content, what was disputed were his huge removals of already sourced content. Now we are asked to debate over Zozs' version, trying to convince someone (who?) if and why possibly some other sources might have been added to the article, but no one is asking why such large parts of already sourced contents were removed from the article in the first place? I fully support the suggestion raised by My very best wishes that we should be debating the previous version of the article, and I bet no one minds Zozs adding his sources to that version. Right now we are endlessly repeating our arguments, Zozs endlessly disagrees based on his personal feelings on Marxims and there's no progress. Kravietz (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss here, where do you want to discuss? RFC is the only binding way to resolve a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my statement: what I said is that we should be debating the previous version of the article, not the current one that has been severely broken by edit war. People have given very specific arguments with citations on this talk page, then repeated that in dispute resolution page and are now asked to repeat all that for the third time on the same talk page. Kravietz (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not where, but what we would like to discuss. This article has a number of problems, including OR in the body of page, not only the intro. These problems can be easily fixed. As always, we are wasting our time because the problem is not the content. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say that the problem is not in the content? If you mean that the problem is with the conduct of an editor, I came here from the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is for the discussion of content, not conduct. If you think that there is a conduct issue, you may take it to WP:ANI, but sometimes getting content issues resolved clears up conduct issues. Anyway, if you are saying that there is original research, that is a content issue unless it is disruptive or tendentious. If there are any other content issues, we can also publish another RFC about them. I would prefer to use one or more RFCs, which are binding, rather than have an unproductive debate at WP:ANI. What are you saying? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I am only telling this is not a productive discussion, as often happens on-wiki, a typical "too long - did not read". I can quickly fix the page if and when it will be unprotected, however spending any more time here for talking will be definitely a waste of time, because one of the contributors will never agree with others. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The only two things that I removed from the lead are 1) the sentence "According to Marxist theory, the existence of any government implies the dictatorship of a social class over another." (it was primarily sourced; should use an independent source rather than Lenin) and 2) a paragraph that I myself had added earlier but that I later realized did not belong to the lead. Nothing else is removed. Zozs (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's true that I was removing large sections of content (not legitimate content as I explained) before, but not in the lead (most or all of the "Lenin" section), but I continued getting reverted even after stopping removing that in my later edits. Whether the Lenin section should be removed or not is not being debated here; only whether this lead is to be used, from which I removed practically nothing. Zozs (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Problems with proposed version:

"The precise character of this proposed "dictatorship of the proletariat" is controversial, because Marx and Engels, while discussing the topic from philosophical point of view, did not leave too much details on the political shape of the transition period."

Original research. Needs sourcing or should be removed. Zozs (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"Some marxists believe that the "dictatorship" was intended to be inherently democratic and merely meant a system of rule of the working class, as opposed to the liberal democracy which marxists considered to be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."

To state that "some Marxists believe" is original research because what the sources say is that the DOTP is inherently democratic, not that "some Marxists" believe it. A lot of independent sources which state the same thing can be found, not necessarily coming from Marxists but just from historians, etc. Zozs (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

One source states that it's "inherently democratic", another source states it's not. Thus formulating this is as "according to source X" and "sources X, Y, Z believe" is part of WP:NPOV. You can't selectively choose just one source you like and make it the only "objective" one, ignoring the others. Kravietz (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So then use the wording "Theorists" (theorists in general, not Marxists), "differ on the conception of DOTP. While some believe that X, others claim that Y." This isn't down to "Some Marxists believe." Zozs (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with this wording and fixed the proposed version accordingly. I will just keep that in separate sentences for simplicity. Kravietz (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Nikolai Bukharin and other Bolshevik leaders, on the other hand, interpreted the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat in a way that stipulated abolition of the democratic institutions (such as free elections or opposition parties) and redefine the democracy as a simple "rule of majority""

This is original research and false. Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not interpret the concept in that way. Rather, they explained that the dictatorship of the proletariat constitutes a kind of democracy and that it involves free elections. The "workers' councils system" which actually operated in a democratic fashion for a few months or more was promoted by Lenin as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" involving free elections and the free operation of political parties. To Lenin, the dictatorship of the proletariat meant the creation of NEW democratic institutions, which he argued were more democratic than those in bourgeois democracy, such as the ones that became the backbone of the "workers' councils system". It was only later that political parties started getting banned, and these actions were not justified by the "dictatorship of the proletariat", rater they were justified by stuff such as "that party was calling for the overthrow of the government", etc. There is no independent, reliable source that claims that "Lenin [...] interpreted the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat in a way that stipulated abolition of the democratic institutions". While Lenin's actions may have violated democracy, this has nothing to do with theory nor the concept of DOTP because in theory he still recognized the DOTP as a fundamentally democratic system. Zozs (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is properly sourced by Main Currents of Marxism, confirmed by the book linked by My very best wishes and the primary sources are just to confirm that. Kravietz (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in State and Revolution was democratic in the classical sense. Your lengthy interpretation of Lenin's ideas is pure speculation and wishful thinking, commongly known as WP:OR. Wikipedia cannot adopt points of view of its subjects as its own, so what Lenin considered to be "more democratic" is irrelevant here — it may be objectively reported, but cannot be presented as objective fact, especially if it contradicts the classical definition of democracy. Kravietz (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What is WP:OR is you taking a random out of context quote from Lenin and using it to source "Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders interpreted the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat in a way that stipulated abolition of the democratic institutions". Primary sourcing is, in any case, invalid. Which reliable, independent, non-primary sources backs up what you wrote there? Zozs (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Same as above. All current statements are now sourced both by primary and secondary sources. No matter how you twist Bolshevik interpretations, you can't say they have anything to do with democracy. Kravietz (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Lenin in State and Revolution commented on Marx and Engels writings as a "panegyric on violent revolution", deriving from them a proposal for the dictatorship of the proletariat being a "special coercive force for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat".[5] Bukharin believed that rule of a single, fractionless party is a key requirement for dictatorship of the proletariat.[6]"

This is original research based on primary sourcing, picking certain quotes without their context. "The suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat" does not necessarily did not mean any special measures to Lenin, but is simply analogous to "the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie". For example, in the DOTP, Lenin argued, access to printing work would be accorded to all public groups of a certain size, rather than be assigned according to who has the most money. To Lenin this was part of the measures of "suppression" of the bourgeoisie, because they would not have any more freedom of speech than anyone else, in other words they would have the same freedom of speech the proletariat has in bourgeois society. This is not necessarily 'undemocratic'. Furthermore, it was only after the Civil War started (which was relatively quickly) that Lenin argued for the banning of parties and newspapers that supported the other side, which is common in wars. Even if Lenin's actions did not live up to his democratic talk, the assertion that Lenin regarded the "DOTP" to constitute an undemocratic or suppressive entity is entirely false. Which reliable sources argue this? Zozs (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It did mean very specific measures to Bolsheviks which is now confirmed by the sources. Kravietz (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, the disputed paragraph is sourced by primary and secondary sources. Your interpretation is not sourced by anything. Kravietz (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Which source has argued that the exact out-of-context quote "special coercive force for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat" is relevant as a quote that establishes a disparity between Lenin's conception of the DOTP and the concept of democracy? None, you just selected the quote because it fits your view. To understand what Lenin meant here with the right conclusions requires reading the quote in its original context, which goes to the fundamental principles established in "State and the Revolution", not merely the same paragraph. For example, Lenin also stated that every single state is a "special coercive force". For him to state that the DOTP is a "special coercive force" does not, then, entail a state that is necessarily any less democratic than a state in general. You select out-of-context quotes, which are not highlighted by reliable sources, in an original research manner in an attempt to promote your interpretation. Zozs (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, Kolakowski's opinion is overrepresented in the end. If he forms the majority scholarly view, then his opinion should just be asserted as true while citing several persons included Kolakowski. IF he forms aminority view, then it should be presented as "a group of scholars believe that...", not citing Kolakowski specifically. Zozs (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here is a typical book that discusses DOTP in relation to real politics. One could simply use it (pages 15,16). Nothing complicated. It tells it was a very practical concept. It explains how and why the Soviet CPSU officially stopped using this policy in 1961. As correctly noted in this book, the only contribution by Stalin to the concept of DOTP was well known "Aggravation of class struggle under socialism", and so on, and so. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed version

[Lead section]

Dictatorship of the proletariat is a Marxist concept of transitional period following the proletarian revolution during which the working class executes full power over other classes, suppressing the bourgeois class and intendedly transitioning into a classless society. The concept was further developed by Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky into a political system of early Soviet Union.

The term was originally coined by Joseph Weydemeyer and later used by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels on a number of occassions since 1850, for example in the Critique of the Gotha Program of 1875.

Both Marx and Engels have been giving the short-lived Paris Commune, which ran the French capital for over two months before being repressed, was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat but the precise character of this proposed "dictatorship of the proletariat" is controversial, because Marx and Engels, while discussing the topic from philosophical point of view, did not leave too much details on the political shape of the transition period. As result, political theorists significantly differ on how the institution should actually look like and how it should be implemented.

Some marxists believe that the "dictatorship" was intended to be inherently democratic and merely meant a system of rule of the working class, as opposed to the liberal democracy which marxists considered to be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Nikolai Bukharin and other Bolshevik leaders, on the other hand, interpreted the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat in a way that stipulated abolition of the democratic institutions (such as free elections or opposition parties). Lenin in State and Revolution commented on Marx and Engels writings as a "panegyric on violent revolution", deriving from them a proposal for the dictatorship of the proletariat being a "special coercive force for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat". Bukharin believed that rule of a single, fractionless party is a key requirement for dictatorship of the proletariat.

Because Marx and Engels believed that both proletarian revolution and later classless society are inevitable consequences of the "laws" of historical materialism and opposed the evolutionary approach of social democrats, Leszek Kolakowski in Main Currents of Marxism believes that while it might be not Marx's intention to remove democratic institutions, but the "logic of the doctrine" definitely encouraged such interpretation and "leninist-stalinist version of marxism is indeed a version, an attempt to practically apply an idea, which Marx had expressed in a philosophical form, lacking any detailed guidelines of political interpretation".

[...]

Proletarian government

Lenin argued that in an underdeveloped country such as Russia, the capitalist class would remain a threat even after a successful socialist revolution. As a result, he advocated the repression of those elements of the capitalist class that took up arms against the new soviet government, writing that as long as classes existed, a state would need to exist to exercise the democratic rule of one class (in his view, the working class) over the other (the capitalist class).

The use of violence, terror and single-party rule was criticised by Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg and Mikhail Bakunin. In response Lenin accused Kautsky of being a "renegade" and "liberal".

Soviet democracy granted voting rights to the majority of the populace who elected the local soviets, who elected the regional soviets, and so on until electing the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. Capitalists were disenfranchised in the Russian soviet model. However, according to Lenin, in a developed country it would be possible to dispense with the disenfranchisement of capitalists within the democratic proletarian dictatorship; as the proletariat would be guaranteed of an overwhelming majority. [Notes on Plenkhanov's Second Draft Programme. Lenin Collected Works. Vol. 6, p. 51]

....Dictatorship does not necessarily mean the abolition of democracy for the class that exercises the dictatorship over other classes; but it does mean the abolition of democracy (or very material restriction, which is also a form of abolition) of democracy for the class over which, or against which, the dictatorship is exercised.

—  Vladimir Lenin

Current version

[Lead section]

In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a state in which the proletariat (the workers) has control of political power, which must be understood within the context of historical materialism. The term, coined by Joseph Weydemeyer, was adopted by the founders of Marxism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in the 19th century. In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is what exists between capitalism and communism. It is a democratic state where the whole of the public authority is elected and recallable under the basis of universal suffrage; it is the defeat of the bourgeois state, but not yet of the capitalist mode of production, and at the same time the only element which places into the realm of possibility moving on from this mode of production.

Both Marx and Engels argued that the short-lived Paris Commune, which ran the French capital for over two months before being repressed, was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic, and cannot take the form of single-party rule. Research into the origin of the term has shown that it was never intended to mean a dictatorship — as the term is currently understood — in any way, and that it was always conceived of as a democratic society. The view of modern Marxists critical of the Soviet Union-style states is that they did not form in any way a practical application of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but rather were not dictatorships of the proletariat at all.

[...]

Proletarian government

Lenin argued that in an underdeveloped country such as Russia, the capitalist class would remain a threat even after a successful socialist revolution. As a result, he advocated the repression of those elements of the capitalist class that took up arms against the new soviet government, writing that as long as classes existed, a state would need to exist to exercise the democratic rule of one class (in his view, the working class) over the other (the capitalist class).

The use of violence, terror and rule of single communist party was criticised by Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg and Mikhail Bakunin. In response Lenin accused Kautsky of being a "renegade" and "liberal" and these socialist movements that did not support the Bolshevik party line were condemned by the Communist International and called social fascism.

No Dictatorship in developed countries

Soviet democracy granted voting rights to the majority of the populace who elected the local soviets, who elected the regional soviets, and so on until electing the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. Capitalists were disenfranchised in the Russian soviet model. However, according to Lenin, in a developed country it would be possible to dispense with the disenfranchisement of capitalists within the democratic proletarian dictatorship; as the proletariat would be guaranteed of an overwhelming majority. [Notes on Plenkhanov's Second Draft Programme. Lenin Collected Works. Vol. 6, p. 51]

The Bolsheviks in 1917–1924 did not claim to have achieved a communist society; in contrast the preamble to the 1977 Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the "Brezhnev Constitution"), stated that the 1917 Revolution established the dictatorship of the proletariat as "a society of true democracy", and that "the supreme goal of the Soviet state is the building of a classless, communist society in which there will be public, communist self-government." [18]

....Dictatorship does not necessarily mean the abolition of democracy for the class that exercises the dictatorship over other classes; but it does mean the abolition of democracy (or very material restriction, which is also a form of abolition) of democracy for the class over which, or against which, the dictatorship is exercised.

—  Vladimir Lenin

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Dictatorship is "selfish and irresponsible" etc?

Perhaps it is the popular view, but here is nothing inherently selfish or irresponsible, etc, about a dictatorship. A good dictator can be an extremely effective form of government. Why are we comparing dictatorship of the proletariat to what people perceive a dictatorship to be rather than what it actually is? Seems like apples and oranges. Sure, most dictatorships end up poorly, but it's not a given, and if you're going to be comparing the popular notion about one form of government, it should be to the popular notion about the other one, not the actual definition of the system. People perceive dictatorships as selfish, irresponsible, etc, whilst they might tend to perceive a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as the majority oppressing the minority, although that may not be fully true. AnnaGoFast (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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.

Perhaps you should have given better argument and reference for this view. People unfamiliar with deeper historical discussion and familiar only with Lenin and other Bolshevik justification of the repression would be automatically biased (see the Kronstadt Revolt entry here too). This is discussed in detail in Neil Harding's two volume book "Lenin's Political Thought" I reference in the note on the Paris Commune, above. You might also check Ida Mett's "The Kronstadt Commune", Ante Ciliga "The Kronstadt Revolt" (1938) <https://www.marxists.org/archive/ciliga/1938/kronstadt.htm>, Scott Zenkatsu Parker's "The Truth of the Kronstadt Revolt" (1968) <https://libcom.org/book/export/html/17520L and <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mhuey/HOME.html> Stephen Mikesell 15:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singing Coyote (talk • contribs)

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)

According to Hal Draper, "Incidentally, the ascription of the term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ to Blanqui is a myth industriously copied from book to book by marxologists eager to prove that Marx was a putschist “Blanquist,” but in fact all authorities on Blanqui’s life and works have (sometimes regretfully) announced that the term is not to be found there. More important, the concept of political power exercised by the democratic masses is basically alien to the Blanquist idea of Educational Dictatorship." Jeseph Weydemeyer published on Jan. 1, 1842 Stephen Mikesell 16:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singing Coyote (talk • contribs)

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)

Whether or not the communards read Marx, according to Neil Harding's well-documented two-volume work, Lenin's Political Thought, Marx, in his Civil War in France, took from the communards the commune as the vehicle of the proletariat's ascent to class power and thereby the dissolution of class altogether. Harding also described how Marx simultaneously abandoned the concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as an intermediate phase and never mentioned it again (Except the Goethe Programme in 1875, whereas I don't seem to see mention in Communist Manifesto. I suggest Harding's whole argument, not what I remember of it). By 1870-71 the state, particularly France and Prussia, had become an imperialist leviathan subordinated to finance capital, and no longer could it be taken over for progressive projects, either liberal democratic revolution or socialist revolution. Marx saw that, in the age of imperialism, any attempt to use the state would only lead to reaction and the subordination of the working class to finance capital (something demonstrated by subsequent experience). Instead, he saw the need to smash the state altogether by means of workers taking back the functions of the state in the form of the commune. In June 24, 1872 preface to the Communist Manifesto Marx acknowledged the need for such revision: "One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.'(See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association, 1871, where this point is further developed.)"

Engels later created confusion in a letter, as discussed by Harding, in which he said that if the bourgeoisie wants to see the dictatorship of the proletariat that so scares them, they merely need look at the Paris commune, seemingly to imply an equivolance between the two. Lenin himself followed the same trajectory of Marx of first conceiving the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as the means of revolution in 1905-6 but then abandoning it during the intermediate decade leading up to the October revolution. For about six months following the October Revolution his goal was rule by the communes, which he'd equated with the Soviets and encapsulated in the slogan "All Power to the Soviets." But due to the civil war and destruction of the working class, and the other difficulties faced in the months after the October Revolution, by mid-1918 Lenin perceived the commune as untenable and went back to the dictatorship of the proletariat allowed by the equivocation made by Engels. Subsequently, in the name of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat he quashed and dismantled all the oppositional elements both within the society and the party that could have countered the subsequent ascendance and centralization of the party. In the last years of his life when he tried to turn the direction of the party, reduce the bureaucracy and get rid of Stalin, it was already too late; the means to oppose those tendencies had been destroyed.

That equivocating letter by Engels and the switch it allowed for Lenin after the October Revolution has subsequently come to haunt most subsequent revolutionary movements and the structure and role that the communist party has played in them and their succeeding states, says Harding. In my mind the few examples of revolutionary struggle that have kept the spirit of the communards have included the workers committees, assemblies and councils in Brazil (undermined by reassertion of 'democracy' with the fall of the dictatorship), and the Zapatista struggle in Oaxaca, Mexico, at least as portrayed in sympathetic reports of them. Some anarchists grabbed onto the Zapatista as good example, with caveats, of anarchism, but reading Marx's Civil War in France the form of their struggle seems to come straight out of it.

Reference: Neil Harding. 2009. Lenin's Political Thought: Theory and Practice in the Democratic and Socialist Revolutions, vols. 1 & 2 (Haymarket Books, Chicago). This is available online at <https://redyouthnwa.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/lenins-political-thought-harding.pdf>. Note that whoever reproduced this particular electronic version messed up the order. After the 4th page of volume one, volume 2 begins with volume 1 only continuing to the end following volume 2. Engels letter and other all other references may be found in Harding. Stephen Mikesell 13:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singing Coyote (talk • contribs) Stephen Mikesell 14:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Stephen Mikesell 16:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Early, untitled thread

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)

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)

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

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)

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.

stalinism

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

Typo: Change “reccemonded” to “recommended” in the 2nd paragraph of the Frederick Engels section. Boaterhat (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done EN-Jungwon 12:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Dictatorship but not dictatorship

I have removed this passage which was obviously not true, especially after checking the referenced Lenin's work

The use of the term "dictatorship" does not refer to the Classical Roman concept of the dictatura (the governance of a state by a small group with no democratic process), but instead to the Marxist concept of dictatorship (that an entire societal class holds political and economic control, within a democratic system).

— See almost every major Marxist work, for example, V. I. LeninThe State And Revolution, 1917

Now here's what Lenin is saying about how the dictatorship should look like:

We have already said above, and shall show more fully later, that the theory of Marx and Engels of the inevitability of a violent revolution refers to the bourgeois state. The latter cannot be superseded by the proletarian state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) through the process of 'withering away", but, as a general rule, only through a violent revolution. The panegyric Engels sang in its honor, and which fully corresponds to Marx's repeated statements (see the concluding passages of The Poverty of Philosophy[5]and the Communist Manifesto,[6] with their proud and open proclamation of the inevitability of a violent revolution; see what Marx wrote nearly 30 years later, in criticizing the Gotha Programme of 1875,[7] when he mercilessly castigated the opportunist character of that programme) — this panegyric is by no means a mere “impulse”, a mere declamation or a polemical sally. The necessity of systematically imbuing the masses with this and precisely this view of violent revolution lies at the root of the entire theory of Marx and Engels. The betrayal of their theory by the now prevailing social-chauvinist and Kautskyite trends expresses itself strikingly in both these trends ignoring such propaganda and agitation.

— Chapter 1

And who holds power in the name of this class? Their self-appointed vanguard. If any of the workers don’t agree, they are obviously suffering from false consciousness, and can be ignored, or shot. As convenient.

Would add, Stalin liked the ‘withering away’ idea. His man Vyshinsky, wrote an essay on how this shows the need for the whole Stalin apparat of repression and terror. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:D45B:E09:8FDD:4002 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Left-wing dictatorship" and "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" are not the same.

There's a redirect from "Left-wing dictatorship" to this page even tho both terms are not the same. While the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is left-wing, not every left-wing dictatorship is Marxist, Marxist-Leninist or any variant of them. Juan Velasco Alvarado, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Muammar Gaddafi or Hugo Chávez are some examples of left-wing dictators that didn't followed Marxist-Leninist principles. Even in some cases they persecuted communists although they still supported left-leaning policies. I suggest to make another article for "Left-wing dictatorship" to contrast with this article. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)