What is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Proletarian Democracy, or a Worker’s State are the terms used to describe the form of the post-revolutionary Government. This paradigm is one of the most misused terms by Bourgeois Liberals o undermine worker revolutions because of the use of “Dictatorship”. Understandable of course considering that Liberals are at ideological war with the Left and Karl Marx did in a sense no anticipate the more rudimentary ways in which counter-revolutionaries would attack the concept of the worker’s state. But nevertheless, in more intellectual circles across the ideological divides, there is a very accurate understanding of what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is. Now to simplify it for everyone else.

Who are the Proletariat?

The proletariat are the working class. Who are the working class? Those who sell labour for a wage and own no means of production or capital. In the very simplest of terms, if you must work for a salary for sustenance, then you are the working class. This basically makes 95% of the world or more the Proletarian Class.

But… What About the Middle Class!?

The Middle Class, so to speak, is an artificial class as per pure Marxian postulates. This is not to say that they do not exist in the frame of Leftist thought. It means that newer theories address the concept of the Middle Class. However, it is important to understand why this class exists. The Middle Class didn’t exist as a class until after World War 2. There was literally only what we call the Labour Class and the Bourgeoisie till then – the bourgeoisie being the class that owns capital and hires the Labour class. 

The Middle Class is actually a creation of Social Democratic and Liberalist economic policies of the West. This is a simple matter of creating a divide in the Working Class. Worker Revolutions all over the world had forced Western Governments to raise wages in a graded fashion. Thus, some members of the Working Class prospered for their “intellectual labour”. This newly prosperous class became a walking advertisement for the Bourgeoisie to the Working Class of what rewards can accrue to those who are willing to remain under wage slavery – albeit by working harder. So, in summation, you may call yourself Middle Class but sadly, you are nothing more than a wage slave. You are in fact the more vulnerable one because you are neither protected by the labour movement nor by the Bourgeoisie.

But the Middle Classes are also a social class apart, aren’t they?

Social Class is a product of economic realities. Middle Classes are an expansive group in that sense who can comprise those with a conservative to progressive, an erudite to a luddite, and a religious to atheistic sensibility. If there is any differentiation that can be observed here, it is the differentiation of the Intellect – Knowledge. This is how Bourgeoisie play this game to divide the Classes further.

Knowledge is not a traditional “commodity.” Once created it passes from person to person and doesn’t diminish in value and in that sense completely antagonises Capitalism and the Free market. Thus, the Bourgeoisie and their hands in Government Commodify Knowledge. They ensure that the fundamental right to an equal and infinite education is price-restricted, thus class restricted and sometimes race-restricted. This is the reason why the Labour Class and Middle Class have become socially separate classes.

So that means the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as actually a Dictatorship of …. Us?

Exactly! Right now, every Non-Socialist country in the world is the opposite of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat…It is the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. And why is that? Because the way Parliamentary Democracy in Liberal Democracies and Social Democracies are structured, Democracy tends to allow the Bourgeoisie into power. Once they are in power, they make policies and subvert Government for their means and ends. This can be seen plainly and simply as this: Elections are fought by parties for the votes of the population, they theory being one man-one vote. However, parties need money to contest elections and spread and advertise themselves – the point where the advertisement is more of a personality contest than a statement of merit. This advertisement and propagation requires money and this lies with the Bourgeoisie. The Bourgeoisie thus will extract their pound of flesh in terms of policies once their party is elected.

But coming back to the basics, does this mean Socialist countries are not Democracies?

This is false and is Western anti-communist propaganda. The edifice of any Socialist country is a Democracy. The difference between Socialism and Parliamentary democracy is that the Bourgeoisie has been eliminated from Government and Economic power so it becomes truly one person one vote. It is thus the people who decide their fate ultimately and not the Bourgeoisie. The electoral process exists just as in any other democracy; however, there are multiple safeguards in place to ensure that power is never in the hands of one person, there is the right to recall, there State funding of electoral messages from candidates, etc. The electoral structures are different for different Socialist countries but the best would be the Cuban model to analyse.

So that is why the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the same as Proletarian Democracy?

Exactly, it is in fact the purest form of democracy.

But why are there only dictatorial figures in Socialist countries like Fidel, Stalin, Mao, Xi, Kim Jung Un?

There are multiple reasons for this. In the USSR, Stalin was unchallenged as an elected leader of the Soviets. This is mostly due to the fact that Stalin was an awe-inspiring figure in Russia and the father of the modern Russian state. In Cuba, the country has since its inception, been under a state of distress and constant threat from the US and counter-revolutionaries; therefore, the constant rallying behind its revolutionary leaders. North Korea, has a cult of personality around its leaders. China, post Mao, has subverted its own Revolution and undermined its own democratic principles. However, all said, internal party democracy is fundamental to the party of electing the leader to a full term. 

But let us also note here the various elected Communist Govts in the world as well. It is important to note here that whenever there has been a Socialist Revolution, the local and international Bourgeoisie do everything in their power from sanctions to all-out war to ensure that the Revolution is crushed. For that matter, they do this even when Communist Governments are democratically elected like in Chile, Kerala, Venezuela, etc.

So, a Proletarian Democracy sounds like the best model but if the Bourgeoisie are going to keep undermining it, what is the way forward?

This is exactly the problem that countries like Venezuela are grappling with, how to implement socialism without revolution? Or is social democracy the only sustainable model? But social democracy is not Socialism, it is still Capitalism and allowing the Bourgeoisie to exist and have a method to get into power. Countries like Venezuela should have switched to Revolutionary mode and oppressed their Capitalist class out of existence like the USSR and China did. At the end of the day, these two countries and Cuba present the best models. Revolution is the only way to bring in a Proletarian Democracy because the Bourgeoisie will not give up power unless it is staring at the barrel of a gun. Don’t think that that is brutal, the fact is that the Bourgeoisie do that every day to the Working Classes in a Bourgeois Democracy – that is what the Army and Police are for….to oppress the Working Classes and to protect the property of the rich.