|
Author
|
Message
|
|
Matthelme
|
|
 Posted:
14 Apr 2005 11:51 pm Post subject: Dictatorship of
the Proletariate over the pensentry
|
|
Excuse my ignorance on the issue but can someone tell
me what the rational for "The Dictatorship of the Proletariate over
the Pesentry was? What in essence did it mean?
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
15 Apr 2005 01:02 am Post subject:
|
|
What are you citing Matt?
Dave
|
|
|
kenellis
|
|
Posted:
15 Apr 2005 03:04 pm Post subject:
|
|
The long story of Petersen's attribution of a
'dictatorship of the proletariat over the peasants and middle classes' to
both Marx and Lenin is available at http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/partb.html -KE
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
15 Apr 2005 09:26 pm Post subject:
|
|
Ken also wrote:
As Marx himself has shown, there simply can be no
question about the meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat except
as a dictatorship over the big bourgeoisie, and absolutely not a
dictatorship over the peasantry or petty bourgeoisie. …
Dave writes:
What Ken meant to say, its that there can be no
question in his mind.
Petersen stated in his 1931 speech:
Throughout all the writings of Marx and Engels on
this subject (and the same holds true of the writings of Lenin, who in
industrially backward Russia largely faced the same situation generally
prevailing at the time of the Paris Commune), Marx and Engels reverted to
that three-fold obstacle to immediate and complete proletarian success.
The transition period to them was not only a prolonged one, but one
fraught with real dangers to the proletarian regime. Hence, their
repeated insistence (especially since the Paris Commune) on the
repressive features of the projected working class government, and their
emphasis on the necessity of undisputed working class rule which they
occasionally designated the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Because of
the significance attached to this phrase since the Russian Revolution I
want to emphasize here that the essence of this dictatorship (as
understood by Marx and Engels) was exercise of supreme power by the
proletariat, unconditional surrender of the capitalist class, with the
rubbish of parliament, constituent assembly and what not, consigned to
the museum of antiquities, as Engels put it. I shall return to the phrase
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" later.
And Petersen stated later in the speech:
I have already shown that the essence of
Proletarian Dictatorship, as understood by Marx and the great expounders
of Marxism, is supreme power by the working class, to the exclusion of
all capitalist and bourgeois elements, and with parliaments and
constituent assemblies utterly destroyed.
And further on in the speech:
The central principle (of Marxism) was, course, the
emancipation of the working class, i.e., the victory of the proletariat,
and the conditions were naturally such as were at hand. There is, in
itself, potent charm in the phrase "Proletarian Dictatorship."
Marx used it as the one best suited at the time to express his idea of
working class supreme power, stripped of the fetters of the capitalist
Political State, and a the better suited because it brought into contrast
the actual fact (though denied in theory) of capitalist economic
dictatorship.
And further into the speech:
. Likewise--the small bourgeois who is barely
hanging on to existence by the skin of his teeth. Lenin has described
this situation graphically in his biting criticism of his own domestic
brand of burlesque bolsheviks: "To defeat the great, centralized
bourgeoisie is a thousand times easier than to 'defeat' millions and
millions of small owners who in their daily, imperceptible, inconspicuous
but demoralizing activities achieve the very results desired by the
bourgeoisie, and restore the bourgeoisie." ("Left Wing
Communism, An Infantile Disorder.") Property interests are bound to
dominate the actions of such groups, and they must be convinced that it
is in their interest to support the proletarian revolution, or be
subjected to forcible repression in the interest of that revolution.
And further:
So important a factor is the presence of a
peasantry considered by Lenin, that he observes (in his refutation of
Kautsky's plea for "bourgeois democracy") that "if Kautsky
had still remembered it, he could not have denied the need for a
proletarian dictatorship in a country in which the small peasant producer
is predominant." ("The Proletarian Revolution.") The logic
of this statement is that in a country where this peasantry is
conspicuous by its complete absence, where, in short, the fact of
complete industrialization, even of agriculture, is so obvious as to
impress itself upon the dullest intellect-that in such a country there is
no need of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the contemporaneous
sense of continental Europe of 187 1 or Russia of 1917.
Dave writes:
The conclusion of the section of the Petersen
speech on Dictatorship of the Proletariat was to argue that there was no
need for the Dictatorship of the proletariat in the United States in
1931.
Dictatorship of the proletariat was described by
Petersen as the supreme power of the working class – in the 20th century (and beyond) US
in the view of Petersen and of DeLeonists in general, one the proletariats
overcomes its inertia and establishes a workers government based upon the
industries the only other class will have been defeated. NO need for the
workers to hold on to state power to prevent some other class from in
some manner thwarting the revolution.
Consider what Marx wrote in the Manifesto:
“Of all the classes
that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone
is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally
disappear in the face of Modern Industry;
the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle
class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant,
all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their
existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not
revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they
try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are
revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into
the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future
interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that
of the proletariat.”
Didn't Lenin agree with this? It certainly appears
that he did. Lenin placed this entire quote from Marx in an article
published in 1914 for the Great Russian Encyclopedia (complete English
edition, Martin Lawrence, ltd., 1931) on “The Teachings of Karl Marx” .
Lenin wrote:
The above quoted passage is an illustration of what
a complex network of social relationships and transitional stages between
one class and another, between the past and the future, Marx analyses in
order to arrive at the resultant of the whole historical development.
Dave comments:
And what was the Marxian position of the character
of the “dictatorship”
to the peasants?
In the same article Lenin wrote:.
If, finally, we wish to understand the attitude of
Marxian
Socialism towards the small peasantry, which will
continue
to exist in the period of the expropriation of the
expropriators
we must turn to a declaration by Engels expressing
Marx's views. In an article on "The Peasant
Problem in
France and Germany," which appeared in the
Neue Zeit,
he says:
Lenin quotes Engels:
when we are in possession of state power, we shall
not even think of
forcibly expropriating the small peasants
(regardless of whether with or without compensation), as we
shall have to do in the case of the big landowners.
Our task relative to the small peasant consists, in the
first place, in effecting a transition of his
private enterprise and private possession to cooperative ones,
not forcibly but by dint of example and the proffer
of social assistance for this purpose. And then, of
course, we shall have ample means of showing to the
small peasant prospective advantages that must be
obvious to him even today. (Fredrick Engels,
November 1894)
Dave observes:
Ken Ellis has made it a career to find something
nefarious in Petersen’s
speech, particularly in the section on dictatorship of
the proletariat I have read and reread Kens “book” on the subject and am
reminded of the numerology of Louis Farrakhan – round
and round it goes everything and anything can be substituted for anything
else. Twist it and wring it and out comes any conclusion wished for - all
without the burden of fact.
I have read the Petersen speech. I have read the “Ellis” book.
One of them is a damned shame. You pick which one.
signed Dave
|
|
|
kenellis
|
|
Posted:
15 Apr 2005 10:37 pm Post subject:
|
|
Dave obviously believes what Petersen wrote, but Matt
can think for himself, can compare Petersen's ideas to my critique of
Petersen, and can make up his own mind. In the Ken's Book topic, Matt can
probably detect that Dave is so wedded to Petersen's arguments that my
arguments are hardly ever addressed on their merits. Matt may be able to
think and argue more objectively, I hope. We will find out if and when
Matt enters the dialogue for real.
This 'dictatorship over the peasantry' topic will
not be used by me to address Dave's concerns. For now, I will contribute
to this 'dictatorship over the peasantry' topic mainly to respond to
Matt's (and other's) concerns.
Petersen invented a fictional 'proletarian
dictatorship over the peasantry' (which he incorrectly attributed to Marx
and Lenin) in order to be able to point to the relative absence of an
American peasantry, and to conclude from their relative absence that 'a
proletarian dictatorship (over the peasantry) would be superfluous in the
USA.' The quote from Lenin that Petersen used to justify the 'proletarian
dictatorship over the peasantry' was taken completely out of context. The
original context shows that the question before Lenin was whether
Kautsky's 'peasant dictatorship over the bourgeoisie' was more valid than
Lenin's 'proletarian dictatorship over the bourgeoisie'. The Lenin quote
was the only place in the entire works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin
containing a few words that a charlatan could manipulate into a
diabolical 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry', which is why
Petersen used those words. He wanted to steer American workers away from
the concept of proletarian dictatorship, and to steer them away from the
notion of workers using the state and existing political institutions.
-KE
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
15 Apr 2005 11:17 pm Post subject:
|
|
You see Matt? The peasants in Russia did not exist.
Arnold Petersen invented them in 1931. (I'll bet CPUSA will be surprised
to learn that!) Oh yes.
(On April 20, 2005 Dave adds this comment: upon
rereaading this statement I can see that my fingers were working faster
than my brain here. The logic here does not exist. I apologize for this
mistake. The rest of this post goes on to show that Lenin, Marx and
Engels did consider that the proletariet was the revolutionary class
above all others, including the peasants. And that Petersen certainly did
not invent this idea in 1931.)
If we follow Ken's logic - Marx did not write that
paragrapgh in the manifesto that Lenin quoted in 1914:
“Of all the classes
that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone
is a really revolutionary class. The other
classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the
proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class,
the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all
these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their
existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not
revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they
try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are
revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into
the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future
interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that
of the proletariat.”
If we follow Ken's logic Engels did not write in
1894 which Lenin quoted in 1914:
"when we are in possession of state power, we
shall not even think of
forcibly expropriating the small peasants
(regardless of whether with or without compensation), as we
shall have to do in the case of the big landowners.
Our task relative to the small peasant consists, in the
first place, in effecting a transition of his
private enterprise and private possession to cooperative ones,
not forcibly but by dint of example and the proffer
of social assistance for this purpose. And then, of
course, we shall have ample means of showing to the
small peasant prospective advantages that must be
obvious to him even today. (Fredrick Engels,
November 1894)
If we follow Ken's logic then Trotsky did not write
in 1928 that the term used by the Bolshevists: "Dictatorship of the
Proletariat and Peasants" in practice meant "dictatorship of
the proletariat that leads the peasant masses behind it", and that
this was a basic idea of "Marx and Lenin."
If we follow Ken's logic then Anoio Gramsci did not
write in 1921 of the peasant population in Russia:
"What is essential for the policies of the
working class in Russia is that the central mass of peasants, through
legislative provision, should achieve the results which the workers'
State proposes: i.e. should become the basis for the formation of
national savings which will serve to sustain the general apparatus of
production in the hands of the working class, allowing this apparatus not
just to maintain itself, but to develop. There does, however, exist this
4 or 5 per cent which develops beyond the limits foreseen by the
legislation of the workers' State. And in a country like Russia, where
the peasant masses represent a population of 100 million inhabitants, this
4 or 5 per cent becomes a social force - which can appear quite massive -
of 4 or 5 million inhabitants. But if the working class, which in Russia
today numbers at least 20 million inhabitants, retains its links to the
great mass of peasants, which numbers scores of millions, the figure
represented by the enemies of socialism is reduced to its just
proportions in the overall picture, and the relatively peaceful victory
of the socialist forces over the capitalist forces is ensured."
If anyone can bear to read it, they will learn that
the thing that Petersen wrote about that gained Ken's eternal emnity had
nothing to do with the peasants, it was because that Petersen essentially
said the the "middle class" in the US was or would soon be a
nullity as far as importance to the revolution goes. Well don't you know,
that touched Ken's middle class heart to the quick.
Stick around Matt. There is sure to be other
wonderful things that you'll learn.
signed Dave
|
|
|
cmiller2005
|
|
Posted:
25 May 2005 04:09 am Post subject: Still At It
|
|
My word! Ken Ellis still at it?
Let Petersen rest Ken! I am sure that if he had to
read through the endless pages of gibberish you pour out every day on
multiple forums he would apologize if for no other reason than to shut
you up and save bandwidth!
In fact, I'll apologize for him if that'll save
these fine folks from having to wade through this garbage!
To the fine folks on this forum:
Don't bother trying to converse with this guy,
you'll never get anywhere and only add to your misery. There is only one
rule to remember about Ken:
Ken is always right and he'll spout endless amounts
of incoherent gibberish to prove it!
|
|
|
kenellis
|
|
Posted:
25 May 2005 12:34 pm Post subject:
|
|
cmiller wrote: "endless pages of gibberish you
pour out every day on multiple forums" ...
If cmiller had any powers of observation, he'd have
noticed that I have finally come to understand the futility of spouting
pearls before swine, so I rarely contribute to political forums, and
don't even follow any except for this one and diogenes. -KE
|
|
|
cmiller2005
|
|
Posted:
25 May 2005 02:30 pm Post subject:
|
|
The only thing I can say about my "powers of
observation" is that I do not try to keep up with the forums you
post in and wouldn't want to. The only reason I noticed that you were now
a member of this one is because of the fact that your handiwork is so
painfully evident wherever you post, ie. the miles and miles of endless
and mind numbing ramblings with no discernible point and promoting your
constantly changing and confusing agenda.
If it is true that you post in only two it is
mainly because you have been booted from all the rest because of your
endless incoherent diatribes against a man who has long since passed from
this earth, a piece of literature that has long since been removed from
print, and an organization that you left of your own free will many years
ago.
As for "spouting pearls before swine",
even a pig could not digest the "pearls" you spout. But at
least you got one thing right, your so-called "pearls" do
indeed belong in a hog trough.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
25 May 2005 03:13 pm Post subject:
|
|
Pearls before swine. Pearls before swine. Ken Ellis.
Pearls before swine.
Swine just will not appreciate pearls.
We just will not appreciate what Ken writes.
Ellisonian logic dictates then that those who do
not appreciate what Ken writes, must of course be swine, and that what he
writes must be like pearls.
Such is the nature of Ellisonian logic - such is
the foundation of everything that he writes.
Dave
A hog will make a hell of a pet.
If you want you can teach the hog to smoke a
cigarette.
Of course it will take plenty of time,
But what's time to a hog!!!
(From Big River by Roger Miller)
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
25 May 2005 08:48 pm Post subject:
|
|
I would rather focus on some of the very good things
that Arnold Petersen contributed. For example, his pamphlet "Capital
and Labor" is a fabulous treatment of economics in plain English.
Also, I have always liked his pamphlet "Socialism - The World of Tomorrow"
for its optimistic description of the coming world of high technology,
leisure and prosperity.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
25 May 2005 10:43 pm Post subject:
|
|
Thank you for pointing them out Mike.
|
|
|
cmiller2005
|
|
Posted:
26 May 2005 03:22 am Post subject:
|
|
In my own peronsal opinon, Comrade Petersen was an
exellent author, and a very knowledgable SLP man. Many of his works are
still carried by the NYLN, and with good reason. He was an excellent
writer and he was able to get his point across in language that even the
most common working man could understand. Of course, some of his policies
as SLP National Secretary could be questioned, but that is in the past. A
past that Ken Ellis is extremely reluctant to let go of.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
26 May 2005 04:27 am Post subject:
|
|
I
think we need to start a collection of our favorite quotations from
Arnold Petersen. Anyone have more? Later on I'll compile them onto a
separate web page.
I'd like to start out with my own two favorites. I
copied them from his pamphlet Capital and Labor. Both
originally appeared in Weekly People editorials that he
wrote in 1938.
I think this is some of the best socialist
composition around. And it describes modern capitalism, in terms that are
not the least bit obsolete. If Petersen did, as Ken asserts, have faulty
ideas about the Russian peasants, I'm inclined to wonder, "So
what?!" That's moot. What Petersen said as quoted below is about
living topic.
___________________________________________
From the editorial "Capital",
Weekly People, Sept. 10, 1938
Stony-faced, hard-eyed gentlemen talk mysteriously about
about
the part capital plays in production, and about the rights of
capital which labor must respect! And what is this capital,
this mysterious force which is equal to, or placed above labor?
Stripped of all mysticisms, of all irrelevancies, it, as we have
seen, is nothing else than past and dead labor, in the shape of
instruments of production, etc. Machines, plants, etc.,
privately owned, constitute capital. And as all men know, these
machines were produced by labor, hence, as said, represent past
labor expended, or dead labor. Name the thing needed in social
production which labor has not previously supplied, or which it
does not supply from day to day! And the workers supply the
inventive genius, the managerial skill, the will and the power
which keep the productive mechanism in constant operation.
When present workers operate these machines, etc., it means,
then, that present and living labor is joined to past and dead
labor, and the result is the abundance of good things all around
us - solely, then, the product of labor, yet for the greater
part denied to labor.
If we remember these simple truths, the seeming mystery
surrounding capital disappears. If we only remember that
capital is simply a term given to the things labor produced in
the past, but which were stolen from labor, and used by the
thieves to extract more wealth from living labor, the
foolishness and dishonesty of those who prate about capital in
terms of a human being, and who demand rights for capital,
become patent.
___________________________________________
From the editorial "Labor Power and the Power
of Labor",
Weekly People, Oct. 29, 1938
The vast majority are people who work for a wage - if and
when
they find work. Having no possessions, the means of production
being held in private and exclusive ownership by the few (the
capitalists), these millions of propertiless persons (the wage
workers) must go to the owners and beg them for permission to
use the machines and plants of production in general.
The capitalist will, in effect, say to these workers, "We
own
this land, these mines, these oil wells, this machinery, etc.,
etc., but they are useless to us without labor, or labor power.
On the other hand, you have labor power, or ability to work at
some job or other, but that labor power is no use to you unless
you have access to the land and machines, etc., which we own,
but can't operate ourselves. Very well, we will make a deal
with you. If you will agree to work for us, and let us keep all
you produce, we will pay you back just enough to enable you to
live and raise a family. Experience demonstrates, and our
experts estimate, that in two hours you can produce what you
need to live and raise a family. We will allow you to keep for
yourself what you produce in those two hours of labor, provided
you will continue for six more hours, we to keep for ourselves
everything you produce in these additional six hours. We own,
and do no work, but we keep the bulk of what you produce. You
work, but own nothing; you produce all, but you keep just a small
fraction of the things you produce. Fair enough?"
Well, the toolless worker, himself and family starving, is not
likely to be much concerned about fairness at this juncture, and
so he is likely to say, in effect, "Very well, you own me
and my
life, because you own that whereon my life, and the lives of my
dear ones, depend. I have no choice but to accept your terms,
even if they do seem like the terms of highway robbers."
|
|
Go to
Administration Panel
Powered
by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB
Group
|