Talk:Dictatorship of the proletariat: Difference between revisions

Socialism C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

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)

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)

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)

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))[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

172, you have without any explanation deleted the quotes used by Lenin. Please explain. Ultramarine 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Spare me your ad hominem, discuss the facts instead. Ultramarine 12:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the praise.Ultramarine 13:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sources are given for the statements. Give sources for your claims.Ultramarine 13:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good point. Added.Ultramarine 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"This page includes a lot of WP:OR"

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]