Question Everything

Based on posts made here

The state is not just a machine of oppression by one class by another. It is a means by which a small elite oppresses the majority. All attempts to implement a "dictatorship of the proletariat" inevitably results in the rule of a small bureaucratic elite, not the working class. This has been proven by history; 100% of all "workers' states" have done this. Workers' Councils (what the Soviets originally) were first advocated by Anarchists before they were created in Russia. This is acknowledged by many non-anarchist historians. See "The Soviets" by Oscar Anweiller - it's the definitive history of the Russian soviets and written by a non-anarchist historian. Dictatorship of the proletariat is incompatible with soviets, soviets are proletarian and dictatorship of the proletariat came from bourgeois revolutionaries (Jacobins like Babeuf). In Russia, trying to create a "dictatorship of the proletariat" based on the soviets caused the soviets to die. In Spring 1918 the workers & peasants attempted to recall the Bolsheviks, the Bolsheviks responded by disbanding soviets with opposition majorities. This led to party dictatorship, the "soviets" just rubber-stamped the decisions of the party. Putting the Soviets in state form killed them.

ALL states are instruments by which a minority oppresses the majority. Any attempt to create a state controlled by the majority will end up being a state controlled by a minority because all states are forms of minority rule. "Non-antagonistic" states are impossible. Just because Marxists CLAIM their state will be controlled by the majority does not mean it will be. George Bush says all sorts of fancy things about democracy too, but the structure of states insures that they are always forms of minority rule. This is proven by history - there have been hundreds of attempts to create states controlled by the majority but all have resulted in states controlled by a minority.

The "revolutionary" leadership that built most Marxist states consisted mainly of members of the intelligentsia, not former workers or peasants. Lenin, for example, was a lawyer and a minor noble. Theoretically former workers or peasants could become part of the bureaucratic ruling class. Once in power individual workers who've gained powerful positions within the state cease being workers and become bureaucrats, a new ruling class over the majority. All actual "workers' states" had corruption and an exploitative elite. High level party members lived in mansions while others lived in slums. Even Bolshevik leaders like Alexandra Kollontai admitted this.

In Marxist states the proletariat don't actually have power, the party/bureaucratic elite do. One can say the proletariat have power, but actual power is in the hands of a small elite. When the proletariat are being beaten with a stick they aren't much happier if you call it the "proletariat's stick."

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the Communist Party, that is why it is anti-proletarian. The party is a minority of the population and of the working class. The party itself is run by an even smaller minority, the leaders of the party. A tiny minority has decision making power, the rest just follow their orders. The state therefore isn't really controlled by the majority because it's this minority that holds power. When the politburo is making the decisions the proletariat is not. You can have the soviet (workers' councils) system or you can have the dictatorship of the "proletariat"/party but you cannot have both. The implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat led to the death of the Soviets.

Many statists confuse organization with the state. Society (not "the country" - countries should be abolished) should be organized by voluntary non-hierarchical associations such as soviets (workers' councils). The state should be smashed. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" really means dictatorship of the leaders of the communist party. You can find a long description of how anarchists would run society here.

Many societies have not had private ownership of the means of production yet they still had exploiters. Ancient Egypt, for example. Or Feudalism. The abolition of private property is not sufficient to abolish class.

The claim that all actual workers' states had corruption & a priviledged elite is admitted even by pro-Bolshevik sources. Let's take Russia. Alexandra Kollontai, who was the only senior Bolshevik Leader to support Lenin's April theses from the start, said in her pamphlet "The Workers' Opposition":

"so far the problems of hygiene, sanitation, improving conditions of labour in the shops - in other words, the betterment of the workers' lot has occupied the last place in our policy. ... To our shame, in the heart of the Republic, in Moscow itself, working people are still living in filthy, overcrowded and unhygienic quarters, one visit to which makes one think that there has been no revolution at all. We all know that the housing problem cannot be solved in a few months, even years, and that due to our poverty, its solution is faced with the serious difficulties. But the facts of ever-growing inequality between the privileged groups of the population in Soviet Russia and the rank and file workers ... breed and nourish the dissatisfaction. The rank and file worker sees how the Soviet official and the practical man lives and how he lives ... during the revolution, the life and health of the workers in the shops commanded the least attention ... "We could not attend to that; pray, there was the military front. '' And yet whenever it was necessary to make repairs in any of the houses occupied by the Soviet institutions, they were able to find both the materials and the labour."

This is supported by numerous first hand accounts from many political perspectives. To varying degrees this is true of all "workers' states." Official documents and records from these states openly state it - party members received extra rations, better housing and other priviledges over the rest of the population.

The bourgeoisie should be ABOLISHED, not oppressed. The means of production should be immediately expropriated, once this has been done the bourgeoisie cease to exist because they no longer own the means of production. Ex-bourgeoisie may still exist, but not bourgeoisie. If ex-bourgeoisie attempt to forcibly impose a counter-revolution then the workers should be armed and democratic militias formed to defeat them. Those who are willing to live in the new society, and not take up arms against it, should be made equal to everyone else, with no priviledges. They should not be made into a new underclass, that will only perpetuate class society.