Originally posted by mir
But see turnoviseous, Richard is using different terminology and not describing the same thing. He says that during the dictatorship of the proletariat and after, the state is not needed while I say it is. I'm not trying to split anything up.
hmm, I havent noticed it. its my mistake then. Surely there is a state during dictatorhip of proletariat, how else could there be a dictatorhip of a certain class (proletariat in this case) without state?
First he indeed says:
They will never gain economic supremacy AS A CLASS. For as Engels pointed out in Anti-Duhring, the state as a state and the workers as a class wither away when the workers take control of the MoP.
This is clearly not correct. Engels said that the state begins to wither away, it does not wither away in a second after means of production are conquered by workers.
But then he says:
What we will have is a central administrative structure. Socialism comes after proletarian dictatorship. The dictatorship is the period of dispossessing the capitalist class.
I would say this is little confused. You canīt really have socialism on a pauper basis (backward development of the means of production).
I admit, it was my mistake. However it should still be noted that some people use terms dictatorship of proletariat instead of socialism (in leninist sense) and socialism for communism (classless society or the higher stage of communist society as defined by marx)
Logged
