Answers to a correspondent: Marx and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. (1946)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

A reader of the Socialist Standard (W.D.B., Cardiff) criticises the S.P.G.B.'s attitude to Dictatorship and to the problem of distribution immediately after the abolition of capitalism. On dictatorship he writes:—

"I find that the S.P.G.B. does not attempt to deal with Marx’s and Engels’ repeated references to the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (see Marx-Engels correspondence, pages 57, 337, 484, and 'Critique of the Gotha Programme' p. 28), nor does it attempt to reconcile this conception with its own conception of 'democracy.’ " 

Our critic, who says he has been a reader for two years, is correct to the extent that this question has not been dealt with during that period, but in earlier years it has been dealt with repeatedly. For example, it was dealt with in the following issues: June and September, 1932; December, 1936; August, 1937 and January, 1938.

Limitations of space prevent us from dealing with it again at length, but our position can be made sufficiently clear by the following points.

While we are opposed to the Communist Party's distortion of the term dictatorship of the proletariat, we are in agreement with Marx’s and Engels' view. Engels in his 1891 introduction to the German edition of "Civil War in France," wrote: —

"The German philistine has lately been thrown once again into wholesome paroxisms by the expression 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' Well, gentle sirs, would you like to know how this dictatorship looks? Then look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat."

(See translation published by the New York Labour News Co. in a pamphlet called "The Paris Commune.") 

The Commune was an instance of majority control based upon democratic elections. There was no suppression of newspapers or of the propaganda of the minority, and no denial of their right to vote. This is markedly different from the Communist Party dictatorship in Russia to-day, where opposition political parties and newspapers are forbidden. The Communist Party is the only political party that may nominate candidates. For what it is worth non-political organisations, trade unions, co-operatives, cultural Societies, etc., are allowed to nominate candidates under the Election Regulations, but the same regulations provide that the nominations have to be approved by the election commissions. (See "Regulations Governing Elections," published by Soviet News, 23rd October, 1945.) The Central Election Commission, which has the final decision if appeal is made against the rejection of nominees by lower commissions (see article 67), is appointed from above by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and of its membership of 15, five are from Communist organisations pnd five from trade unions. All, of course, are from officially approved bodies only.

Distribution immediately after the abolition of capitalism. 

Our critic’s second point is:—

"The S.P.G.B. totally ignores the passages in the 'Critique of Gotha Programme' wherein Marx states, 'What we have to deal with is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, 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 has emerged. Accordingly the individual producer receives back from society exactly what he gives to it. . . . He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such and such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common fund), and with this certificate he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as costs the same amount of labour.' "

Our critic goes on to quote from Marx's "Critique on the Gotha Programme" that passage in which Marx says that it will be later on, "in a higher phase of communist society," that society will inscribe on its banners, "From each according to his needs," and adds: "The contrast between Marx's views on the nature of Socialism (or Communism) and those expressed in the Socialist Standard is so glaring that I am quite unable to reconcile them.”

Again our critic is in error. The question which, according to him, the S.P.G.B. totally ignores, was dealt with fully in the issue for August, 1936, to which he and other interested readers are referred. The article dealt with Marx's views, the distortion of those views by the Communists, and their applicability under the altered conditions of to-day. 70 years after Marx wrote.

It is not clear from our critic’s letter exactly in what respects he thinks that the S.P.G.B.'s attitude on this point glaringly contrasts with the attitude of Marx. If he will be more explicit his criticism will be dealt with.

Ed. Comm.