dictatorship of proletariat?

It seems to me there is some confusion over "dictatorship of the 
proletariat" by both
those who are unfamiliar with Marxist writings, and those who are familiar. 
 I think
this is worth pursuing, as it relates to the point I'm trying to drive home 
about the
problems of "socialism in one country."

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" as we use the term today is essentially 
Lenin's
idea.   Marx used the term in 1850, but never defined it nor clearly 
spelled out what
he meant.  That has left Marxists to decipher it.  Mine's interpretation 
seems more
or less reasonable, though I would modify it slightly: Marx stated that the 
working
class as an organized group would, AFTER seizing world power (not state 
power) and
PRIOR to eliminating BOTH the capitalist and working classes, would exist in
contradiction with the still existing bourgeoisie.  The working class, 
being in power
and seeking to eliminate all classes -- including itself -- would in 
essence be a
temporary "dictatorship."   More specifically, Marx wrote:  "the class 
dictatorship
of the proletariat [is] a necessary intermediate point on the path towards 
the
abolition of class differences in general"  (The Class Struggle in France).

In so far as the working class is a majority of the world's population, this
dictatorship of the proletariat is seemingly a democratic (majority rules) 
one.  (Of
course this hinges on how one defines "working class" which is intimately 
tied to how
one defines capitalism, which has been an ongoing debate among Marxists, to 
which
I'll touch on below).

Anyhow, I think Marx recognized that majority control by workers was not 
true
democracy because the minority capitalist class would not be granted equal 
rights,
that is "bourgeois rights" as defined in capitalist democracies.  Hence 
working class
democratic control -- by the majority -- would by a kind of "dictatorship" 
until, and
so that, a classless society could be created.   One should recognize that 
there
would actually be greater rights and freedoms for the vast majority under 
this
"dictatorship of the proletariat" as Marx envisioned it.

But as developed by Lenin, the meaning of "dictatorship of the proletariat" 
was
expanded to "dictatorship of the proletariat AND peasants."  But if the 
"base" of the
masses was expanded to now include peasants, the goal was eventually 
narrowed.
Instead of "workers of the world unite" the Bolsheviks pursued "socialism 
in one
country" (workers of Russia unite) since the revolution in Germany never 
materialized
in his lifetime (or ours).  Moreover, Lenin's strategy was socialism in 
what we now
call a peripheral country, which is why he included the peasants.  This led 
to all
kinds of debates among Marxists over stages and revolutionary vs. 
reactionary
classes, pitting Lenin not only against Kautsky, but also against Rosa 
Luxembourg,
the latter arguing that the periphery could not yet have a socialist 
"revolution"
since the working class was not a majority in that state.   This 
disagreement boiled
over into "a raging contradiction at the very heart of Bolshevism" (see 
Corrigan,
Ramsay, Sayer, 1978).But the fact is, wage workers were not the majority of 
the
population even in Germany at that time (and they are not today the 
majority of the
world's working class, the latter defined as all workers engaged in 
production for
profit on a market dominated by large capitalists).

Anyhow, according to the Second International orthodoxy (still defended by 
people
like G.A. Cohen and Bill Warren) Russia would have to wait until much more 
of the
businesses in Russia were industrialized, had thus made peasants into a 
sizable
working class, and had gone through a "bourgeois revolution" to overthrow

Indeed, since debates raged among Marxists in Germany over whether a 
bourgeois
revolution had occurred or not, how could anyone even think of a socialist 
revolution
in Russia?  It was premature argued the German Marxists, including Rosa, 
for it was
necessary for nation-states to go through a number of preordained stages: 
feudalism,
capitalism, socialism, communism.  Orthodox Marxist theory had become a
straight-jacket for activists.

Lenin disagreed with them and Plekhanov by 1903, and, brilliantly rescuing 
the
Hegelian aspects of Marx's thought from the moribund economic determinism 
of the
Second International, he argued in "What is to be done" that Russia 
shouldn't wait,
that the contradictions were sufficient, that the Party could itself deliver
"revolutionary class consciousness" to a small working class.  (The latter 
itself a
problematic position -- does the working class need a bunch of 
intellectual-activists
to tell it what it needs anymore than the periphery needs the core to lead 
the way,
as someone has pointed out?  I don't think so. and eventually Lenin changed 
his
position).

But I remind readers that all these problems, including the now laughable 
notion of
stages, are founded on the strategy of "socialism in one country" -- that 
is of
taking nation-states rather than the entire capitalist world-system as the 
unit of
analysis and praxis.

Nonetheless, Lenin made important contributions to Marxism of his day.   
His analysis
of imperialism showed that while Russia was developing, it was also 
underdeveloping.

Thus, Lenin argued that Russia should not wait, but should struggle both 
against
imperialism and against the aggrandizement of the growing capitalist class, 
and that
the Party should lead the way to a dictatorship of the proletariat.   That 
is, since
the working class in Russia was quite small by comparison to Germany, and 
since it
was theorized that the kulaks and peasants were essentially reactionary 
(CONTRA
Marx -- see Shanin et. al), if the Party took power it would be a 
dictatorship of
proletariat meaning, in this case, rule by a minority over the majority 
(landlords
and peasants, kulaks, etc.)   (Michael Lowy has a brilliant article on this 
subject,
"From the 'logic' of Hegel to the Finland Station in Petrograd" Critique, 
6, 1976; so
does Antonio Carlo, in "Lenin and the Party" Telos 17).

Thus, for a classless society to develop from this situation, the ruling 
minority
working class would be required to actually enlarge the working class by 
turning
peasants in to state farm workers and drawing a number of them into the 
cities to
work in state run factories.   Industrialization was to have the additional 
goal,
which became the dominant goal, of "catching up" to the rich countries.

Of course, it should be kept in mind that Lenin moved away from his earlier 
position
of the domination of the revolutionary party by intellectuals.  He 
recognized that
the Party needed to be more representative of, if not completely led by, 
the workers.
As early as 1905 he asked, "the revolution will teach us and will teach the 
masses of
the people.  But the question that now confronts a militant political party 
is: shall
we be able to teach the revolution anything?"  At the Third Congress he 
called for a
complete and radical reorganization of the party to include "about eight 
workers on
our committees for every two intellectuals" (Krupskaya, 1907, in John 
Molyneux,
Marxism and The Party, 1978).  His proposal was defeated at the Congress by 
the
intellectuals of course.   In his "Our Tasks and the Soviet of Workers' 
Deputies" he
completely departs from his earlier position on the vanguard role of the 
Party,
arguing, "we do not shut ourselves off from the revolutionary people but 
submit to
their judgment every step and every decision we take.  We rely fully and 
solely on
the free initiative of the working masses themselves."

Alas, the circumstances and pressures both domestically and internationally 
of
pursing socialism in one country, of industrializing for self-defense and 
to catch up
to the core, led to Stalinism: the actual dictatorship (domination) of the 
party over
the masses.  Has it worked anywhere?  It hasn't.