The Paris Commune is a form of proletarian dictatorship.
Marx did not openly call the Paris Commune the dictatorship of the proletariat. Engels explicitly called the Paris Commune the dictatorship of the proletariat 189 1 for the first time in the introduction of Marx's French Civil War. Marx said in his letter to Weidemann 1852 and Critique of the Gotha Program 1875 on March 5th that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional period and a political tool for the transition. Marx also thinks that commune is a transitional phenomenon. This will help to realize that there is a close relationship between commune and proletarian dictatorship. Marx said: "Commune is a political form that can finally liberate labor economically." This means that the commune must also realize the liberation of the labor form that has never been liberated and realize the transition from capitalism to * * * productism. Only by eliminating the "class difference" will the political system end. Commune does not meet this condition.
When Marx stipulated in the Manifesto of the Productive Party that "all production tools should be concentrated in the hands of the state", he thought of a commune-like institution, although the mechanism or form of this institution was not clear before he gained the experience of the commune. The country that controls the centralized "all production tools" is just a "joint individual". Therefore, Marx's understanding of "concentration" in 1848 has a strong democratic meaning, which is no different from his description of commune in 187 1. Marx asserted that the revolution would enable the proletariat to win the "war of democracy".
Second, Marx did not imagine the dictatorship of the proletariat as a form of state, and commune and state are opposites.
Some theorists, including Lenin, admit that commune is a form of proletarian dictatorship for Marx and imagine proletarian dictatorship as a form of state. They believe that the dictatorship of the proletariat emerged as a centralized country. But the commune is definitely not a centralized country. Their views will be very misleading, especially because, as we now know, the state is a centralized bureaucratic tool. Of course, in the French civil war, Marx believed that "a few important functions that still need to be performed by the central government will not be abolished." But this does not mean to keep the central government itself, because Marx explained that these "functions" should be "realized by eliminating state power." What the commune wants to achieve is not any kind of political, economic or social transformation, but the transformation to a classless society. So, how can a bureaucratic centralized state model supervise this change?
The views of the above theorists are mainly based on the negative (or negative) component of dictatorship, that is, the repressive component. The dictatorship of the proletariat must contain elements of repression, but these elements should not turn socialist progress into bureaucracy. The use of organized class forces to suppress counter-revolutionaries cannot prove that the bureaucratic Stalinist state is reasonable, because this form of state is incompatible with the elements of capitalism in theory and structure.
For Marx, the commune is completely opposite to the state, and it is a "centralized, organized social master who steals government power, not a public servant". Marx believed that all the revolutions and reactionaries before the commune led to the oppression of the working class, because the oppressed state organs and tools were only "transferred from one oppressor group to another". The characteristic of commune is that "the object of this revolution is not any form of state power-orthodox, constitutional, harmonious or imperial", but "the country itself"
In the French civil war, Marx pointed out: "The working class can't simply master the ready-made state machine and use its organs all over the country to achieve their goals, that is, the standing army, the police station, the official hall and the court." This sentence should be understood in connection with Marx's above-mentioned argument against the state, but later many Marxists mistakenly understood this sentence as Marx expected the working class to establish its own country to oppose the bourgeois state, and to prove the rationality of the Soviet model country in the name of Marxism.
Marx did not ask for the establishment of a proletarian state, but for the complete elimination of the state. This is because the state is a "political tool" to enslave workers and "cannot be used as a political tool for workers' liberation". Commune can liberate them, because commune "is a society that takes back state power and turns it from the power of ruling and suppressing society into the vitality of society itself".
Marx and Engels' only supplement to the Manifesto of the Productive Party published after 187 1 is that the proletariat "cannot simply master the ready-made state machine". This does not mean that Marx's views on the dictatorship of the proletariat and the state have changed after the Paris Commune. As early as 1852, Marx thought that the centralized state machine should be broken. After the commune experience, Marx wrote in the letter 187 1 to Kugman: "If you read my 18th Fog Month, you will see that I think the next attempt of the French Revolution is not just to transfer the bureaucratic military machine from some people to others, but to break it." He didn't give up this view in his later years. 1875 Marx repeated his early anti-centralization theory in Critique of the Gotha Program: "Freedom lies in changing the state from an organ above society to an organ that completely obeys this society".
Third, the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be a bureaucratic system.
Since the country is broken, what else will die? Since the dictatorship of the proletariat began with a centralized state machine that broke bureaucracy, it will be the dictatorship of the proletariat itself that will perish. The dictatorship of the proletariat will last until "the economic foundation of class existence is destroyed", which means that during the socialist revolution, although the country was crushed, the capitalist economic "foundation" still exists and was later destroyed, which will be a long-term gradual process.
For Marx, the bureaucratic state machine must be abolished before the demise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. There are two reasons: 1. Bureaucracy is incompatible with the complete liberation of mankind, especially because bureaucracy will split the working class and depoliticize it; 2. Officials will become independent social and political forces and resist extinction.
Lenin asserted in 19 17: "Socialism was not established according to the above orders. It is completely incompatible with the bureaucratic mechanism in officialdom; Dynamic and creative socialism is founded by the people themselves. " (The Complete Works of Lenin, 2nd Edition, Volume 33, page 53) And Lenin declared in 19 18: "It is precisely for socialism that the masses are required to unconditionally obey the unified will of the leaders in the process of labor." (Selected Works of Lenin, 3rd Edition, Volume 3, page 50/kloc-0) The main idea in the latter narrative later developed into the Marxist theory that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a centralized bureaucratic state, which is unfair. The group interests and hierarchy of the bureaucratic state make the bureaucracy independent of society and function. Bureaucratic state only represents human liberation in the abstract sense and does not touch social inequality. Bureaucratic state is effective to realize the negative goal of proletarian dictatorship, but it is inappropriate to realize the positive goal of proletarian dictatorship in terms of system. Marx believes that only when people "realize and ensure that their power is social power, and no longer separate this social power from themselves as political power", can human liberation be fully realized. Bureaucratic state makes the separation of social power and political power permanent. The dictatorship of the proletariat must work as hard as the commune to oppose this separation. The most positive feature of commune is to make political power non-institutionalized, thus re-politicizing society. For Marx, the bureaucratic state is alienated, because it is "the intermediate stage between human freedom and human freedom" and because it causes "the opposition between mental labor and physical labor". Therefore, the goal of complete liberation of the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be achieved under the bureaucratic system.
The second reason why the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be a bureaucracy is that once the state bureaucracy is established, it will become an interest group, and its members will enjoy economic and power-related privileges. Bureaucrats not only resist extinction, but also use their power to put themselves in a stable position through various means. Moreover, in any form of economic system, bureaucracy, as a parasitic tumor, will find various reasons and support for its existence. For this reason, eliminating the economic base of capitalism will not necessarily make the bureaucracy disappear.
Unlike Marx, Lenin always insisted that the country must rely on a single social and economic class. So Lenin came to the conclusion that with the destruction of the bourgeoisie, the country will "die out on its own". This theoretical error led Lenin to advocate transforming Soviet (commune) into "state organization form". This policy has turned working-class organizations into bureaucracies subject to bureaucracy. 192 1 year, Lenin put forward the task of opposing bureaucracy at the tenth congress of the Russian Bolsheviks. His solution was to "promote workers from below" to leadership positions, but he did not abolish the bureaucracy. Lenin's proposal failed to grasp the key aspect of proletarian dictatorship. If it is assumed that the promotion of workers to government positions can eliminate bureaucracy, then it must be assumed that individual workers are born without bureaucracy. Some theorists believe that Marx also advocated this point. At that time, bakunin criticized Marx according to this viewpoint. Bakunin believed that once the workers in the past became the representatives or rulers of the people, they would no longer be workers, and they would begin to despise ordinary workers; They will not represent the people, but themselves, and claim the right to rule the people. But this is a misinterpretation of Marx. From Marx's account of the Paris Commune, we can see that it is not the good nature of workers but the structure of proletarian dictatorship that prevents elected or hired officials from becoming corrupt rulers.
As the form of bureaucracy, the state and the bureaucracy as the material content of the state will realize and protect each other. Therefore, the bureaucratic state is essentially anti-extinction. On the other hand, the task of proletarian dictatorship is to make the proletariat become the actual strength and material content of dictatorship. In this way, the proletariat has become the "ultimate goal" of proletarian dictatorship. This is the essential difference between bureaucracy and proletariat, so the bureaucratic state will not perish, and the dictatorship of proletariat will perish.
Bureaucrats' self-realization is their own preservation, while the proletariat's self-realization is their own elimination. Bureaucracy is its own purpose, and the proletariat is its own negation, because the politically dominant working class cannot preserve its conquered status. Therefore, bureaucrats will not let the political system, the source of their survival, die out, while the proletariat must let the political system die out. In this way, in order to avoid the dilemma of bureaucratic self-realization, the dictatorship of the proletariat is both non-state and anti-bureaucratic.
Fourth, the political form and function of proletarian dictatorship.
If the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a state, what kind of political form should it take?
The experience of the commune provided Marx with empirical materials to expound the means of proletarian dictatorship. Marx never thought that the dictatorship of the proletariat was opposed to democracy.
Many Marxists, except rosa luxemburg, mistakenly believe that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a special form of government, designed only to suppress resistance. Lenin summed it up as: "The scientific concept of dictatorship is nothing more than a regime that relies directly on violence without any restrictions and absolutely no laws and regulations." (The Complete Works of Lenin, 2nd Edition, Vol. 12, p. 289) In the French civil war, Marx believed that the dictatorship of the proletariat had a non-state, commune form. The legislature and the administrative organ are communes ruled by the working class, and the laws and regulations of communes are embodied and implemented by elected or hired civil servants, who have no actual power over citizens. They are no longer bureaucrats! For Marx, it is absurd to think that social functions cannot be exercised without centralized state; It is absurd to think that administration is a mysterious thing and an unattainable duty, which can only be entrusted to a well-trained special class, that is, national parasites, snobs with high salaries and idlers.
The first condition for mastering political power is to transform the state machine and destroy it as a tool of class rule. However, the struggle for complete liberation did not end there. Commune is only a "political form of social liberation", not a "social movement of the working class, so it is not a movement for the rejuvenation of all mankind, but only an organized means of action". Therefore, the commune "does not abolish class struggle". The working class is committed to the elimination of all classes. Working-class organizations, such as trade unions, federations and political parties, are not transformed into state-controlled organizations as Lenin suggested. On the contrary, they are the basic materials for transforming into the proletarian system. The role of proletarian dictatorship in human liberation is to provide "a reasonable environment so that class struggle can go through its different stages in the most reasonable and humane way". Commune "began the liberation of labor-its great goal is to prohibit unproductive activities and abuse of ethnic parasites ..."
The tools of repression and defense used by the dictatorship of the proletariat must also be appropriate. Marx's supplement to the announcement of the Central Committee on March 22 that a "national army for defending citizens" was established was: "People only need to organize such a national army nationwide." However, we should not confuse the concept of "national scale" organizations with centralized state institutions owned by a few bureaucrats and technocrats. Organizing the national army is enough to eradicate the danger of the standing army "this class rule that has always existed" arrogating government power. Obviously, Marx was worried that the government would "usurp class rule" and wanted to maintain repressive power in the form of a national army. But he didn't want to accurately define the forms of repressive means of proletarian rule, but just wanted to ensure that the proletariat directly controlled these means.
Two aspects must be made clear. First, the dictatorship of the proletariat includes repression, but the system design of dictatorship should be to prevent the government from "arrogating" power through the direct control of repression tools by the proletariat. Therefore, Marx suggested adopting the form of non-bureaucracy and national army.
Second, repression is not the norm. Marx predicted that once the commune was firmly established in the whole country, it would "probably" suffer from the "disaster" caused by the sporadic riots of slave owners. Although these riots will temporarily hinder the cause of peace and progress, they will only strengthen the social revolutionary forces and thus accelerate the development of the movement. The dictatorship of the proletariat only becomes a "dictatorship" when it "suppresses the resistance of the bourgeoisie to the revolution." In this sense, the "dictatorship" aspect of proletarian dictatorship cannot be ruled out. But in other respects, it is a normal "peaceful development process."
Five, the political role of the dictatorship of the proletariat in supervising the transition from economy to capitalism.
Without Marx's works, people's liberation is not involved, and any theory of proletarian dictatorship should not involve this issue. It is very important to know that the elimination of the bourgeoisie and state bureaucracy will not automatically lead to the liberation of mankind. From 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts to Das Kapital, Marx has always insisted that the labor process and labor organization may cause physical and mental harm to people's living conditions and freedom. Labor mechanism and labor organization can also play an independent role in labor slavery. These inventions within the scope of capitalism can also be used by other systems, as evidenced by the "capitalist system" of the Soviet Union. The dictatorship of the proletariat should give priority to correcting this situation. First, make the work tolerable, then enjoyable, and finally humanized.
From the Manifesto of the Productive Party and Critique of the Gotha Program, we can conclude some economic measures that can gradually realize human liberation: 1. Shorten the working day; 2. Meet the "social needs" in a planned way; 3. Increase social consumption; 4. Reduce administrative expenses at the same time; 5. Equal pay for equal work. These means are not the ultimate goal of proletarian dictatorship, and they are all possible under capitalism. The key point is that under the rule of the proletariat, these means are continuous, and they take the overall goal as the reference point, while under capitalism, they only appear as accidental and forced reactions.
Marx talked about the economic goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Critique of the Gotha Program, and clearly put forward the preconditions of capitalism in the third volume of Das Kapital. According to Marx's statement in the French civil war, once workers gain political power in the form of commune, "replacing the economic conditions of labor slavery with free and common working conditions can only be completed gradually with the progress of time." The economic transformation that can make the labor force free requires not only "changing distribution, but also new production organizations". "This innovative undertaking will be constantly resisted by various vested interests and class selfishness, so it will be delayed and obstructed." At present, the spontaneous action of natural laws of capital and real estate can only be replaced by the spontaneous action of social and economic laws of free joint labor after a long development process under new conditions. The transformation of Marx's imagined society to capitalism is very similar to the transformation from serfdom to capitalism. The dictatorship of the proletariat "does not abolish class struggle", that is to say, the socialist political society does not necessarily want to deprive the bourgeoisie and destroy the class. Commune only becomes the supervisor of social transformation. Just as the capitalist "state machine and parliamentary system are not the real life of the ruling class ... but the political guarantee, form and expression of the old order", the commune has become the political guarantee of the new order, not the "revival movement of all mankind" Although Marx expected to realize the complete liberation of labor through a long development process and "several different stages of class struggle", he claimed that "through the political organization form of commune, we can make great strides immediately". These quotations show that the dictatorship of the proletariat makes the political and economic fields under the direct rule of the proletariat through the "political organization form of the commune". At that time, unlike capitalism, there was no structural separation between these two power fields. Moreover, unlike the bureaucratic countries in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, these two fields are non-bureaucratic under the proletarian system.
Conclusion of intransitive verbs
Marx believes that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a political organization, not an "ordinary movement" of social liberation. The task of proletarian dictatorship is not to destroy classes, but to "ensure" the transition from capitalist society to classless society politically. For Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat can only be the complete "opposite" of centralized and authoritarian state machines. Bureaucratic self-realization and proletarian self-realization are two contradictory processes-the former needs self-affirmation and the latter needs self-denial, so proletarian dictatorship cannot be bureaucratic. The dictatorship of the proletariat must be coordinated with the overall goal of the proletariat in the system. It is not enough to maintain effective repression to protect the revolutionary achievements. Repression means must obey the positive and constructive means and functions advocated by the goal of building socialism. This fact limits the possible forms of proletarian dictatorship to non-bureaucratic and working-class direct political organizations. Therefore, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be based on the universal forms and principles of the Paris Commune.
Economically, the goal of the proletarian system is to make the society transition from the "inevitable" kingdom to the "free" kingdom. For Marx, the kingdom of "freedom" is more than just meeting material needs. People's ability to objectify their inner self in the external world is also needed, as is the ability to control the world with consciousness. Therefore, the dictatorship of the proletariat must finally eliminate the conditions of labor alienation. It is necessary to establish conditions for individuals to develop freely in a non-bureaucratic and non-alienated environment. For Marx, the cause of building a capitalist society involves eliminating capitalist and bureaucratic factors in all fields of life.
Of course, this does not mean that the situation of19th century still exists. The Paris Commune may not provide us with everything we need to establish a modern dictatorship of the proletariat. However, the failed experience of the proletarian dictatorship established by the Soviet Union is characterized by its bureaucratic state and the political passivity of workers caused by this state, which forces us to reconsider the advantages of the Paris Commune as a feasible alternative.
In view of the fact that globalization threatens the survival and rights of the working class all over the world, both authoritarian system and bourgeois democratic system have proved unable to meet the requirements of workers. Compared with various existing political schemes, the correctly recognized dictatorship of the proletariat is still a reliable political choice. Only the dictatorship of the proletariat can put people's needs, satisfaction and freedom above the demand for capital and the growing special interests of bureaucrats and bourgeoisie.
========================
The Soviet Union was the first socialist country to establish proletarian regime. From the October Revolution to the end of World War II, the education reform in the Soviet Union generally went through three stages: the first stage (19 17- 1930) was the initial stage of education reform after the establishment of the Soviet regime; The second stage (193 1- 1940) was the education development stage of the Soviet Union in 1930s. The third stage (194 1- 1945) is the stage of education adjustment during the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union. These reform practices have enriched and developed Marxist educational theory in theory, further improved and enriched the experience of educational reform in Paris Commune in practice, and the theory and practice of proletarian education have been enriched and perfected day by day.
Paris Commune: In the struggle against feudal forces, the bourgeoisie demanded to participate in politics because it has become a new class with strong economic strength. After the industrial revolution, the polarization between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has become increasingly serious, and it is difficult for the proletariat to demand universal suffrage to participate in the management of the country when it is not rich. In addition, the Paris Commune was able to drive away the reactionary traitorous government, but failed to resist the counter-offensive of the driven government. On the surface, it is a powerful reactionary force, but in fact it contains a deeper connotation, that is, capitalism is still rising and it does not have the conditions to establish a new system of proletarian dictatorship.
References:
/question /2568944.html