Dear Moderator,
Permit me to quote Stalin in depth here as I can in no way express this as he
does. "The dictatorship is of the class, the party makes them conscious".
[Hoxha]
f580
V
THE PARTY AND THE WORKING CLASS IN THE SYSTEM OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE
PROLETARIAT
[EXCERPTS]
"....Thus, in the words of Lenin, “taken as a whole, we have a formally
non-communist, flexible and relatively wide, and very powerful proletarian
apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely linked with the class and
with the masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the
dictatorship of the class is exercised” (see Vol. XXV, p. 192).
Of course, this must not be understood in the sense that the Party can or
should take the place of the trade unions, the Soviets, and the other mass
organisations. The Party exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat.
However, it exercises it not directly, but with the help of the trade unions,
and through the Soviets and their ramifications. Without these “transmission
belts,” it would be impossible for the dictatorship to be at all firm. ..."
"....The highest expression of the leading role of the Party, here, in the
Soviet Union, in the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example,
is the fact that not a single important political or organisational question is
decided by our Soviet and other mass organisations without guiding directives
from the Party. In this sense it could be said that the dictatorship of the
proletariat is, in essence, the “dictatorship” of its vanguard, the
“dictatorship” of its Party, as the main guiding force of the proletariat. ..."
".....But this, however, must not be understood in the sense that a sign of
equality can be put between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leading
role of the Party (the “dictatorship” of the Party), that the former can be
identified with the latter, that the latter can be substituted for the former.
Sorin, for example, says that “the dictatorship of the proletariat is the
dictatorship of our Party.” This thesis, as you see, identifies the
“dictatorship of the Party” with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Can we
regard this identification as correct and yet remain on the ground of Leninism?
No, we cannot."
"....As the ruling Party,” says Lenin, “we could not but merge the Soviet ‘top
leadership’ with the Party ‘top leadership’—in our country they are merged and
will remain so” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 208). This is quite true. But by this Lenin
by no means wants to imply that our Soviet institutions as a whole, for
instance our army, our transport, our economic institutions, etc., are Party
institutions, that the Party can replace the Soviets and their ramifications,
that the Party can be identified with the state power. Lenin repeatedly said
that “the system of Soviets is the dictatorship of the proletariat,” and that
“the Soviet power is the dictatorship of the proletariat” (see Vol. XXIV, pp.
15, 14); but he never said that the Party is the state power, that the Soviets
and the Party are one and the same thing. The Party, with a membership of
several hundred thousand, guides the Soviets and their central and local
ramifications, which
embrace tens of millions of people, both Party and non-Party, but it cannot
and should not supplant them. That is why Lenin says that “the dictatorship is
exercised by the proletariat organised in the Soviets, the proletariat led by
the Communist Party of Bolsheviks”; that “all the work of the Party is carried
on through** the Soviets, which embrace the labouring masses irrespective of
occupation” (see Vol. XXV, pp. 192, 193); and that the dictatorship “has to be
exercised . . . through** the Soviet apparatus” (see Vol. XXV1, p. 64).
Therefore, whoever identifies the leading role of the Party with the
dictatorship of the proletariat substitutes the Party for the Soviets, i.e.,
for the state power......"
"......But what if the correct mutual relations between the vanguard and the
class, the relations of “mutual confidence” between the Party and the class are
upset?
What if the Party itself begins, in some way or other, to counterpose itself to
the class, thus upsetting the foundations of its correct mutual relations with
the class, thus upsetting the foundations of “mutual confidence”? Are such
cases at all possible?
Yes, they are.
They are possible:
1) if the Party begins to build its prestige among the masses, not on its work
and on the confidence of the masses, but on its “unrestricted” rights;
2) if the Party’s policy is obviously wrong and the Party is unwilling to
reconsider and rectify its mistake;
3) if the Party’s policy is correct on the whole but, the masses are not yet
ready to make it their own, and the Party is either unwilling or unable to bide
its time so as to give the masses an opportunity to become convinced through
their own experience that the Party’s policy is correct, and seeks to impose it
on the masses."
J. V. Stalin
Concerning Questions of Leninism
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
