> There are clearly two traditions in _Marxism_, but Marx himself fits only
> the first Marx that Brad describes. Hal Draper's book on Marx's political
> writings shows this very clearly. Draper also has a useful little essay,
> "the Two Souls of Socialism," which distinguishes between the two
> traditions in Marxism and in socialism in general. There's socialism from
> above (Stalinism, social democracy, most utopians) and socialism from
> below, which is summarized by Marx's slogan that socialism can only be won
> by the working class itself.
Even if the textual evidence says that Marx fits only the first
tradition, one could still argue that the practical implications of his
ideas are dictatorial. Look at what he says in the Manifesto: "The
proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all
capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of
production in the hands of the State...1. Abolition of property in
land and application of all rents of land to public purposes...3.
Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of
all emigrants and rebels. 5.Centralisation of credit in the hands of
the State....6. Centralisation of the means of communication..."
> Draper also argues that during the period that Marx wrote, the word
> "dictatorship" had a different meaning than it does today. Meanings change
> over time, just as the phrase "the dictatorship of the proletariat" has
> taken on the meaning of "the dictatorship for, or in the name of, the
> proletariat" or "the dictatorship over the proletariat" (as a result of the
> Soviet and Chinese experiences).
No, it took that meaning precisely because the practical consequences of a
"dictatorship *of* the proletariat" are "dictatorship *over* the proletariat". As
Bakunin
correctly said "of the dictatorship", it is "a lie which covers up a
despotism of a governing minority, all the more dangerous in that it
is an expression of a supposed people's will" "government of the
great majority of popular masses by
a privileged minority. But this minority will be composed of workers, say the
Marxists"
Marx's responses to Bakunin are utopian through and through,
simply show how naive he was when it came to real politics.
