wind to thy wings~

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Random Thoughts.

Communism has long been a state sought after by many around the world. Today, one can still see many countries laying claims to communist roots. While Cuba has started moving towards a form of democracy, other states like China and Russia are still predominantly communist (note the paradox here -- communist state). Yet, there is a hitch in the argument here. The communist state as Karl Marx proposes is unable to swiftly form upon the collaspe of capitalism. Though Marx suggested that capitalism was self-implosive (due to workers' resentment, improvement of technology and issues like increasing monopoly power) he did not suggest an immediate shift towards communism. Instead, he proposed a gradual shift towards socialism, where the dictatorship of the proletariat controls the society's means of production.

One questions: what exactly does dictatorship of the proletariat mean? Does it mean that the proletariat actually controls society? Isn't it again paradoxical that the proletariat should be a dictatorship? In framing the perspective for tackling such a dilemma, we first look at what exactly the proletariat refers to. In Marxism, the proletariat commonly refers to the working class. Yet in considering an entire class as a dictatorship, futher conflict arises. A dictatorship involves the governance of the people by leadership which does not have to answer to any higher authorities. Hence, governance by people without the consent of those being governed would constitute dictatorship. [Please thank Wikipedia for the definitions, I wonder how trustworthy they are].

So, here then lies the crux of the question. Who the dictatorship of the proletariat is answerable to. Is the proletariat answerable to others in the proletariat? Then when this working class governs others in the working class, who exactly is answerable to who? And who actually holds the reins of governance? How does a 'prole' (quoting Orwell, "1984"), when answerable to another, act as a dictator?

When one speaks of the working class holding control of the means of production, one envisions the multitude of policies that have been put in place in communist states worldwide. Taxing the rich perhaps, confiscation of property and high corporate taxes are perhaps only a mere few examples. All these could be viewed as a form in which the poor (here I am referring to the working class, whyfor would a working class require an uprising if they were not relatively poor?) then takes revenge on the rich. Consider the case in which the dictatorship becomes scrutinised. Or the watchdog fouls on its duty; the guardian fails to guard. Wouldn't it signify that the working class has now become the top rung in society? The working class now holds control, holds the reins?

Then again, how, by definition, is a working class capable of becoming the ruling class? Societal shifts have seen ruling families collaspe into normal folks, perhaps even prisoners of war when they are overtaken by others. Then, invaders could take the place of the throne and the cycle could possibly repeat again, perhaps some time later in the future. Here, I would like to highlight an important point. The working class now becomes the ruling class. And with roles reversed, the ruling class now works. Socialism, then would entail dictatorship by the working class. Who is going to rule who in the long run?

[Haha you are very much welcomed to write comments. Could spur some ideas and thoughts! I got myself rather confused halfway through writing that. Please correct me if anything is wrong :)]

wishing wind to thy wings at 12:33 AM
c0mments