I was just thinking about the Marxist one-party state theory, and wanted some explainations.

The only good thing I can see is that it keeps the workers the boss of themselves.

any input on the one-party state?

A successful one party state would have a few 'checks' persae in place.

First, this point is modeled off of Cuba, the party would not be allowed to run candidates for elections. They would all have to be citizen nominations (and not self nominations) from various non-political groups (for example unions and student organizations). This would insure, although one common ideology is present, my second point works as well.

The second point is that there must be intraparty debate present. Sort of like the New Democratic Party where there is the main caucus and then the socialist caucus ect. The party is constantly at debate with itself, so it is always evolving. The thing about this is that counter-revolutionaries are not allowed to work politically in the state (which is why the party is the only party). To re-stabalize and advance the revolution to its next stage capitalists must be destroyed (not necassarily physical).

I would support a one party communist system, of course for any government to exist it must have atleast teh neutrality of the citizentry, and a communist one is no different. (Basically if you are actively hated you cannot rule.)

The single most rediculous idea any marxist has developed

if you want a society the really exemplifies the equality that socialism should then a one party state is absurd

We must allow other's their opinion and respectfully disagree.


Marxist leaders are always so paranoid they eliminate all opposition when infact they create more fear of them.

Instead build up your party through the people's support weakening the other party.


THere is no need for a two party dictatorship like in AMerica

"The thing about this is that counter-revolutionaries are not allowed to work politically in the state (which is why the party is the only party). To re-stabalize and advance the revolution to its next stage capitalists must be destroyed (not necassarily physical)."

In other words, no dissidence allowed in your ideal socialist state? *That does I guess give the illusion that everything is running smoothly.

How can you (a current dissident) possibly support a system that bans it?

I hope I'm misinterpreting you somehow, if I am I'm sorry....

(Edited by 187 at 12:52 am on June 11, 2003)

The problem with a one party state is obvious, if that party stops following the straight and narrow laid down by Marx then the people are in no position to stop them with out another revolution.

187, I think you may have slightly misunderstood it.

After a revolution would you want capitalists, facists, ect running around working against what you had just established? Or would you want to implement the socialist program in order to create a classless society? I say no we should not let this brand of dissent to exist because it would jepordize the future of the society, and allow a counter revolution to occur.

On the other hand revolutions are usually fought by a coallition of ideologies with a common background (anarchists, communists, socialists, leninists, ect ect). These groups would all be under the umbrella of the coaltion, and it would become the one party.

Since the party is divided there would be debate between the various 'sects' (for lack of a better word) would keep the party from being stagnated in a single ideology. But since they all fought for the revolution and bleed for it, none of these groups would want to turn against what they helped build, and a healthy system would be created inside the party.

I was just thinking about the Marxist one-party state theory, and wanted some explainations.

Actually it's not a "Marxist" theory, it is a Leninist theory.

There is a rather cryptic phrase in one of Marx's writings that mentions "men of a certain forcefulness" (if I remember the quote correctly) that could be construed to mean a dictatorial leadership. * But that is all there is. *In the case of the Paris Commune, the one proletarian revolution that Marx actually lived to see and comment on, he had the opportunity, had he wished, to criticize the complete absence of a "vanguard party" and he did not do so.

The Leninist theory of a "one-party-state" is based on the proposition that only a party that "represents" the interests of the "entire" working class can "successfully" manage the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism.

The hidden assumption is that multiple parties, representing different sections of the working class, would fall to squabbling amongst themselves, making counter-revolution "inevitable".

Under the Leninist model, of course, the squabbles still take place...only they are folded tightly within the single party and kept from public view altogether. (This was a Stalinist innovation dating from 1930 or thereabouts.) *Under Mao, there was some debate in the public media...but you practically had to be a Confucian scholar to follow it, as it was based on subtle references to ancient Chinese history...the masses were left out, as usual.

The Trotskyist variant of Leninism permits, at least in a formal sense, a good deal more discussion within the "single party"...nevertheless, it is supposed to be within the party; the heathen outsiders are not permitted to observe, much less take part.

If all of this sounds like a load of crap to you, that's because it is. *There is no principled reason from a Marxist view that would prohibit multiple political parties after the revolution...as long as they were communist parties. *

And hiding disagreements among communists from the working class is so stupid that it practically drools. *Who is better qualified to resolve those disagreements than the working class itself?

Chalk off the "one-party-state" to the primitive Leninist variant of proto-communism characteristic of the 20th century. * It will certainly be very different in the future.

We still have a long way to go to get it right.



(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:50 pm on June 10, 2003)

Just for clarification after reading Red Star's point, I would see no reason why these intraparty debates could not be public, and my basic assumption is that they would be public. To use a contemporary (albeit rightwing) analogy it would be like the various factions inside the Democratic or Republican parties in America, or how it looks now these two parties being teh factions of a joint single party...

Thanks guys, I was under the impression that the one-party state was an important part of Marxist theory, I know now that I was wrong.

I do support a multi-party state, I was just confused at why a system based on democracy would advocate a single-party dictatorship.

Thanks for the help, I was a bit worried that by referring to myself as a "Marxist" I was unknowingly supporing one-party rule.

I support the concept of multiple parties, but I like the idea of single party factionism. *one party, with varying intrests in certain locales.

like this board. *we're all here because we're all leftist. *a solid backed leftist party, but we have our differences to certain aspects. *authoritarian party and a libertarian party. *however nothing too far astray as that breaks development.

like this board. *we're all here because we're all leftist. *a solid backed leftist party, but we have our differences to certain aspects. *authoritarian party and a libertarian party. *however nothing too far astray as that breaks development.

Exactly. If it came to revolution people of our various stripes would probaly fight together, and be encompassed in some kind of unity. With factions inside of the Untied Leftist Party or something like that. One party, many ideas.

I doubt Lenin intended the one party State
although the CIA seem to know{that is if Leonard Shapiro is a CIA agent which I believe Philip Agee suggested}. better than Trotsky
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/7287

(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:16 pm on June 11, 2003)

I support a one party state. The masses should be unified, not divided. There is no need for haggling between the same socialists, obviously, bourgeois or capitalist parties would not be allowed. A one party state and democratic centralism would be catalysts of a nation.

Ofcourse, there are problems and difficulties that will be faced but the best way to go is a one party state.

I really feel that if political party bans are instated(in any system) the result could be more detrimental than having the parties exist. *Once people feel that their freedoms are being encroached on they have tendency to lash out. *It's likley that the parties that would dissent to the communist status quo wouldn't be that strong anyway(otherwise we've done something extremely wrong) so what do we have to fear?

The multiparty state was the classical socialist vision.
The one party state is a an abherration caused largely by isolation from the rest of the world.
The one party state has to be left behind as an ugly nightmare.
It forced cohesion which basically forces corrupt elements into the group supported by the majority.
This back fires horribly on revolutions. We must learn.

iF someone represents a different point on the political spectrum then why shouldn't they be able to represent themselves?

I don't see why everyone is so damn terrified of different parties?


Obviusly if the Socialsit society is Authoritarian socialist and I'ma *democratic socialist I'm not going to agree with them

And i want me and people with my views voice to be heard


Also With the support of the majority a capitalist party wouldn't even be a threat

rule through approval and trust not through fear

iF someone represents a different point on the political spectrum then why shouldn't they be able to represent themselves?

How many times have socialist nations been wiped out or destroyed by counter revolution because of sympathy for the bourgeois?

A socialist country is a socialist country, we work to build socialism.

I don't see why everyone is so damn terrified of different parties?

Not terrified, but it's just a step back.

Obviusly if the Socialsit society is Authoritarian socialist and I'ma *democratic socialist I'm not going to agree with them

Authoritarian doesn't mean anti-democracy. One-party states are just as democratic, if not more for socialism.

Also With the support of the majority a capitalist party wouldn't even be a threat
rule through approval and trust not through fear

Try implementing a multi-party system in Cuba, tell me how that will work out. Even with the support of the majority, socialism will not always be successful. Foreign forces will pressure the new-born socialist nation, which is one example of what may happen.

I support a one party state. The masses should be unified, not divided. There is no need for haggling between the same socialists...

The masses perhaps "should" be "unified" but they usually aren't and a "unity" imposed from above does not improve matters. *Political disagreements driven "underground" do not disappear...in fact, they grow greater.

That's acceptable where pro-capitalist sentiments are concerned...the differences are already irreconcilable. *But communists and socialists and anarchists will have legitimate disagreements that can only be resolved *through the active participation of the working class.

Imposing unity from above, whether you call it "democratic centralism" or just plain ordinary despotism, gives the "appearance" of a forward-marching "army".

What actually happens is that the strains and pressures of such a procedure increase until the system spontaneously explodes into chaos and counter-revolution.

And, by the way, there is nothing "holy" about "unity" in the abstract. *One must always ask: *unity for what purpose? *unity around what idea? *unity with whom, exactly?

When Marx and Engeles called upon the workers of the world to "unite", it was not for the purpose of naming a "great leader" or electing bourgeois politicians to "reform" capitalism.

They had a different idea.

I agree with those comrades that have put forth the idea of the multi-party Socialist state. Its refreshing and its exactly what we need. The Democratic content of the idea is not only desirable, in principal, but indispensable. Issues of principal aside, I aslo believe its more effective both in achiving Socialism and in guarding against preversions of the "revolution". Let us be rational men, let us not trust "the party". The "party" is made of men and in some degree we must guard our selves against all men. We must have an open society based on unimpeded public strutiny and sovereign public will, for that is only defense.

"The prisoners of partial power find in the shadow of freedom their only appeal against tyrany" -Raoul Vaneigem

I agree that one party shouldn't be the 'end all be all', but there should be some common unity amongst the major. *I wouldn't imagine it any other way, following a popular revolution, but still. *A nation with strong dual-party polarity won't accomplish much. *