Editing Bolshevism (section)

===Dictatorship of the proletariat===
{{Main|Dictatorship of the proletariat}}
{{Quote box|width=25em|align=right|bgcolor=ivory|quote=Either the dictatorship of the landowners and capitalists, or the dictatorship of the proletariat [...] There is no middle course [...] There is no middle course anywhere in the world, nor can there be.|source=—Lenin, claiming that people had only two choices; a choice between two different, but distinct class dictatorships.{{sfn|Harding|1996|pp=154–155}}}}

Lenin, according to his interpretation of [[Marx's theory of the state]], believed [[democracy]] to be unattainable anywhere in the world before the proletariat seized power.{{sfn|Harding|1996|pp=154–155}} According to Marxist theory, the state is a vehicle for oppression and is headed by a [[ruling class]],{{sfn|Harding|1996|pp=154–155}} an "organ of class rule".<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/|title=The State and Revolution|last=Lenin|first=Vladimir|publisher=[[Marxists Internet Archive]]|year=1918|volume=25 (Collected Works)|publication-date=1999|chapter=Class Society and the State|author-link=Vladimir Lenin|access-date=10 February 2018|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm }}</ref> He believed that during his lifetime, the only viable solution was dictatorship since the war was heading into a final conflict between the "progressive forces of socialism and the degenerate forces of capitalism".{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=155}} The [[Russian Revolution of 1917]] was already a failure according to its original aim, which was to act as an inspiration for a world revolution.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=155}} As a result, the initial [[anti-statist]] posture and the active campaigning for [[direct democracy]] was replaced with dictatorship.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=155}} From the perspective of the Bolsheviks, the rationale for this change was Russia's lack of development, its status as the sole socialist state in the world, its encirclement by imperialist powers, and its internal encirclement by the peasantry.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=156}}

Marx, similar to Lenin, considered it fundamentally irrelevant whether a bourgeois state was ruled according to a [[Republicanism|republican]], [[Parliamentary system|parliamentarian]], or [[Constitutional monarchy|constitutionally monarchic]] political system because this did not change the [[mode of production]] itself.{{sfn|Harding|1996|pp=155–156}} These systems, regardless of whether they are ruled by an oligarchy or by mass participation, were ultimately all a [[dictatorship of the bourgeoisie]] by definition because the bourgeoisie, by the very condition of their class and its interests, would promote and implement policies in their class interests and thus in defense of capitalism.{{sfn|Harding|1996|pp=157–158}} There was a difference, though; Lenin, after [[revolutions of 1917–23|the failures of the world revolutions]], argued that this did not necessarily have to change under the dictatorship of the proletariat.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=158}} The reasoning came from wholly practical considerations: the majority of the country's inhabitants were not communists and the party could not introduce parliamentary democracy since that was inconsistent with their ideology and would lead to the party losing power.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=158}} He therefore concluded that "[t]he form of government has absolutely nothing to do with" the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=158}} Bukharin and Trotsky agreed with Lenin, both claiming that the revolution had only destroyed the old, but failing completely in creating anything sort of new.{{sfn|Harding|1996|pp=158–159}} Lenin had now concluded that the dictatorship of the proletariat would not alter the relationship of power between persons, but rather "transform their productive relations so that, in the long run, the realm of necessity could be overcome and, with that, genuine social freedom realised".{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=159}}

It was in the period of 1920–1921 that Soviet leaders and ideologists began differentiating between socialism and communism; hitherto the two terms had been used to describe similar conditions.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=159}} From then, the two terms developed separate meanings. According to Soviet ideology, Russia was in the transition from capitalism to socialism (referred to interchangeably under Lenin as the dictatorship of the proletariat), socialism being the intermediate stage to communism, with the latter being the final stage which follows after socialism.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=159}} By now, the party leaders believed that universal mass participation and true democracy could only take form in the last stage, if only because of Russia's current conditions at the time.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=159}}

{{Quote box|width=25em|align=left|bgcolor=ivory|quote=[Because] the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, so corrupted in parts [...] that an organization taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class.|source=— Lenin, explaining the increasingly dictatorial nature of the regime.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=161}}}}

In early Bolshevik discourse, the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" was of little significance; the few times it was mentioned, it was likened to the form of government which had existed in the [[Paris Commune]].{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=159}} With the ensuing [[Russian Civil War]] and the social and material devastation that followed, however, its meaning was transformed from communal democracy to disciplined totalitarian rule.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=160}} By now, Lenin had concluded that only a proletarian regime as oppressive as its opponents could survive in this world.{{sfn|Harding|1996|pp=160–161}} The powers previously bestowed upon the [[Soviet (council)|soviets]] were now given to the [[Council of People's Commissars]]; the central government was in turn to be governed by "an army of steeled revolutionary Communists [by Communists he referred to the Party]".{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=161}} In a letter to [[Gavril Myasnikov]], Lenin in late 1920 explained his new reinterpretation of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat";{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=162}}

<blockquote>Dictatorship means nothing more nor less than authority untrammelled by any laws, absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever, and based directly on force. The term 'dictatorship' ''has no other meaning but this''.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=162}}</blockquote>

Lenin justified these policies by claiming that all states were class states by nature, and that these states were maintained through [[class struggle]].{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=162}} This meant that the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union could only be "won and maintained by the use of violence against the bourgeoisie".{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=162}} The main problem with this analysis is that the Party came to view anyone opposing or holding alternate views of the party as bourgeoisie.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=162}} The worst enemy remained the moderates, however, which were "objectively" considered to be "the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working class movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class".{{sfn|Harding|1996|pp=162–163}}

Consequently, "bourgeoisie" became synonymous with "opponent" and with people who disagreed with the party in general.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=163}} These oppressive measures led to another reinterpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism in general; it was now defined as a purely economic system.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=165}} Slogans and theoretical works about democratic mass participation and collective decision-making were now replaced with texts which supported authoritarian management.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=165}} Considering the situation, the party believed it had to use the same powers as the bourgeoisie to transform Russia, for there was no other alternative.{{sfn|Harding|1996|pp=165–166}} Lenin began arguing that the proletariat, similar to the bourgeoisie, did not have a single preference for a form of government, and because of that dictatorship was acceptable to both the party and the proletariat.{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=166}} In a meeting with party officials, Lenin stated—in line with his economist view of socialism—that "[i]ndustry is indispensable, democracy is not", further arguing that "we do not promise any democracy or any freedom".{{sfn|Harding|1996|p=166}}