The 'Volatile' Marxian Concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat Author(s): Zoltan Barany Source: Studies in East European

Thought, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 1-21 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20099623 . Accessed: 01/09/2013 22:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in East European Thought.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ZOLTANBARANY

THE

'VOLATILE' MARXIAN

CONCEPT OF THE

OF THE PROLETARIAT* DICTATORSHIP

ABSTRACT. The thesis of this paper is that even some of the most fundamental concepts of Marxism have been used and abused to fit their advocates' purposes. More specifically, the interpretation of the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has been subject to a dual development. First, the dictatorship of the proletariat has come to denote an increasingly violent regime. Second, the term has been used to refer to a rule exercised by an ever smaller segment of society. This paper seeks to analyze and elucidate this much disputed and frequently misunderstood Marxist concept. In the first partMarx's use of the term is examined. The second section explores how the same concept was explicated in the writings of some of themost important first generation Marxist thinkers and "practitioners" like Engels, Lenin, Kautsky, Bukharin, and Stalin. Following the summary of my findings I attempt to formulate some meaningful generalizations about the usage of the concept by Marxist thinkers. KEY WORDS: dictatorship of the proletariat, Marx, Lenin, Stalin

Those who recognize only the class struggle are not yet Marxists ... Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.1

"All things are relative, all things flow, and all things change," opined Lenin in 1905. If anything, Marxist thought has amply confirmed
his "wisdom;" its various and utilizations and justifications, champions. dilemma of swiftly multiplying have been as diverse interpretations, as the aims of its

a serious The effects of this phenomenon have presented to many Marxists: is in spite Marxism, contemporary its countless still a fundamentally cohesive variations, theory

or is it "infinitely catholic,
heresy?"2

today's orthodoxy

being yesterday's

The thesis of this paper is that even some of themost fundamental concepts of Marxism have been used and abused to fit their advo cates' purposes. More specifically, the interpretation of the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (die Diktatur des Proletar iats) has been subject to a dual development. First, the dictatorship
Studies inEast European Thought 49: 1-21,1997. 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands. ?

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ZOLTANBARANY

an increasingly of the proletariat has come to denote violent regime. a to the term has been used refer to rule exercised Second, by an ever

small segment of society. This paper seeks to analyze and elucidate this much disputed and frequently misunderstood Marxist concept.
First, I will examine Marx's use of the term. In the second section

the focus shifts to explore how the same concept was explicated
the writings of some of the most revered first generation like Engels, thinkers and Stalin. Lenin, Kautsky, Bukharin, some meaningful thinkers. about the usage of Marxist The con

in

cluding section summarizes my findings and attempts to formulate

generalizations the concept by Marxist

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" in Marxist thought was predi a the that there will be cated upon notion period of transition between the defeat of capitalism and the victory of socialism. Marx assumed
that ever the ranks larger the working class would continuously of the lost their battle segments bourgeoisie of as expand for survival

and became impoverished proletars, forced to sell their labor for their livelihood. Thus, Marx anticipated that by the time the proletarian
revolution workers how many was and to take place few relatively the vast majority of the people would be elements would remain. But bourgeois form would the transition take? How no con practical

are a few? What

long will the transition period between capitalism and socialism last?
It is noteworthy that even during Marx's on these and other cord among Marxists and theoretical issues. lifetime similarly there was crucial

MARX'S CONCEPTOF PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP Out of the large body of Marx's contribution to political thought, probably the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has had the most
profound implication for actual governance. of In order to understand

the meaning
its components:

of this concept, first it ought to be broken down

the notions "proletariat" or "working class,"

to

and to that of "dictatorship," and must be separately defined. The intrinsic significance of aprecise definition of the proletariat has been
no widely Nevertheless, by many sociologists. accepted an must definition incor has been agreed upon for adequate meaning of notions the labor, class-consciousness, productive physical porate recognized

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4 VOLATILE' MARXIAN CONCEPTOF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 3 and industrial a crucial In the context of the "materialist con

employment. one.

cept of politics" it is clear why the "boundary problem" is considered

to be It involves importance concerning questions "political the role of the working class of the greatest and of alliances

in the transition period."3 Still, there is no agreement about who should and who should not be regarded a member of the working
class. In the view of Poulantzas, for instance, he would the French the proletarian of the debate it is necessary include and other for the

problem of all salaried workers to be posed in class terms, rather than

in terms workers parties of stratification. Therefore, white-collar communist of such in the working class while have denied traditionally reasons, at the center

character

employees.4 For two

on

the "member

of the proletariat lies the notion of "produc ship" in or composition tive labor" as an important clue to the definition of the proletariat. a rigorous in establishing connection between First, it is instrumental Marx's class. writings Second, Since on value free labor and exploitation and the concept of social an the hallmark of authentic is, for Marx,

existence. definition white-collar be resolved The scores

never provided an unambiguous and Engels of the proletariat, the question whether commercial and/or Marx workers are members of the working class could never ex cathedra.

to of "dictatorship" has also been very concept subjected of various since its in ancient appearance interpretations itwas considered and limited Rome, when constitutional, temporary, meant at It in many different the time of the French ways. things in 1848, and in 1917. Certainly, Revolution, "dictatorship" came to mine to describe the word that commonly absolute was not

authority

even in Marx's lifetime. For Louis Blanc in 1848, dictatorship mean the domination of the "enlightened people of the cities" over the
superior numerically the rule of a minority.5 mentary he republic," "ignorant Bakunin representative people the countryside," that is, a that he explained rejected "parlia rule, constitutional forms, etc. for of

... thought that inRussia more than anywhere else a strong dictatorial government concerned with elevating and educating the popular that would be exclusively masses would be necessary; a government free in the direction it takes and in its spirit, but without parliamentary forms; with the printing of books free in content but without the freedom of printing ...6

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ZOLTANBARANY

These views demonstrate clearly that the definition regarding the concepts of the "proletariat" (or "working class") and "dictatorship" have been interpreted as variedly as the individuals who set out to define them. This is partly the result of the fact that their meaning
in Marx's texts was seldom consistent and clear. Perhaps the most

lucid statement thatMarx himself made regarding the dictatorship of the proletariat can be found in a letter he sent to his friend Josef Wedemeyer in 1852. Discussing his own role in describing historical
developments Marx said:

What I did new was to prove: 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases of the development of production', 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this to the the and constitutes transition itself abolition all classes only of dictatorship to a classless society? The broad outlines of Marx's ideas are discernible as little from surprise, meaning of his this well however, of Marx's

known

from his letter. excerpt have been confused that many few hints as

It comes about

the exact

terminology. The blame is partly the author's for Marx had offered
remarkably to the precise meaning concepts.

In view of this notion

it is apparent why

the conceptual

debate

of the proletariat" the "dictatorship has never surrounding had been clear there are two issues Marx Nevertheless, tent about when dealing with the notion of "dictatorship" First, whenever the socialist the subject of dictatorship comments Marx's movement, movement and equated Marx itwith came were up

ceased. and persis in general. of

in the context pejorative.

always

He vehemently
the workers'

opposed any notion of a dictator or dictatorship

tyranny; indeed, the con

in

cept for Marx certainly "did not imply tyrannical rule."8 As Hunt
convincingly alone aMarxist argues, and Engels' less that all other of "dictatorship" entries the issue conception of proletarian

dictatorship did not require all workers

party, still Second, the concept these were of course, have been does there, two not

to support a single party, let

parties be suppressed.9 was in Marx's mind not

necessarily
Clearly, point, could

linked to the notion of "dictatorship of the proletariat."

separate resolve in his This vocabulary.10 The altogether. meaning was coined later. to be wrong appears that for him denoted

even

if the familiar

phrase

notwithstanding Draper, letter attests, here. As Marx's

his elaborate he used

argument, the phrase

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VOLATILE' MARXIAN CONCEPTOF THEDICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 5

the end to which class struggle led. The pairing of the two concepts
"dictatorship" and "proletariat" could hardly be coincidental.

Marx first used the term the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in 1850. Two years earlier, in the Manifesto of the Communist Party he term the "the the proletariat" but it seems that he did rule of employed
not make any distinctions between the two. As a matter of fact, Marx

made it clear that he recognized no substantive difference between his concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat as set out inThe Class Struggle inFrance and the formulation utilized in theManifesto}1 While Marx had remarkably little to say about the transition period
or proletarian dictatorship, in France, and, his views of the state after the successful

workers'
Civil War

revolution are delineated with particular lucidity in The

in a somewhat less elaborate fashion, in

the Critique of the Gotha Programme}2 Marx recognized the historical significance of the Paris Commune as a social and political victory for the working class. Although he regarded the Commune "the political form discovered at last," in none of his writings did he ever refer to it as an example of the
dictatorship reasons, characterize a socialist also were few part, ideas failed not of he did not the proletariat consider precisely it as such. because, First, Marx's dictatorship Second, because for a number reluctance followed of to

the Commune

as a proletarian scale.13 expectations

from the fact that he perceived

revolution to measure on a national up toMarx's

this dictatorship as the product of

the Commune it had taken

place against his advice and he knew that themajority of its leaders
"communists" "Marxists" out of or people to his own in the Commune participating enthusiasm Thirdly, Marx's rather accounts liking.14 acted, of Indeed, for the the most

about

spontaneous the future.15

than driven

by definite the Commune

leave no doubt that he thought it should have developed amore clear sighted and less ambiguously defined social and economic program.
Marx affairs was, in fact, so appalled of the Commune's by the direction one even at that asserted that its policies "were not point he

socialist."16 In the Critique his most direct statement referring to the transition period is in essence a projection of the future existence of a historical "period of revolutionary transformation;" during this era "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the
proletariat."17

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ZOLTANBARANY

Although Marx had never defined exactly what he meant by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" it is clear that he thought of this
concept as a temporary phenomenon that would take place during

the brief period of transition between capitalism to socialism. Still, Marx's ideas regarding the transition period had been characterized by a great deal of conceptual vagueness. He provided two different interpretations of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Inwhat David
Lovell socialist calls revolution the "core meaning," Marx understands the defense of the a against bourgeois Accordingly, opposition.18 second however, the time identifies the "dictatorship" revolution

the dictatorship of the proletariat ismerely one aspect of the transition

period. The meaning, from

with the entire transition, that is, itwould determine the political and
socio-economic realms of the successful

until the arrival of socialism. Here, then, not only does dictatorship suggest that "defense of the revolution against the bourgeoisie is the
to which task of the transition, all else must primary no distinction between class rules."19 but itmakes be subordinate,

Not surprisingly, there is a great deal of discord among students

of Marxism Etienne on Marx's for Balibar, as the period that the dictatorship argues to socialism of the transition itself. interpretation period considers the dictatorship of the pro instance, to communism. of transition from capitalism of "it for the proletariat is not the period an historical is socialism itself, to extend admittedly, from the prole a momentous

letariat He of

transition

period of uninterrupted revolution and of the deepening of the class

Yet struggle."20 tarian revolution difference.21 no scholarly has been reached Likewise, agreement or economic Marx tion of whether regarded political on the ques to others consider this period of socialism, to the advent

elements

be the most
Lovell, fostering

important for defining

aspect as an activity of

the transition to socialism. For

in Marx's integral its thought was to human existence.22

the central of politics to which "political" hand,

transition

This view
according transcend

is hardly congruent with other interpretations of Marx,

the very purpose of For Daler freedom. the transition Deol, to stage was the func however, was to sup set

tion of the period of transition for Marx was clearly twofold. On

the one press the mission of the proletarian dictatorship the resistance of the bourgeoisie, i.e., a political-destructive

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VOLATILE' MARXIAN CONCEPTOF THEDICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 7

of activities and, on the other hand, to establish socialism

socio-economic reconstruction, as a means i.e., via constructive to the end

through the

socio-economic

activities.23 It should be reiterated thatMarx only considered

notion of "transition" (socialism)

and not as an

end in itself. It was in this context thatMarx expressed enthusiasm

for the Paris Commune as an effective dissolution of the state.

Accepting
one aspect enforce

the notion that the dictatorship of the proletariat is but

period, there still remain such questions would as

of the transition

how and by whom the dictatorship would be organized, how would

etc. Whatever its authority, Marx of the transition be characteristic period, believed itwas not be or might this term that dealt

it

with future problems of the workers'

state.24 The dictatorship of the

or instruments did not refer to specialized characteristics proletariat as of the envisioned workers' such the utilization of coercive rule, Marxism rule itself. Nonetheless, has not terror; itmeant proletarian been a stranger
tension

to the
between the acceptance of violence as an inevitable concomi

well-known

tant of the class struggle ... on the one hand, and the utopia of a classless inwhich all instruments of coercion would wither away, on the other.25

society

Marx himself, however, failed to define the use of violence during the transition period. Although he did not explicitly disapprove of
coercion, Marcuse's he certainly did not advocate its unbridled use. Herbert interpretation supports this point:

Violence was at least not inherent in the action of the proletariat; class conscious ness neither necessarily depended upon nor expressed itself in open civil warfare; violence belonged neither to the objective nor to the subjective conditions of the revolution (although itwas Marx's and Engels's conviction that the ruling classes could and would not dispense with violence).26

Neither
"conceived single

is there anything

to indicate in Marx's

writings

that he

party

state as a party state, a dictatorship the proletarian of a or on to rule of the proletariat."27 behalf ruling, claiming

It appears that, as Mihailo Markovic

that called themselves "Marxist"

noted, the emerging regimes

"forgot" the fact, that

conveniently

Marx referred to the rule of the "working majority of people which

to a stateless way society well remembered."28 was, however, to specify In a sense, Marx's failure had to give .. .The word 'dictatorship' of

practical

aspects

imple

menting

the dictatorship

provided

an unusually

large margin

of

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ZOLTANBARANY

interpretation for his disciples. It is important to realize that in Marx's thinking dictatorship was not an inherent part of workers' rule and this, in fact, may be the reason that Marx and Engels used the
term so rarely.29 Miliband's conclusion appears to be correct when he

asserts that forMarx the dictatorship of the proletariat constituted

... both a statement of the class character of the political power and a description of the political power itself... it is, in fact, the nature of the political power which it describes which guarantees its class character.30 It seems clear, then, when that Marx used the concept of the "dicta

torship of the proletariat" rather sparsely and ambiguously

Moreover, writings. orate on specific aspects were to have shortcomings

in his

to elab he did employ the term, he failed of its denotation. As we will see, these dire consequences in the usage of the

term by the first generation of Marxist writers. THE 'MODIFICATION' OF A MARXIAN CONCEPT:FROMENGELS TO STALIN
It is ironic, perhaps, that Engels 's interpretation more his understanding of Marx's importantly, sharply criticized by his irreverent contemporaries and students of Marxists of Marxism. to Marx's views on of the concept and, was

interpretation, as well as future Some of the mis were

generations understanding originated was

pertaining 's famous by Engels of

the Commune against noted

remark,

directed

the "social

democratic philistine"
the Dictatorship

in 1891: "Look at the Paris Commune. That

the Proletariat."31 As above, Marx

never identified the Commune

Engels context.

as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

historical that was

should be evaluated in the specific 's error, however, movement Faced with a growing social democratic

swiftly becoming increasingly reformist in the 1890s, he felt he had to point to immediate political objectives that would be justifiable with the broader concepts of Marxist ideology. The reason for the divergent interpretation of the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" appears to lie in the fact that Engels had been heavily influenced by the anarchist vision of a stateless
future. The only modification would function that he made to the anarchist schema

was the inclusion of the era of transition inwhich

existence, merely as a tool

the state, if still in

of the prole

in the hands

tariat used to defend the revolution from its enemies. Consequently,

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARXIAN CONCEPTOF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 9 VOLATILE'

Engels stressed the coercive nature of the proletarian dictatorship in the transition period considerably more than Marx did. At the same time, Engels did not realize that a "transition period centered
on coercion, to a society to entail overwhelming in which risks."32 shall be no coercion, 's role Summarizing Engels there seems as the

wrote: of Marx, Michael Harrington interpreter ... [He is] the second great of Marxism figure in theMarxist misunderstanding ... [Marx] was unjust to his ideas in a few passages; Engels did much more consistent harm to his mentor's theory although he sometimes was its shrewdest
interpreter.33

In sum, while of bourgeois theses.34 Karl Kautsky,

Engels resistance similarly to the new

to Marx

recognized too, failed

the main

function of the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the suppression

rule he, to be more

specific thereby opening up ways

Rosa Luxemburg,

to divergent interpretations of his

and most other "revisionists"

actively discouraged the use of the Marxian "dictatorship of the proletariat" concept arguing that with its illiberal connotations it would be a rule by a minority, an embattled regime built on the
unstable foundations of a yet unprepared a tyrannical, who working class.35 For them

proletarian dictatorship
class
ance.

referred to the dominance

non-consensual

of the working
form of govern movement

and did not denote

Many

German

socialists

developed

the workers'

into a real political force inGermany had propagated views thatwere quite different from those held by Marx and Engels. Among them,
were and Luxemburg ardent critics of the dictatorship of Kautsky to power to the proletariat that had come the claims of according leaders in Soviet Russia. the Bolshevik For Rosa Luxemburg, only can be the dictatorship a spontaneous form of proletarian of politics the proletariat. it stands only Commune, sent soul For Kautsky, as a somewhat in so far as the term at all, is acceptable version of the Paris

"parliamentarized" the of the vote. Con authority resting upon highest moral to is abstracted and is declared from coercion be the conceptual of the true proletarian state.36 As Kautsky states, dictatorship of government" of a class, since is something rather different from "a class can only rule, not govern."37

"as a form dictatorship

the

Kautsky, then, denied the very possibility of the realization of socialism where democracy was displaced by dictatorship.38 He went

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

10

ZOLTANBARANY of the proletariat had been for serious importance was distin

as far as suggesting that the "dictatorship an off-the-cuff and had by Marx phrase Marxism."39 For him, the "dictatorship

no

of the proletariat"

guished from democracy chiefly by its lack of universal suffrage and popular participation in politics. Voting rights had become increas ingly inclusive in the industrial nations of Europe between the 1880s and the 1920s. Universal manhood suffrage was introduced by 1919 in Britain, France, theWeimar Republic, and Italy, but substantial expansion in the granting of voting privileges was realized by as early as 1915. Thus, for Kautsky in 1918 the concept of the "dicta torship of the proletariat" had quite different connotations than for
Marx, had partly been because the socio-political milieu of his time was radi

cally different from Marx's. By 1918 in Soviet-Russia,

already outlawed, open opposition had been

rival parties
suppressed,

and suffrage had been restricted by the Bolsheviks, to be sure, but the effective terrormachinery affecting the bulk of the population
was not yet put in place. One of the principal the contrast reasons for the European social democratic

parties' attacks on Bolshevism

was two decades intellectual of

in the late 1910s and early

1920s

between and "dictatorship." The first "democracy" was a of brilliant the twentieth often century period the various debate factions of the left, concern among aspects legacy of the workers' movement book, was ideo in particular. and

and theoretical ing practical and the Marxian in general,

Kautsky's

The Dictatorship
pamphlet perhaps

of the Proletariat
Revolution of

(1918) and Lenin's reply in the

the Renegade Kautsky intellectual and

The Proletarian the culmination

a long-standing

logical feud between the Bolsheviks and "mainstream" European social democrats. On the question of the dictatorship Kautsky argued that since "the exploiters have always formed only a small minority
a form need not assume the rule of the proletariat of the population" with democracy." Lenin's less than radiant rejoinder "incompatible was talked about was "sheer that the "pure" democracy Kautsky nonsense. with the learned air of a most learned armchair Kautsky, air of a ten-year the innocent old schoolgirl, fool, or with when we have a majority?"40 do we need dictatorship his were ill-formed as far as immediate asks: Why

While Lenin surely had clear ideas regarding the political future,
thoughts tasks were con

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OF THE PROLETARIAT 1 1 VOLATILE' MARXIAN CONCEPTOF THE DICTATORSHIP

cerned. According tomany of his critics, Lenin simply ignored the "laws of development." This is evident not only on the theoretical level but in the extraordinary terminological confusions before and
just after the Bolshevik Revolution.41 In fact, J?rgen Habermas, sup

porting Daniel Bell's argument, contends that the "Soviets inOctober schooled professional 1917 under the direction of Leninistically
revolutionaries had no immediate socialist aims."42 It is character

istic of Lenin's
believed could run an entire

initial naivete
control"

or political
itself

opportunism
debated Lenin was swiftly

that he
notion real -

that "workers'

a much

ized, however, order to keep the country governed. time, he said that "Ours is a workers' twist."43

thinker, society. A practical of bureaucracy that some measure

In a remarkable government with

in necessary statement at the a bureaucratic

Thus, when the Bolsheviks seized power, the dictatorship of the majority, envisioned by Marx, had gradually turned into the dicta
torship of an ever smaller more formulated concisely Lenin's minority.44 than those of Marx. ideas, For however, him, were the "party was to

was completely
The "revolutionary"

identified with the dictatorship of the proletariat."45

party's function, under the Bolsheviks,

"lead themasses

and organize and unite them in the struggle for the

rationale for such a "leading of anew victory system."46 The Leninist a that "No dictatorship class can be orga role" of the party was by as to enable the whole class to exercise direct in such a way nized of guiding in the of society," thus "the function society leadership ... is name of the class i.e., the by its political vanguard" performed In Tasks the the Immediate Soviet Government Bolshevik of Party.47

Lenin declared that

... Soviet power is nothing but an organizational form of the dictatorship of the the dictatorship of the advanced class, which raises to a new democracy proletariat, and to independent participation in the administration of the state tens upon tens of millions of working people, who by their own experience learn to regard the disciplined and class conscious vanguard of the proletariat as their most reliable
leader.48

This

passage

illustrates

well

Lenin's

interpretation evident

of

the "dictator

ship of the proletariat." First, he refers to the dictatorship of the

"advanced "more class," but it soon of becomes that there class," is an even advanced" stratum the "advanced the vanguard

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

12

ZOLTANBARANY

of the proletariat, that is, the Bolshevik

noted: Yes,

Party. As Lenin explicitly

the dictatorship of one party! We stand upon it and cannot depart from this ground, since this is the party which in the course of decades has won for itself the position of vanguard of the whole factory and industrial proletariat.49

Lenin was convinced about the necessity of coercion during the March 1917 in one of his letters transition period. As he explained in
from was to ensure the purpose that when of coercion the old was a new one for state machinery the people "substitute crushed, and the the the with the force, it, merging army, bureaucracy police afar, armed population."50 In his thought, rests violent suppression on violence."51 is a

entire

major if not themost

In Lenin's words,

important attribute of proletarian dictatorship.

directly As

"the dictatorship

early as 1904 he declared that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is

an absolutely meaningless violence: expression "when we without Jacobin coercion."52 mean

Furthermore,
torship with

in his later writings Lenin equated proletarian dicta

speak of dictatorship we

the employment of coercion" specifically organized as institutional

violence.53

Nevertheless,
leadership and even became, internal

the more pragmatic

the more sources. criticism

the policies of the Bolshevik

a prominent Bolshevik lamented social developments:

they had to face from external in 1921, Alexandra Already Kollontay, and sometime critic of her party, openly

The workers ask - who are we? Are we really the prop of the class dictatorship, or are we just an obedient flock that serves as a support for those, who having severed all ties with themasses, carry out their own policy and build up industry without regard to our opinions and creative abilities under the reliable cover of the Party label?54

What Kollontay perceived was tariat" had turned into not only Party but into the dictatorship of Party that had gradually become
class.

that the "dictatorship of the prole the dictatorship of the Bolshevik the upper echelon of the Bolshevik totally estranged from the working of
the

Since then, Communist

Lenin's statements

leaders have cleverly utilized many

to the necessity of violence for

that point

sake of establishing proletarian dictatorship. Various interpretations of Lenin by Soviet writers also assisted Communist leaders abroad

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARXIAN CONCEPTOF THEDICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 13 VOLATILE' in their efforts to create totalitarian As one such work

dictatorships.

contends, while the "proletarian dictatorship implies not only or chiefly coercion," violence is an indispensable attribute of this
concept.55 not quite Lenin where the Vietnamese Le Duan, Marxist a half-a-century later as follows: leader interpreted Lenin

the idea of carrying out proletarian revolution by violence developed imperialism existed. In discussing democracy under bourgeois rule, Lenin ... within a cer pointed out that the bourgeoisie would only allow a democracy tain limit, without detriment to its rule. Should the working class go beyond this limit, the bourgeoisie would suppress itwith open violence. Therefore, counter revolutionary violence can only be smashed with revolutionary violence.56 seems to have been and acutely isolation, conscious Soviet of the fact that, given the dictator

Lenin Russian

backwardness

rule utilized

ship of the proletariat in its harshest form.57While Lenin advocated

a particularly "other Soviet merciless form of dictatorship for Soviet-Russia, he

appears to have also expressed

countries writers will reiterated the example offered travel

the hope that, as he put it in 1919,

road."58 was for not the

more humane by a different, the notion that the Soviet model emulated. Their explanation

necessarily

to be

crude dictatorship
opponents Soviet-Russia of Communist with

imposed by the Bolsheviks

resistance socialist an explanation countries."59

was

that the "class

stronger than in other states, such

to socialist

in developments Given the history be accepted only

should

than Lenin were also ready to publicize of Marx's their interpretations of the concept proletarian dictatorship. one of the better equipped For Bukharin, Bolshevik the theoreticians, a was not social The category. homogenous proletariat proletariat's victory typically and the subsequent establishment of its dictatorship of its nature, which was characterized the development was by

wary contemplation. leaders other Bolshevik

a signal instability of the productive forces. Consequently, Bukharin argued, it had to be recognized that there would "inevitably result a
to 'degeneration,' stratum that is, the excretion of a leading tendency in the form of a class-germ."60 He saw the source of "degeneration"

during the transition period

class and in the fact insecure." enemy" advised that "materially the "class Bukharin

in the heterogeneity

of the working
time, that

at this the productive forces were, the attendant Recognizing implication also be characterized certain strata toward

would lenience

by heterogeneity, of the bourgeoisie

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

14 notably period. toward

ZOLTANBARANY the technical intelligentsia during the transition

In his essay, "The Theory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." (1919) Bukharin insists that the proletarian state is a "dictatorship of
the majority over the minority." He contends that the

aim of the proletarian dictatorship is to break the old relations of production the 'dictatorial and to organize new relations in the sphere of social economics, of the of rights private property.61 infringement'

For Bukharin, then, the foremost attribute of the Soviet power is that
it is the "power rural poor."62 For Leon of the mass organizations shared Bukharin's of the proletariat and the

Trotsky, As

who

early

prominence

and

tragic fate, proletarian dictatorship had a meaning

more violence. he wrote,

associated with

Just as a lamp before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the state, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., themost in ruthless form of state, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively direction.63 every Trotsky understood proletarian dictatorship functions. dictatorship not only as an essentially

violent
more

regime but also as the last historical

state had advocate legitimate of violent

stage in which
than Lenin.64

the

conventional spirited

In sum, he was

an even Trotsky,

similarly to other Bolsheviks

to say with regards future." stateless

sharing his views, had remarkably little

arrangements of the "inevitable

to the practical

it Looking at Stalin's thoughts on proletarian dictatorship the concept becomes clear that the long process of misinterpreting had reached its climax. In Stalin's interpretation the dictatorship of
was the proletariat synonymous was least, the entire proletariat with violence represented was the at in practice For by a single dictator. and,

Stalin, as he explained
dictatorship revolution. "There of

in The Foundations

of Leninism
of

(1924), the

the proletariat been no cases

instrument

the proletarian

have

voluntarily departed the dictatorship of

in history where classes have dying the scene" class therefore, struggle during more must the proletariat become necessarily from

intensified.65 Even though the bourgeoisie might have been defeated

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OF THE PROLETARIAT 15 MARXIAN CONCEPTOF THEDICTATORSHIP VOLATILE'

it could still draw strength from international capital and from its enduring connections with the international capitalist community.
The dictatorship of the proletariat arises not on the basis of the bourgeois order, but in the process of the breaking up of this order, after the overthrow of the ... The bourgeoisie dictatorship of the proletariat is a revolutionary power based on the use of force against the bourgeoisie... for the proletarian state is amachine for the suppression of the bourgeoisie.66

In contrast with Bukharin, the dictatorship of the proletariat according to Stalin is not a brief interlude in the evolution of the
communist ence between state but an entire the two Bolsheviks historical era.67 Another have is that, as we differ major seen, Bukharin

would have spared some groups of the bourgeoisie (particularly some segments of the intelligentsia) from the wrath of proletarian dictatorship while the major objective of this stage for Stalin was to physically crush any potential opposition to proletarian rule.68 In the late 1920s and early 1930s, under the emerging Stalinist form of proletarian dictatorship the perspicacious intellectual polemic of the first fifty years after Marx's death had degenerated into Stalin's and
his henchmen's and, increasingly, enemies. heavy-handed physical and often elimination irrational of, their verbal real attacks on and presumed

CONCLUSION
The to demonstrate discussion how the interpre attempted preceding notion tation of the Marxian of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the first half century had changed after Karl Marx's demise. Since Marx concept. First, proletarian dictatorship of the had come to be associated with we have witnessed a dual development in the use of the

the dictatorship of an increasingly narrow stratum of society over

an ever-larger proportion citizenry. As we have seen, for

Marx the dictatorship of the proletariat meant the domination of the vast majority of the population by a small minority. For Lenin, the domination of the small minority had gradually become the rule of the Bolshevik Party. During Stalin's rule, the proletarian dictatorship had come to denote the terroristic rule of a small group of individuals (members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union) and, in time, reduced to a single person: Stalin.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16 Second, ever more in a parallel violent form

ZOLTANBARANY with the gradual While erosion of the

development of governance

popular basis of the dictatorship,

the concept had come to denote an

as well. Marx did not

dissociate himself from the possibility of violence in order to sup press the opposition of the former exploiters, he merely condoned
it. Lenin, of coercion as we have against seen, enthusiastically the Party's adversaries. advocated Under the necessity Stalin, however,

proletarian dictatorship had become a tool to justify the indiscrim inate slaughter of his and the Soviet leadership's real or imagined
enemies. This study also attempted to contrast the views of Marx and Lenin

on the dictatorship of the proletariat. According to Donald Hodges, Lenin's thoughts differed on three points from Marx concerning this
concept. First, for Marx proletarian revolution begins under the con

ditions of imperialism while Lenin disregarded theMarxian "laws of

development." crisis becomes Lenin a for Lenin rather than economic Second, "political a catalyst of the proletarian revolution." for Finally, "breaks out where the link is weaker" while Marx revolution of proletarian revolution in an advanced indus

the arrival expected trial society.69 Nevertheless, the one hand,

Hodges's he is dealing

and not proletarian The former merely concepts.

is at fault on two accounts. On argument with the notion of proletarian revolution two different dictatorship, substantially clearly suggests the beginning of the transition

period during which the latter is presumed to function. On the other hand, Hodges himself states that "Marx spoke only in passing of the
transition Lenin but one to Communism," an elucidation for should note thus he finds it convenient to "turn to It may be a minor of this concept." out, the notion that, as Marcuse pointed there are two crucial and Lenin differences point of the

"weakest link" originated from Trotsky and not Lenin.70

As we the have seen above, of Marx between interpretations considered denoted of proletarian dictatorship. for for

First, while Marx preferred a peaceful dictatorship of the proletariat,

Lenin Marx it necessarily violent. the rule of a large majority to explain while the term Second, over a small minority, Marx's

Lenin

it entailed the domination of the ruling Bolshevik

society. Therefore, meaning

Party over
according

the rest of

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OF THE PROLETARIAT 17 MARXIAN CONCEPTOF THEDICTATORSHIP VOLATILE' to Lenin's is clearly tantamount to not a gross

interpretation

only

misinterpretation but also to doing injustice toMarx's thought. It appears likely, then, that the dictatorship of the proletariat that was realized by the Bolsheviks did not approximate Marx's ideas. as McCarthy notes, if "the proletariat has failed to Nevertheless, carry out themission Marx assigned to it, the fault lies not with the proletariat but with themission itself."71More precisely, Marx had not only been ambiguous about many aspects of his theories but
... in reading Marx (not just Engels) one can find him, at one time or another, espousing (at different times) both sides of nearly all the polar opposites listed above, and one cannot explain that by using the word "dialectical" since that word explains everything.72

Consequently,
blame

it is important to realize that one should not put all the

Marx's concepts only on those who purpose

for "bending"

fully or inadvertently misinterpreted them. The individuals whose thought this study has attempted to examine were pragmatic thinkers
of the vaguenesses and ambiguities advantage on this and other subjects. did so in order Marx's They writings to serve political ambitions. goals, accomplish practical who simply took in to

It is the inconsistency

in Marx's work that has made itpossible for

own version of Marxism." There to decide that one is hard pressed

so many to construct "their people are so many Marxisms alternative confronted

"which one (if any!) is the right for me?" Marxist

thinkers have been

humanistic histor Marxism, Marxism, by structuralist African ical Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Castroism, Trotskyism, that the search for the "authentic" and so forth. It seems Marxism, Marxism will never on the volatility end. Eugene of Marxism: Kamenka had the following to say

The past history, present character and likely future development of Marxism to be as complex and as much subject to historical change and show Marxism ... The tension as Christianity only serious way to analyze Marxist or socialist to be well give up the notion that there is a coherent doctrine called thinking may Marxism and socialism, that there is such thing as theMarxist or socialist idea or even theMarxist or socialist view of the world.73

Thus,
consider

it is difficult to avoid the question of whether or not we may

Marxism as a set of clear and concise ideas in any abuse sense.

There
respected

is a coherent and clear kernel of Marxism

and not subjected to misinterpretation and

that should be
for any

justification. If there is any accurate definition of what Marxism

is,

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

18 the parameters of such

ZOLTANBARANY should include Marx's

explanation

probably

dialectical approach to knowledge itself and materialist perspective of dealing with history on the one hand, and his general view of cap italism based on his social analysis and his permanent commitment
to socialism, This essay on the other. to demonstrate through the examination of the sought

various interpretations of a single concept by the first generation of selected Marxist thinkers some of the practical and theoretical problems that resulted from the lack of consistency in theMarxian usage of theoretical constructs. The notion of the "dictatorship of the
proletariat" is only one of the many concepts that has been subjected

tomisuse andmisinterpretation. In fact, itwould be rather difficult to find any aspect of Marx's thought that has not been disputed. In order
to avoid his or at least ought lower interpreters behind Marx's rounding influenced the risk of "misinterpreting" what Marx, to strive for is, perhaps, to explore the reasons unclear and statements socio-economic and examine environment the sur that

frequently political,

historical, his work.

NOTES
* For their insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper I am indebted to Professors Dante Germino andW. Randy Ne well. 1 in Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 1 (Moscow: Lenin, "The State and Revolution" Foreign Language Publishing House, 1952), p. 233. 2 Les Johnston, Marxism, Class Analysis, and Pluralism: A Theoretical and Polit ical Critique ofMarxist Conceptions of Politics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986), in A. Hunt, ed., Class and Nikos Poulantzas, "The New Petty Bourgeoisie," Class Structure (London: Lawrence andWishart, 1977), p. 113. 4 in Contemporary Capitalism Nikos Poulantzas, Classes (London: New Left Books, 1975), p. 201. 5 Hal Draper, Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, Vol. Ill, The 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1986), pp. 46-47. 6 Mikhail Bakunin, The "Confession" (Ithaca: Cornell of Mikhail Bakunin an recent For excellent examination 41, Press, 1977), my p. emphasis. University of Bakunin's thought, see Paul Avrich, Anarchist Portraits (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), chapters 1-3. 7 Reader (New York: Marx's italics. See Robert C. Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels W. W. Norton, 1978), p. 220. 8 Robert L. Heilbroner, Marxism: For and Against (New York: W. W. Norton, 1980), p. 73.
p. 3 2.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VOLATILE' MARXIAN CONCEPTOF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 19 Richard N. Hunt, The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels: Classical Marxism 1850-1895 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1984), pp. 195-199. 10 Draper, The 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat, p. 93. 1{ For arguments supporting this view, see for instance, Hal Draper, "Marx and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat," New Politics (1962), pp. 91-104. 12 For an excellent examination of the evolution of Marx's thought on the state, see Hans Kelsen, Sozialismus und Staat: eine Untersuchung der politischen Theorie des Marxismus (Vienna: Verlag derWiener Volksbuchhandlung, 1965). 13 See Ralph Miliband, "Marx and the State," Socialist Register (1965), pp. 278 296. 14 David McLellan, "Marx, Engels and Lenin on Party and State," in Leslie The Holmes, ed., Withering Away of the State? Party and State Under Commu nism (London: SAGE, 1981), pp. 7-33. 15 Otto Bihari, The Constitutional Models of Socialist State Organization 1979), p. 15. (Budapest: Akademiai Konyvkiado, 16 See McLellan, "Marx, Engels and Lenin on Party and State," p. 23; and Robin "Marxism: Blackburn, Theory of the Proletarian Revolution," New Left Review, No. 97 (1976), p. 27. 17 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1952), Vol. II, p. 33. 18 See, David W. Lovell, From Marx to Lenin: An Evaluation ofMarx's Respon Press, sibility for Soviet Authoritarianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University 1984), p. 69. 19 Lovell, From Marx to Lenin, p. 69. 20 Etienne Balibar, On the Dictatorship (London: New Left of the Proletariat Books, 1977), p. 124. 21 On this point, see for instance, Shlomo Avineri, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 185 188; Bruce Mazlish, The Meaning of Karl Marx (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 68-70.
22

23 24

Lovell,

From

Marx

to Lenin,

p. 69.

Daler Deol, Liberalism

and Marxism

(New Delhi:

Sterling Publishers,

1976),

p. 93.

On this point, see for instance, Draper, The

'Dictatorship of the Proletariat',

p. 213.

Alexander Dallin and George Breslauer, Political Terror inCommunist Systems (Standford: Standford University Press, 1970), p. 9. 26 See Herbert Marcuse, Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis (New York: Random House, 1961), p. 11. 27 Deol, Liberalism and Marxism, p. 93. 28 Mihailo Markovic, Democratic Socialism: Theory and Practice (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982), p. x. 29 Hunt, The Political Ideas ofMarx and Engels, p. 246. 30 Miliband, "Marx and the State," pp. 289-290. 31 Quoted inN. Harding, Lenin's Political Thought (London: Macmillan, 1981), Lovell, From Marx to Lenin, p. 87. 33 Michael (New York: Simon and Harrington, The Twilight of Capitalism Schuster, 1976), p. 42. For other arguments along these lines, see "The 'Marx
P-91 z

25

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

20

ZOLTANBARANY

in Joseph O'Malley and Keith Algozin, Legend', or Engels, Founder ofMarxism," eds., Rubel on Karl Marx: Five Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); and Norman Levine, The Tragic Deception: Marx Contra Engels (Santa Barbara: Clio Books, 1975). 34 It appears that Lenin derived this views on the state and on the dictatorship of the proletariat primarily from Engels 'swritings and the latter's interpretation of Marx, rather than from the original source. One very likely reason for this was the fact that the body of work left behind by Engels fitted into the Bolshevik ideology much more tightly than Marx's original dictums. For an illuminating study attempting to dissociate Marxism from its bastardized Soviet version, see (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971). Iring Fetscher, Marx and Marxism 35 Lovell, From Marx to Lenin, p. 194. See also, Peter Gay, The Dilemma of Marx (New York: Collier Democratic Socialism: Eduard Bernstein's Challenge to Books, 36 See Marxist 37 Karl 1962). Coercion and Consent John Hoffman, The Gramscian Challenge: in Political Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984), p. 179. (Ann Arbor: University of Kautsky, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat 180. Press, 1964), p. Michigan 38 The same conclusion is reached by Christopher Pierson, Marxist Theory and Democratic Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), p. 60. 39 See Roy Medvedev, Leninism and Western Socialism (London: Verso, 1981),
p. 31.

Vladimir I. Lenin, Collected Works (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, I960-), Vol. 28, p. 252. 41 For an illuminating treatment, see Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (New York: Free Press, 1962), p. 375. 42 Habermas, Theory and Practice (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), p. 197. 43 Cited in Bell, The End of Ideology, p. 383. 44 One caveat should be entered here. Even Marx could not envision literal rule by the masses themselves: "dictatorship" implied for him some sort of central he failed to elaborate on what shape this central authority authority. Nevertheless, or take. might adopt
45

40

46 V. and Legality in the USSR: Lenin's Ideas Chikvadze, The State Democracy 1972), p. 88. Today (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 47 Georgi Shakhnazarov, The Role of the Communist Party in Socialist Society (Moscow: Novosti Press, 1974), pp. 11-12. 48 in Selected Works (New Lenin, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government York: International Publishers, 1935-1938), Vol. 1, p. 422. 49 Cited inE. H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution (London: Harmondsworth, 1975), Vol. 1, p. 236. 50 See Lenin's third letter in Letters from Afar. On the Proletarian Militia, in Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 229. 51 es Jogi Konyvkiado, Mihaly Samu, Hatalom es allam (Budapest: Kozgazdasagi 203. 1982), p. 52 Nikolai Valentinov, Encounters with Lenin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 128. 53 Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 417. 54 Cited in Leonard Schapiro, The Origin of the Communist Autocracy: Polit

Deol,

Liberalism

and Marxism,

p. 76.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VOLATILE' MARXIAN CONCEPTOF THEDICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT21 icol Opposition in the Soviet Phase (1917-1922) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955), pp. 254-255. 55 See, for instance, B. Topornin and E. Machulsky, Socialism and Democracy: A Reply to Opportunists 1974), p. 31. (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 56 Le Duan, Hold High the Revolutionary Banner of Creative Marxism! (Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1964), p. 35. 57 Hoffman, The Gramscian Challenge, p. 178. 58 and the One-Party System," See M. Johnstone, "Socialism, Democracy Marxism Today, August, September, and November 281? 1970, pp. 242-250; 287; 349-356. The quote was taken from p. 352. 59 p. 30. Topornin and Machulsky, Socialism and Democracy, 60 Nikolai I.Bukharin, Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1969), p. 310. 61 Bukharin, The Politics and Economics of the Transition Period (London: Rout ledge & Kegan Paul, 1979), p. 48, Bukharin's emphasis. 62 Bukharin, The Politics and Economics of the Transition Period, p. 49. 63 Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1961), p. 170. 64 This view is shared by Miliband. See his Marxism and Politics, p. 143. 65 Cited in Thornton Anderson, Masters (New York: of Russian Marxism 1963), p. 232. Appleton-Century-Crofts, 66 See Bruce Franklin, ed., The Essential Stalin: Major Theoretical Writings, 1950-52 (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1972), p. 127. 67 in the C.P.S.U.(B)" inWorks, vol. See Ibid., and Stalin, "The Right Deviation 12 (Moscow, 1955), pp. 35-38. 68 See, for instance, Henri Chambre, From Karl Marx toMao Tsetung: A System atic Survey of Marxism-Leninism (New York: P. J. Kennedy & Sons, 1963), pp. 141-142. 69 Donald C. Hodges, The Bureaucratization of Socialism (Amherst: University 8-9. of Massachusetts Press, 1981), pp.
70

Timothy McCarthy, Marx and the Proletariat: A Study in Social Theory (West port: Greenwood Press, 1978), p. 70. 72 Daniel Bell, "The Once and Future Marx," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, No. 1 (July 1977), p. 189. 73 Eugene Kamenka, "The Many Faces of Marx," Times Literary Supplement, November 19, 1976, p. 1442.

71

Marcuse,

Soviet

Marxism,

p.

15.

Department

of Government

University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712-1087

USA

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.29 on Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:20:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions