In the communist worldview...

the dictatorship of the proletariat stays. its imperative for the communist society to be ruled by the working class at all times. it's not some expiring part of the transition, communist society must always be ruled by the proles.

the transition is thought to happen like this- its acknowledged initially that there are a lot of services that the everyday individual relies on the state to provide, so the state is still necessary after the revolution. however, as time continues, the proles are expected to be able to perform the tasks they relied on the state to provide in the capitalist world. after the proles learn all of these tasks, the state won't have much purpose of existence. there might still be some reason to have a centralized bureaucracy for some decisions, and if that's the case, maybe the proles keep the state around.

the 'revolutionary socialist party' you envision won't give up their power when the time is needed. it will need to be forcibly taken from them. however, i wonder where you get the 'absolute godlike power' bit from. the revolutionary socialist party that makes up the temporary bureaucracy has no private military. they only have themselves. they will be plenty outnumbered by the proles that wish to dissolve them. there's no godlike power here. the bureaucracy has power because the proles decide they're still necessary to keep around. when the proles no longer feel that way, the revolutionary socialist party will be destroyed if they do not wish to vacate their positions.

in short, don't give the revolutionary socialist party military power if you don't want them to be 'absolutely godlike'. develop a strict rule that the state is not allowed to have its own army- armies, if necessary, must be composed of willing proletarians and be directed by a separate group from the bureaucracy.

>In the communist worldview, a socialist revolution will occur which will replace the capitalist order with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
He didn't mean a dictator that ruled over the proletariat. He meant the proletariat acted as dictator, like direct democracy.

This desu. Marx only advocated state ownership when the state was democratic.

Marx never really talked about how to transition to communism, or any alternatives like that. Marx never said "Yeah man you need a Vanguard party", he never said anything about a dictatorship of the proletariat. He was mainly concern with Capitalism and the working of it. What he put out, before he died, was an interest in Labor, Value, and the relations of production in which shapes the society. He was never a advocate of one particular way to achieve communism. There are some moments where you get an idea what he might have wanted (He commented that the Paris Commune was the perfect example of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, aka just the working class destroying class and obtaining the means of production), but he knew it was far off, and focused his time critiquing Capitalism.

What you are doing is skimming over Lenin, came across the idea of the Vanguard, and attributing to Marx. That is not true.

>he never said anything about a dictatorship of the proletariat

I meant to say he never said anything about a One-party system.

>What was an ancient Roman dictatorship?

its not a dictatorship in the modern sense. most people today think a dictatorship involves a single individual having absolute power. OP is one of those people. the dictatorship of proles is a dictatorship, but its a dictatorship where all members of the working class have equal say on the affairs of the society. its not just one individual who rules, but everybody has a say. its a more involved version of today's democracy that tries to mitigate as much as possible the oligarchical aspects of modern government.

the word "dictatorship" meant something completely different when Marx used it in the 1800s. It means in his context "whichever class is the ruling class" so, for example, we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, because the bourgeoisie are the ruling class. Marx also favoured the state being controlled democratically, not bureaucratically like Lenin did.

Just FYI, Marx described liberal democracy as "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"

Right, that's central to pretty much every left-wing critique of Leninism.

Problem is, how do you lead a revolution without such a group?

Marx didn't really believe this transition would happen, but someone did: Trotsky

One of the central tenets of his form of socialism is basically the perpetuity of class struggle. He was literally that retarded

This. Not even a marxist, but is it really so hard to try and engage in historical texts on their own terms, rather then reading modern language back on them.

It's like saying Machievelli's The Prince is totally incoherent because of the parts about Virtue.

Why?

>Problem is, how do you lead a revolution without such a group?
Capitalist revolution seemed to do just fine.

Because he disagrees with them, duhh user, why else?

thats because the feudalist bureaucracy had no problems accepting the new capitalist order because they saw profit for themselves in it.

you can't say the same for the commie revolution. it's not easy to convince the ruling class that communism is in their best interest, because it isn't.

Huh? You think the First Continental Congress and Continental Army were anything other than a Vanguard Party?

The French Revolution was a fucking shitshow

>Now, on the contrary, when every one is to cultivate himself into man, condemning a man to machine-like labor amounts to the same thing as slavery. If a factory-worker must tire himself to death twelve hours and more, he is cut off from becoming man. Every labor is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. His labor is nothing taken by itself, has no object in itself, is nothing complete in itself; he labors only into another's hands, and is used (exploited) by this other.
>The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once become thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and there.
>But let the individual man lay claim to ever so many rights because Man or the concept man ‘entitles’ him to them, because his being man does it: what do I care for his right and his claim? If he has his right only from Man and does not have it from me, then for me he has no right. His life, for example, counts to me only for what it is worth to me. I respect neither a so-called right of property (or his claim to tangible goods) nor yet his right to the ‘sanctuary of his inner nature’ (or his right to have the spiritual goods and divinities, his gods, remain un-aggrieved). His goods, the sensuous as well as the spiritual, are mine, and I dispose of them as proprietor, in the measure of my — might.
Workers need to realize they are the ruling class in an industrial society.

Of course. America already had a capitalist economy going.

So, in your assessment, capitalism hasn't worked yet?

There were plenty of countries where the ruling class tried their damnest to keep out capitalism (Russia, China, Ottomans, parts of Italy). It made it's way in because it rendered the ruling class obsolete.

Communism entirely relies on this happening in an industrialized nation as well, specifically Prussia, but it always happens in agrarian shitholes and everyone starves

Reminder that the Germans sent Lenin to Russia so he could shit all over German ideology and try and convince Germans it was a bad idea.

Now imagine that suddenly your boss is gone and the workplace is owned collectively by the employees. Stacey in the cubicle has a girlfriend who's down on her luck and looking for a new job and she thinks you're a creep anyway and believes your white male privilege will help you get a new job effortlessly. Besides, you need to be taught a lesson about what it's like to have real struggles just like all the people your ancestors oppressed. Stacey tells this to Chad and he agrees that it would be better if you were gone.

Chad thinks you're kind of a stiff. After all, you're usually quiet at the meetings, you keep to yourself, don't talk about sports with the guys at lunch break. He thinks you don't fit the company culture and Stacey's friend (who happens to be single) is a better fit. At lunch, instead of discussing UFC, Chad approaches Tyrone about getting rid of you.

Tyrone says you're a wack ass cracker because when the two of you met, you didn't know how to dap. You're quiet, Tyrone remarks; you might even be a homo. He also suspects that you might be a racist because one time you ratted him out for smoking ganja in the toilet.

At the next monthly employee plenum, your termination is proposed. You are accused of sexual harassment of coworkers, rudeness, and racism. It is decided that you are to be fired with no benefits in a vote that is essentially a popularity contest. Stacey's friend Samantha, who graduated from her local community college with a degree in African Basket Weaving and English, is hired immediately to fill the senior position that you spent years to reach.

All this happened because you couldn't make small talk about UFC.

I don't think capitalism has ever worked

while a funny hypothetical, we should be aware that not all workplaces will organize themselves in such a cliquey fashion. some will. and proles will decide not to work there over a place that values one's experience and expertise more than how well they fit in with the 'in' crowd.

no one wants to work in a return to high school setting.

>no one wants to work in a return to high school setting.
I think some will, but they're unlikely to let an autist in in the first place.

nah rich bourgeois here

plebs should die desu