Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

1/204

ETIENNE BALIBAR

ON THEDICTATORSHIP

OF THE

PROLETARIAT

Introduction by

Grahame Loc

A!ter"ord by

Loui# A$thu##er

First published as Sur La Dictature du Proltariat

by Franois Maspero, 1976

Franois Maspero, 1976

This edition first published 1977

NLB, 1977 [Ne Left Boo!s"

Translated by #raha$e Lo%!

Prepared for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo, dr!cru"io.com&'e%e$ber 1997(

&)orre%ted and *pdated +uly -1.(

[#ran$criber%$ &ote/

The %itations for all te0tual referen%es to Lenin by the authors are to the th 2n3lish edition ofthe 'ollected (or)$.4n re3ard to this, there are to thin3s that $ust be noted5

First, in the ast $aority of instan%es, hen %itin3 Lenin, the authors proide only the olu$enu$ber and the pa3e&s(8 seldo$ is the title of the te0t by Lenin proided5 hen it is not absolutely

obious hi%h of Lenin:s te0ts is bein3 %ited, 4 hae inserted, in bra%!ets & [" (, the title of the te0t5;e%ond, althou3h all of Lenin:s te0ts %ited by the authors are aailable in F

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

2/204

a spe%ifi% title5 DJR"

Content#

Introductionto the En%$i#h Edition by

Grahame Loc 7

For"ard C

I& Pari# '()*+,- .o#co" '()/+, CD

:'i%tatorship or 'e$o%ra%y:

Three ;i$ple and False 4deas

> Ere%edent / 19C6

CD

9

II&

Lenin0# Three Theoretica$ Ar%ument#

about the Dictator#hi1 o! the Pro$etariat .D

III& 2hat i# State Po"er3 6

Mar0is$ and Bour3eois Le3al 4deolo3yas the Eroletariat 'isappearedG

6677

I4& The De#truction o! the State A11aratu# DD

2

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

3/204

The =pportunist 'eiation

The =r3aniHation of )lass

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

4/204

Loui# A$thu##ier 8 The Hi#toric Si%ni!icance

o! the 66nd Con%re## 19C

Etienne Ba$ibar 8 Po#t#cri1tto the

En%$i#h Edition 1

Inde5[Not aailable" C.

1a%e *

Introduction to the

En%$i#h Edition

:4 thin! that it is out of pla%e to 3o around shoutin3 that this or that is realLeninis$5 4 as re%ently rereadin3 the first %hapters of #he State and

Revolution[5 5 5" Lenin rote/ @hat is no happenin3 to Mar0:s theory has, in

the %ourse of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of 3reat reolutionary

thin!ers [5 5 5" >tte$pts are $ade to %onert the$ into har$less i%ons, to

%anoniHe the$, so to say, and to hallo their name$[5 5 5" hile at the sa$e ti$e

robbin3 the reolutionary theory of its$ub$tance5@ 4 thin! that this bitter

Auotation obli3es us not to hide su%handsu%h of our %on%eptions behind the

label of Leninis$, but to 3et to the root of all Auestions5 [5 5 5" For us, as

Mar0ists, truth is hat %orresponds to reality5 Iladi$ir 4lyi%h used to say/

Mar0:s tea%hin3 is allpoerful be%ause it is true5 [5 5 5" The tas! of our)on3ress $ust be to see! for and to find the %orre%t line5 [5 5 5" Bu!harin has

de%lared here ith 3reat e$phasis that hat the )on3ress de%ides ill be

%orre%t5 2ery Bolshei! a%%epts the de%isions of the )on3ress as bindin3, but

e $ust not adopt the iepoint of the 2n3lish %onstitutional e0pert ho too!

literally the popular 2n3lish sayin3 to the effe%t that Earlia$ent %an de%ide

anythin3, een to %han3e a $an into a o$an5:

4

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

5/204

N5 Jrups!ayaLenin, Speech to the 34th ll+5nion 'ommuni$t Party

'ongre$$, 19.5[1"

K K K

Noone and nothin3, not een the )on3ress of a )o$$unist Earty, %an abolishthe di%tatorship of the proletariat5 That is the

[1"uoted by +5M5 #ay$an, :Les 'bats au sein du parti bol%hei! &19.19D(, in 'ahier$ de l%In$titut

6aurice #hore", 1976, p5 C115

1a%e 9

$ost i$portant %on%lusion of 2tienne Balibar:s boo!5 The reason is that the

di%tatorship of the proletariat is not apolicyor a$trategyinolin3 the

establish$ent of a parti%ularform of government or in$titution$but, on the%ontrary, an hi$torical reality.More e0a%tly, it is a reality hi%h has its roots in

%apitalis$ itself, and hi%h %oers the hole of the transition period to

%o$$unis$, :the reality of a histori%al tenden%y:, a tenden%y hi%h be3ins to

deelop /ithin capitali$m it$elf, in stru33le a3ainst it &%h5 .(5 4t is not :one

possible path of transition to so%ialis$:, a path hi%h %an or $ust be :%hosen:

under %ertain histori%al %onditions &e535, in the :ba%!ard: boo! that ar3ues, a3ainst the %urrent,for the nece$$ity of the

dictator$hip of the proletariat$i3ht therefore at first si3ht appear to border on

the biHarre5 For is it not at best a si3n of e%%entri%ity to ino!e su%h an

5

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

6/204

ar3u$ent in a %ountry ithout een a poerful Mar0ist presen%e in the labour

$oe$ent, let alone a $i3hty reolutionary Earty, and here the traditions of

parlia$entary 3oern$ent and so%alled politi%al $oderation are so

oerhel$in3ly stron3G >nd if as the Fren%h, 4talian, ;panish, Eortu3uese

and +apanese )o$$unist Earties, a$on3 others, beliee there are in any %ase

3ood reasons fro$ a

1a%e )

Mar0ist point of ie for abandonin3 the di%tatorship of the proletariat, then

hat possible reason %ould any British )o$$unist hae for disa3reein3G

But not only is the ter$ dictator$hip of the proletariatapparently old

fashioned and outofdate8 it is also di$ta$teful5 For ho %an the Left %onde$n

the :di%tatorships: in )hile or >r3entina, 4ran or ;outh Jorea, et%5, hile

proposin3 to instal its on di%tatorshipG >nd if the ter$ dictator$hipis

unpleasant, its partnerproletariat is see$in3ly plainly absurd &ust trysu33estin3 to a British fa%tory or!er that he is a :proletarian: 5 5 5(5 4t is

therefore easy to i$a3ine the relief ith hi%h )o$$unists in Britain, perhaps

een $ore than elsehere, hae learned that the abandon$ent of the

di%tatorship of the proletariat is on the a3enda here, too &in the land here Jarl

Mar0 :inented: it(5

4f only thin3s ere so si$pleP But, unfortunately, they are not8 and this boo!

indi%ates at least so$e of the reasons hy5 4t is not intended to resole all the

Auestions hi%h it raises, but to %ontribute toards a genuine debateon these

Auestions5 This theoreti%al debate $ust ta!e pla%e, and it ill ne%essarily be

international in %hara%ter, thou3h of %ourse it %annot and $ust not be re3ardedas an opportunity for any side to interfere in the de%isions of another, forei3n

)o$$unist Earty5

4n spite of the $aor differen%es distin3uishin3 the ;tates of estern 2urope,

it is i$possible, as 4 pointed out, not to hae noti%ed that their )o$$unist

Earties hae in $any %ases re%ently %o$e to si$ilar %on%lusions about the need

to $odify %ertain pra%ti%al and theoreti%al positions hi%h they hae preiously

defended5 This pheno$enon has been dubbed as the birth of :2uro

%o$$unis$:, for reasons hi%h are perhaps not as transparent as they $i3ht

see$5 4n any %ase, these Earties hae in 3eneral no ta!en up positions hi%h

hae brou3ht the$ into %onfli%t ith the ;oiet *nion on a nu$ber ofi$portant points, so$e %on%ernin3 Auestions of :freedo$: and :hu$an ri3hts:,

et%5 4t has therefore been possible for %o$$entators to %on%lude that there are

no to different brands of %o$$unis$ in 2urope/ the :estern: and :2astern:

arieties5[" 4n %onseAuen%e it has been idely assu$ed that any debate on

funda$ental Auestions li!e

6

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

7/204

["The a%tual situation is rather $ore %o$pli%ated, sin%e e535 the est #er$an and Eortu3uese )o$$unistEarties are 3enerally re3arded, %orre%tly or not, as belon3in3 fro$ the do%trinal standpoint to the :2astern:

3roup5

1a%e (:

that of the dictator$hip of the proletariatis basi%ally a debate beteen parties

of the to types e535 beteen the Fren%h and British Earties &et%5( on the one

side and the ;oiet and un3arian Earties &et%5( on the other5 To re$ar!s are

%alled for in this %onne0ion5

2ir$t, this ay of presentin3 the Auestion su33ests, ron3ly, that there e0ist

only to alternaties/ either the ree%tion of the %on%ept of the di%tatorship of

the proletariat and the adoption of a :de$o%rati% interpretation: of so%ialis$ or

un%riti%al a%%eptan%e of the ;oiet position and of its on brand of the %on%ept8

and

Second, it raises the Auestion/ if the ti$e is past hen there as one sin3le$odel of so%ialis$ the ;oiet $odel a%%epted by all )o$$unist Earties,

then $ust the ti$e not also be past hen there %an be one, sin3le :estern:

$odel of so%ialis$ e535 the so%alled :2uro%o$$unist: $odel to be not

only auto$ati%ally adopted by all est 2uropean )o$$unist Earties but also,

ithout further debate, by eery sin3le one of their $e$bersG 4s the old

do3$atis$ to be ree%ted si$ply in order to be repla%ed by a ne oneG

=f %ourse, the reader $i3ht, in leafin3 throu3h this boo! and notin3 the

freAuen%y of the referen%es to and Auotes fro$ Lenin, %on%lude that, in any

%ase, the author is hi$self a%tually i$prisoned in a for$ of the old do3$atis$,

sin%e he is unable to brea! ith the nostal3i% past of the

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

8/204

&( The se%ond reason is that Lenin as not alays ri3ht, even in hi$ o/n

time5 4t is rather biHarre, in fa%t, to see ho those ery sa$e Mar0ists ho

assure us that Lenin:s ar3u$ents are no outofdate &or, to use that spe%ial

philosophi%al lan3ua3e hi%h has 3ot Mar0ists out of so $any ti3ht %orners,

that they hae been :trans%ended by history:( at the sa$e ti$e so often assu$e

or insist that,for hi$ o/n epoch, his positions ere alays entirely %orre%t hi%h is of %ourse, parado0i%ally, a%tually a ay [C"of atta%!in3 Leninis$ by

e0plainin3 that, thou3h not false, it is of :histori%ally li$ited: relean%e5 Lenin is

%anoniHed, his na$e is halloed in order to $a!e it all the easier to :rob his

reolutionary theory of its substan%e:5

4n one of the best boo!s published on the sube%t for a lon3 ti$e, ["

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

9/204

3eneral Auestions %on%ernin3 the transition to %o$$unis$, and if &( he as

ery unsure about the ansers to so$e of these Auestions, and often %han3ed

his $ind and plainly %ontradi%ted hi$self, then it be%o$es i$possible to

%on%lude ithout further ado eitherthat his :su%%esses: &his :%orre%t ansers:

in%ludin3 his insisten%e on the need for the di%tatorship of the proletariat( are of

relean%e only to the spe%ial diffi%ulties fa%ed by :ba%!ard:

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

10/204

'e$o%ra%y, folloin3 the

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

11/204

government&parlia$ent ver$u$the oneparty syste$, and so on( or as political

or in$titutional form$&%onsent ver$u$%oer%ion(5 Oet on this point Lenin:s

ar3u$ent is perfe%tly %lear/

:Bour3eois ;tates are mo$t varied in form, but their essen%e is the

sa$e/ allthese ;tates, /hatever their form, in the final analysis are

ineitably the dictator$hip of the bourgeoi$ie5 The transition fro$ %apitalis$ to%o$$unis$ is %ertainly bound to yield a tre$endous abundan%e and ariety

ofpolitical form$, but the essen%e ill ineitably be the sa$e/ the dictator$hip

of the proletariat% &$y e$phasis #5L5(5[9"

=f %ourse a si$ple referen%e to Lenin %an neer be a proof5 But e %an at

least as! those theorists ho hae abandoned and ree%ted Lenin:s position on

this $atter to ad$it as $u%h5

K K K

4 should li!e, in order better to illustrate the relean%e of the present boo! to thedebate hi%h $ust ta!e pla%e in Britain, to $a!e referen%e to a re%ent arti%le by

+a%! oddis &$e$ber of the Eoliti%al )o$$ittee of the British )o$$unist

Earty( in6ar9i$m

[D"'f5 Lenin, #he Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade *aut$)y&??I444, C [p5 6"(/ :Jauts!y:s 3reat

dis%oery of the @funda$ental %ontrast@ beteen @de$o%rati% and di%tatorial $ethods@ [5 5 5" is the %ru0 of

the $atter8 that is the essen%e of Jauts!y:s pa$phlet5 >nd that is su%h an aful theoreti%al $uddle, su%h a%o$plete renun%iation of Mar0is$, that Jauts!y, it $ust be %onfessed, has far e0%elled Bernstein5:[9"4n #he State and Revolution, %h5 8??I, 1D [p5 1"5

1a%e (t any $o$ent in the

deelop$ent of the bour3eoisie this %lass does of %ourse %ontain a do$inant

fra%tion &this as also the %ase in Mar0:s on ti$e, and in that of Lenin(, but

neither %on%luded that ;tate poer as held by that fractionof the bour3eoisie8

on the %ontrary, they spo!e, as e hae seen, about the ;tate poer of

the capitali$t cla$$as a hole5 No in the present day, $onopoly %apital has

%learly e$er3ed as the do$inant fra%tion ithin the %apitalist %lass8 but that

ould neertheless not see$, if e follo Mar0 and Lenin, to be a 3ood reason

for %on%ludin3 that it no, alone, holds ;tate poer5

hy did Mar0 and Lenin insist that it is the %apitalist %lass as a hole hi%h

holds ;tate poerG Be%ause &1( the ;tate is defined as a produ%t and an

instru$ent of the anta3onis$ beteen the %lasses8 &( this anta3onis$ is neer

purely politi%al &:folloin3 on fro$: the e0isten%e of e%ono$i% and %ultural

ineAuality, poerty, et%5( but essential to the definition of the %apitalist

produ%tion relation8 &C( this produ%tion relation is defined first of all in ter$s

["> point hi%h is not inalidated by the deelop$ent, transfor$ation &and disinte3ration( of other so%alled :inter$ediate: so%ial strata5 'la$$e$, in Mar0ist theory, are defined in the epo%h of %apitalis$ first of

all by the funda$ental anta3onis$, rooted in the %apitalist produ%tion relation, beteen the bour3eoisie onthe one hand and the proletariat on the other5 Naturally, hoeer, if you abandon Mar0is$ for a

so%iolo3i%al definition of %lasses, you ill be fa%ed ith the enor$ous &and insoluble( proble$ of thatapparently eere0pandin3 :ne $iddle %lass:P

1a%e 6;

of e0ploitation &the e0tra%tion of surplusalue(8 but &( the produ%tion relation

is one hose ter$s are &hole( %lasses8 the e0ploitin3 %lass is the bour3eoisie

as a hole5 The 3eneral pro%ess of %apitalist a%%u$ulation $ust therefore be

defined as a sin3le &thou3h %o$ple0( pro%ess in hi%h all the fra%tions of the

bour3eoisie are united in and by their e0ploitation of the or!in3 %lass5 This

re$ains trueeven if &hi%h is today Auite obiously the %ase( the pro%ess ofthe di$tributionof surplusalue heaily faours $onopoly %apital, and

therefore een if %ertain i$portant ne %ontradi%tions are arisin3 ithin the

bour3eoisie, beteen its arious fra%tions, of hi%h the or!in3 %lass and its

politi%al leadership %ertainly mu$t ma)e u$e5

This ar3u$ent is not an e0er%ise in lo3i%%hoppin38 it has $aterial politi%al

%onseAuen%es5 4 shall outline three of the$5

19

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

20/204

&1( There is no su33estion here that the $iddle and s$all &petty( bour3eoisie

for$ a sin3le rea%tionary blo%8 that does not follo fro$ the ar3u$ent5 =n the

%ontrary5 hat is i$plied, hoeer, is that there are 3ood $aterial reasons for

the e$piri%ally obserable fa%t that it is e0tre$ely diffi%ult to pry these 3roups

aay fro$ the bi3 bour3eoisie, at least on any substantial politi%al basis and for

any substantial len3th of ti$e5 )ertain %onseAuen%es thus follo ith respe%t tohat $i3ht be %alled the politi%al strate3y and ta%ti%s of the Mar0ist Labour

Moe$ent, not least be%ause the divi$ion$ in$ide the bourgeoi$ie are intimately

lin)ed /ith the divi$ion$ in$ide the proletariat5 4t is this %onne0ion, and this

latter set of diisions hi%h $a!e thin3s so $u%h $ore %o$pli%ated than is

su33ested by the pi%ture dran by the theory of ;tate Monopoly )apitalis$5

&( 4n this theory, as e hae seen, the bour3eoisie as a %lass tends to

disappear, to be repla%ed by $onopoly %apital, et%5 4t is therefore no surprise

that, analo3ously, the proletariat a$ a cla$$ $hould tend to di$appear too , either

entirely, or to be%o$e si$ply the :%ore: of the or!in3 %lass or of the or!in3

people, and so on5 4n %onseAuen%e it is si$ilarly no surprise that theorists of

;tate Monopoly )apitalis$ should %on%lude that, for this sa$e reason, the idea

of the di%tatorship of the proletariatalso has to be abandoned5

&C( =n%e the di%tatorship of the proletariat has been abandoned, it be%o$es

possible to deelop $ore %onsistently than before the parti%ular notion of

so%ialis$ and of the transition fro$ %apitalis$

1a%e 6t the %ost of introdu%in3 an e0tra sta3e, ;talin therefore also introdu%ed so$e

lo3i% into his s%he$e5 But he had to do $ore/ sin%e he %ould not ad$it hat

Lenin insisted on na$ely, the contradictory nature of the proletarian State,

21

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

22/204

hi%h at one and the sa$e ti$e both defended the proletariat a3ainst its

ene$ies and yet %onstituted a threat again$t /hichthe proletariat had to defend

itself[" he had to transfor$ the di%tatorship of the proletariat fro$ an

histori%al tenden%y, des%ribin3 the 3roin3 poer of the proletariat both /ithin

and /here nece$$ary again$tthe :proletarian ;tate: into a $imple $et of State

in$titution$ een if they ere &still( %alled :;oiets:, et%5No the presentday ado%ates of the abandon$ent of the di%tatorship of the

proletariat only ta!e ;talin:s s%he$e one step further5 They ant to abolish the

di%tatorship of the proletariat &in ;talin:s sense of this ter$ Lenin:s sense is

not $entionedP N5B5(, and they %an do so ust be%ause they hae already, ith

respe%t to the period not ust of so%ialis$ but of %apitalis$ itself,

effe%tiely%aboli$hed% cla$$e$, hoeer a$aHin3 this %lai$ $ay see$5 =f

%ourse the ter$ :%lass: is still used, but no longer in the 6ar9i$t $en$e[."for in

the Mar0ist sense %lasses are defined not in so%iolo3i%al ter$s, as a for$

of cla$$ificationof a 3ien population hi%h is only a $odern, :s%ientifi%:

ersion of the ei3hteenth%entury notion of :parti%ular interests: to hi%h 4

referred earlier but e0%lusiely in ter$s of the anta3onis$ beteen the t/o

cla$$e$of %apitalist so%iety, bour3eoisie and proletariat, and this is %ru%ial

be%ause it is i$possible to analyHe this anta3onis$ e0%ept ith referen%e to the

essential role played in the pro%ess of e0ploitation &in hi%h the relation of

anta3onis$ ta!es $aterial for$( by the ;tate, and its use as an instru$ent of

the rule of one

["Lenin/ The or!ers: or3aniHations $ust :prote%t the or!ers fro$ their ;tate:8 ???44, .5 [@The Trade

*nions5 The Eresent ;ituation and Trots!y:s Mista!es@5"[."=r, if it is so$eti$es still used in the Mar0ist sense, this shos only that the :theory: of ;tate Monopoly

)apitalis$ is, as 4 pointed out, not ho$o3eneous, but an internally %ontradi%tory %o$bination of Mar0ist

and nonMar0ist :ele$ents:5

1a%e 6*

of these to %lasses, na$ely the bour3eoisie5 Therefore, on%e you abandon the

notion, basi% to Mar0is$ and Leninis$, that ;tate poer alays lies in the

hands of a sin3le %lass, i5e5 that eery ;tate is the di%tatorship of a %lass, you are

naturally led to drop the idea that presentday %apitalis$ is a di%tatorship of the

bour3eoisie8 but sin%e you hae %eased to define the bour3eoisie in a Mar0istsense, and therefore the proletariat too, you ill naturally %on%lude that the

%on%eption of the di%tatorship of the proletariat is al$oAuite superfluous and

indeed ron3, be%ause the proletariat does not really e0ist any $ore, e0%ept as

a so%iolo3i%al %ate3ory &:%ore of the or!in3 %lass:, et%5(5 4t is for all these

reasons that there is a %lose %onne0ion beteen the e$er3en%e of the theory of

;tate Monopoly )apitalis$ and the abandon$ent of the di%tatorship of the

proletariat, and that this abandon$ent %annot be %onsidered &as so$e se%tions

22

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

23/204

of the bour3eois press hae $ali%iously but stupidly %ontended( as a ta%ti%al

ele%toral $anoeure5

But at the sa$e ti$e e %annot therefore identify the abandon$ent of the

di%tatorship of the proletariat uneAuio%ally ith a pro%ess of :de;taliniHation:5

=n the %ontrary, it is rather a Auestion of ironin3 out dis%repan%ies in ;talin:s

pi%ture, for ;talin, folloin3 i$$ediately upon Lenin, %ould not at on%eabandon all the aspe%ts of the latter:s position &and %ertainly not all of the

ords/ in parti%ular, the ter$ :di%tatorship of the proletariat: as retained for

%ertain purposes(5 4t is orth re$e$berin3 &see %h5 1belo( that the trials,

pur3es, labour %a$ps, et%5 for hi%h the ;talin period is renonedfor the mo$t

part follo/edthe introdu%tion of the 19C6 )onstitution, i5e5 folloed the

effe%tie abandonment by Stalinof the di%tatorship of the proletariat as applied

to the ;oiet *nion5

4t is of %ourse Auite obious that, in abandonin3 the di%tatorship of the

proletariat in their turn, estern 2uropean )o$$unists do /antand intendto

brea! ith &the re$nants of( :;talinis$:, not to reprodu%e or to reinfor%e the$5

4n a %ertain sense, it $ust be ad$itted that they hae done so5 Their ne

positions are %ertainly not, in spite of hat has been said aboe, identi%al ith

those defended by ;talin, and the pra%ti%al %onseAuen%es of these ne

positions, in hat are in any %ase different histori%al %onditions, ill %ertainly

not be the sa$e5 Oet their positions re$ain in another i$portant sense

stru%turally eAuialent to ;talin:s5In /hat $en$e G 4n the sense, as 4 said, that

they defend an analo3ous

1a%e 69

%on%eption of so%ialis$5 This $ay sound li!e an astonishin3 %lai$, 3ien that

so $u%h attention has been paid &e535 in the Fren%h )o$$unist Earty:s nd

)on3ress( to definin3 a for$ of so%ialis$ apparently as different as you %an

possibly i$a3ine fro$ the ;oiet ariety, and espe%ially fro$ the pre19.6

;oiet ariety5 But the point here is not that the %ontents of the to pa%!a3es

are different8 it is that both %on%eptions pi%ture so%ialis$ as a for$ of

so%iety in it$ o/n right, hi%h %an be defined in ter$s of publi% onership of

the $eans of produ%tion, planned 3roth, e%ono$i% usti%e, et%5 The fa%t that

indiidual and %olle%tie liberty is no added to the list as an essential ele$ent

%han3es nothin3 of the fa%t that in both %ases you find a %on%eption ofthe$ociali$t State&N5B5( not as a %ontradi%tory pheno$enon, both a ital

ne%essity and yet a $ortal dan3er to the stru33le of the or!in3 %lass for

%o$$unis$, but as a si$ple instru$ent for the ad$inistration of a so%iety

ithout anta3onisti% %ontradi%tions &e0%ept ith re3ard to the re$nants of the

old rulin3 %lasses, destined in any %ase to die out(, an instru$ent for the

:satisfa%tion of the people:s needs:5 Oet this is not only ;talin:s but stran3ely

23

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

24/204

e0a%tly the typi%al ;o%ial'e$o%rati% %on%eption of so%ialis$P ;in%e it is a

;o%ial'e$o%rati% %on%eption, it should be no surprise to dis%oer that it is also

a typi%ally bour3eois %on%eption5

Bour3eois ideolo3y %an i$a3ine &a fa%t hi%h is refle%ted in its %lassi%

%ontrast beteen de$o%ra%y and di%tatorship( to for$s of the e0er%ise of

;tate poer/ the de$o%rati% for$ &parlia$entary institutions, $ultipartysyste$, freedo$ of spee%h and asse$bly, et%5( and the di%tatorial for$ &sin3le

party syste$, fusion of party and state, refusal to tolerate opposition, and so

on(5 4t %an i$a3ine these to for$s of the e0er%ise of ;tate poer, and it

%lassifies e0istin3 ;tates a%%ordin3ly5 (hat it cannot imagineis a ;tate of the

!ind portrayed by Lenin, a 3enuinely proletarian ;tate, a ;tate hose fun%tion

is to e0er%iHe poer only and preci$elyin order to prepare the %onditions for its

on disappearan%e, a ;tate hose ery e0isten%e is based on a %ontradi%tion, a

;tate hi%h itself re%o3niHes that it $ust finally :ither aay:, a ;tate hi%h

a%%epts that it %annot a%hiee its 3oal unless it %eases to e0ist and all this not

in any for$al or $erely erbal sense, but in the $aterial pra%ti%e of the %lass

stru33le5 ;u%h a ;tate ould hae to re%o3niHe that it can never be %univer$al%,

for if, impo$$ibiliter, it ere eer to be%o$e uniersal, its $aterial reason for

e0isten%e ould hae

1a%e 6)

been eli$inated5 4t %an only e0ist as lon3 as so%iety is diided by the %lass

stru33le5 But bour3eois ideolo3y %annot i$a3ine su%h a thin35 For bour3eois

ideolo3y the ;tate is, on the %ontrary, essentially uniersal, serin3 the hole of

the people5 Mar0is$ says/ su%h a ;tate %annot e0ist8 it is literally a non$en$e5But our old &;talintype( and brandne :Mar0ists: say, turnin3 bour3eois

ideolo3y to their on ends/ su%h a ;tate as you, the bour3eoisie, drea$ of %an

be realiHed under so%ialis$5 4t is our &proe%ted( so%ialist ;tateP The so%ialist

;tate is thus represented as the first truly uniersal ;tate, the first 3enuine :;tate

of the hole people:5 hat separates our old, ;talintype Mar0ists fro$ the

brandne ariety is that the latter hae salloed a little bit $ore of the

bour3eois line/ they hae salloed the hole story about

de$o%ra%y ver$u$di%tatorship, too, hi%h ;talin and the )o$$unist Earties,

up until re%ently for their on &different( reasons alays refused5 ;o,

applyin3 this %ontrast, they assure the orld/ e no lon3er anta dictatorialso%ialist ;tate but a democraticso%ialist ;tate5

=f %ourse this pro%ess of ideolo3i%al eolution $ust not be e0a33erated5

There is all the orld of differen%e beteen a )o$$unist Earty and any

bour3eois politi%al for$ation5 hat e are tal!in3 about is an ideolo3i%al and

politi%al tenden%y &hat lies behind itG( and the resultin3 contradictoryfor$s

of theory and pra%ti%e5 =ur tas! is hoeer not to %on3ratulate any )o$$unist

24

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

25/204

Earty on the fa%t that its theory and pra%ti%e are in part Mar0ist, but to dra

attention to the respe%ts in hi%h they are not5 For in a nu$ber of i$portant

respe%ts, in parti%ular in their %on%eption of so%ialis$, the )o$$unists of

ho$ e spo!e are, %ons%iously or un%ons%iously, still folloin3 ;talin in his

departure fro$ Mar0is$5

The stru33le of the )o$$unist Earties %annot be a stru33le for$ociali$m, inits on ri3ht, but $ust be a stru33le for communi$m&see %h5 ., belo(5 To

suppose, as ;talin did and as $any presentday )o$$unists do, that there is a

parti%ularform of $ociety%alled so%ialis$ naturally leads you to try

and defineit e535 in ter$s of a so%alled :so%ialist $ode of produ%tion:, [6"in

ter$s of the repla%e$ent of the anarchyof %apitalist produ%tion by

theplannede0pansion of so%ialist produ%tion, in ter$s of the transfor$ation

[6"'f5 e535 M5 'e%aillot,Le 6ode de production $ociali$te, 2ditions so%iales, 197C5

1a%e /:

of the ;tate fro$ an instru$ent of %lass rule into an instru$ent for the

satisfa%tion of the needs of the people, et%5 Thus the %ontradi%tory nature of the

so%ialist ;tate tends to be lost fro$ ie5 This in turn opens the ay to

bour3eois propa3anda, hi%h a%%uses the )o$$unists pre%isely of fi3htin3 for

a for$ of so%iety in hi%h the ;tate ill be alloed to %rush the indiidual, to

destroy his %reatie talents and initiatie and steal his freedo$5 hat do our up

tothe$inute %o$rades anserG >%%eptin3 the false bour3eois theory of the

;tate and of itspotentialfun%tion in the univer$al $ati$factionof the people:s

needs &hile disa3reein3 of %ourse as to /hichor /ho$e;tate %an realiHe this

potential( they no si$ply anser/ but our ;tate, the so%ialist ;tate, ill

a%tually proide the indiidual and the %o$$unity ith an unpre%edented

:liberty:P hat is astonishin3 is that the bour3eoisie and its propa3andists

should thus be alloed to 3et aay so easily ith their %onurin3 tri%!5 They of

%ourse a%%use %o$$unis$ of eleatin3 the ;tate to an unpre%edentedly

poerful position vi$+>+vi$the individual&thus the %onstant referen%e to Eoli%e

;tates, :di%tatorships:, totalitarianis$, et%5(5 The :$odern: &or nefan3led(

)o$$unists reply/ our so%ialist ;tate, unli!e the *;;

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

26/204

Lenin:s anser5

Lenin says/ parlia$entary de$o%ra%y is one for$ of the ;tate, and therefore

a for$ of di%tatorship of a 3ien %lass5 There is no :pure de$o%ra%y:, no

:de$o%ra%y in 3eneral:5 The stru33le of the )o$$unists is not in the end to

establish a :de$o%rati% ;tate: but to aboli$h the State5 Their ta%ti%s and their

strate3y $ust be adapted to thi$ end5 #he aim of the 'ommuni$t$isthus infinitely more radical than that of the $ost radi%al ;o%ial'e$o%rat or

liberal, and their stru33les $ust be dire%ted to thi$ aim5 But sin%e the road to

this end i$ not nece$$arily a direct or $traight one , sin%e it $ay inole the

$ost diffi%ult detours, it %annot be %on%eied of si$ply in ter$s of the eer

e0pandin3 deelop$ent of :liberty:5 There %an be no

1a%e /(

easy anser to the Auestion of hat strate3y a )o$$unist Earty ou3ht to

follo in any %on%rete set of national and histori%al %onditions, and this boo!%ertainly %annot proide one5 But it is possible, under %ertain %ir%u$stan%es, to

try and establish a little theoreti%al %larity ith respe%t to the basi% proble$s of

so%ialis$ and %o$$unis$5

4t ould for instan%e %ertainly be false and een absurd to %lai$ that the

stru33le to establish &in ;pain( or $aintain &in Fran%e, Britain, et%5( a

fun%tionin3 parlia$entary syste$ is uni$portant5 4t $ay een be %ru%ial at

%ertain $o$ents5 But it does not follo that the ;tate poer of the bour3eoisie

is any le$$ ab$olutein su%h a syste$ than in hat is popularly %alled a

:di%tatorship:, or that in su%h a syste$, een hen it su%%eeds in ele%tin3

:representaties: to the national parlia$ent &;o%ialists or een )o$$unists(, theor!in3 %lass thereby 3ains the$lighte$t gra$pof ;tate poer, that it thereby

holds the$lighte$t $crapof ;tate poer5 4t does notP The stru33le to establish or

defend parlia$entary de$o%ra%y is for the )o$$unists a stru33le to stren3then

the for%es of de$o%ra%y, in the Mar0ist sense of the ter$, to 3ie the$ roo$

and opportunities in the fi3ht and a 3reater %han%e of one day seiHin3 ;tate

poer i5e5 of establishin3 a di%tatorship of the proletariat,

hateergovernmental form$this $ay ta!e5 The reason for seiHin3 ;tate poer

is that, one day, it $ay thereby be possible to %ause ;tate poer to disappear,

and ith it %lass stru33le and e0ploitation5 The fi3ht for so%ialis$ $a!es no

sense if it is interpreted as a fi3ht to establish a :uniersal: ;tate, satisfyin3 theinterests of the hole people8 it only $a!es sense as a fi3ht to establish a ;tate

a di%tatorship of the proletariat hi%h ill itself pae the ay to the

abolition of eery ;tate5 ;u%h an idea, as 4 already pointed out, is

in%o$prehensible to bour3eois ideolo3y, hi%h has %lassified %o$$unis$ as

an ideolo3y of unli$ited ;tate poer8 but that is no reason hy it should be

in%o$prehensible to a )o$$unist5[7"

26

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

27/204

4 said earlier that a debate on the di%tatorship of the proletariat $i3ht appear

to be outlandish in presentday Britain5 But there is a ery 3ood $aterial reason

for this5 2ery su%h debate, hi%h tou%hes on Auestions of real i$portan%e to

the stru33le of the or!in3 %lass i$ bound to appear %unreal%, be%ause it has to

ta!e pla%e

[7"Nor therefore any reason hy he should no %lassify it instead as a do%trine of limited;tate poerP

1a%e /6

outside the boundaries set by the do$inant ideolo3y, the ideolo3y of the

%apitalist ;tate, therefore outside the boundaries of :%o$$on sense:5 ;in%e these

boundaries are rather narroer in Britain than in Fran%e, be%ause of the past

and present history of the labour $oe$ent in the to %ountries, and in

parti%ular of the relatie ea!ness of a Mar0ist tradition in Britain, the effe%t

produ%ed by su%h a debate $ay appear %orrespondin3ly $oredis%on%ertin35 #hat i$ no rea$on to refu$e the debate , and een less is it a 3ood

reason to thro oerboard the %on%ept of the di%tatorship of the proletariat5 No

one su33ests that the e0planation, defen%e and deelop$ent of this %on%ept

does not hae its :diffi%ult: side, that it does not inole serious %ontradi%tions,

that it %annot be e0ploited by the propa3andists of the rulin3 %lass for their on

purposes5 Noone is su33estin3 that Mar0ists should play into their hands by

plasterin3 the term:di%tatorship of the proletariat: oer all their pa$phlets and

leaflets, in %onditions here its real $eanin3 %annot be e0plained and here, in

%onseAuen%e, it is bound to be $isunderstood5 But that does not $ean that all

efforts should %ease to e0plain its $eanin3 to the $asses and to develop the

reality of that meaningby learnin3 fro$ the e0perien%e of the $asses, so that

this %on%ept %an finally be%o$e their o/n5 To insist on the %on%ept of the

di%tatorship of the proletariat does not $ean to %onde$n or to abandon hope of

all other so%ial 3roups than the proletariat8 on the contrary, it $eans to insist on

the deelop$ent of the only %on%ept hi%h %an proide the foundation of

a materiali$t analy$i$of the %on%rete possibilities of allian%es beteen the

proletariat and other 3roups and so%ial strata &see %h5 (, hi%h %an do $ore

than refer us to so$e abstra%t notion of the %oner3en%e of :obe%tie interests:

unitin3 all se%tions of the population outside of $onopoly %apital &cf5 p5 C-(54 already pointed out that the %on%ept of the di%tatorship of the proletariat

&to3ether ith its a%%o$panyin3 theory of the :so%ialist ;tate:( i$ infinitely more

radicalthan the mo$t radicalliberal or ;o%ial'e$o%rati% theory of the ;tate,

sin%e it insists not on the :idest possible liberty: for the indiidual and

%o$$unity in the face of the Statebut on the di$appearance of the State it$elf,

of eery ;tate, pre%isely throughthe establish$ent of a di%tatorship of the

27

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

28/204

proletariat, hi%h $ust itself deelop the %ontradi%tion hi%h ill lead to its

on disappearan%e5 4 ould add/ it also proides for an infinitely $ore

3enuine, an infinitely deeper for$ of democracy

1a%e //

than the $ost radi%al liberal or ;o%ial'e$o%rati% theory, pre%isely be%ause it

or!s to :oer%o$e de$o%ra%y:5[D">nd therefore e are obli3ed to %on%lude

ith 2tienne Balibar that those ho ant toabandon the di%tatorship of the

proletariat are %ons%iously or uncon$ciou$ly $otiated not by a desire to

presere and e0tend de$o%ra%y but by afear of /hat genuine ma$$ democracy

might mean, unless it be that they hae si$ply 3ien up hope, under the

%onstant pressures and proble$s hi%h eery Mar0ist $ust fa%e, that su%h a

for$ of de$o%ra%y, therefore %o$$unis$, %ould eer really be on the a3enda

in Britain5 But that is not a reason for a%%eptin3 the abandon$ent of the

di%tatorship of the proletariat on the %ontrary, it is a reason for %ontinuin3 thefi3ht not si$ply to defend it, but to deelop it and thereby finally to brin3

about real freedom&Lenin/ :;o lon3 as the ;tate e0ists there is no freedo$5

hen there is freedo$, there ill be no ;tate:(, [9"hoeer i$possible that $ay

no see$5 Be%ause if the ar3u$ents %ontained in this boo! are ellfounded,

then the di%tatorship of the proletariat is indeed an histori%al reality /hich no+

one and nothing can aboli$h5

Grahame Loc

[D"'f5 Lenin, #he State and Revolution, %h5 I, [U"&??I, 79 [pp5 11"(/ :The $ore %o$plete the

de$o%ra%y, the nearer the $o$ent hen it be%o$es unne%essary5:[9"p. cit., ??I, 7C [p5 11"5

1a%e /;

Fore"ord

28

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

29/204

hat is the :di%tatorship of the proletariat:G

4n the folloin3 study 4 should li!e to su33est the first ele$ents of a reply to

this Auestion, a Auestion hose topi%al nature has brou3ht it to the attention of

all )o$$unists5 4 hope thus to %ontribute to openin3 and to adan%in3 a no

unaoidable theoreti%al dis%ussion in the Earty and around it5

The de%isions of the nd )on3ress of the Fren%h )o$$unist Earty on this

point, in spite of their apparently abstra%t %hara%ter, hae produ%ed hat $i3ht

be %onsidered a parado0i%al result in any %ase, a result hi%h has surprised

%ertain )o$$unists5

The theoreti%al Auestion of the di%tatorship of the proletariat as not

e0pli%itly $entioned in the Ereparatory 'o%u$ent5 4t arose in the %ourse of the

dis%ussion, hen the #eneral ;e%retary of the Earty, #eor3es Mar%hais, too! up

the su33estion of abandonin3 the notion of the di%tatorship of the proletariat

and of re$oin3 it as soon as possible fro$ the Earty statutes5 Fro$ that

$o$ent on, this Auestion do$inated the pre)on3ress debate/ its solution

see$ed to be the ne%essary %onseAuen%e and the %on%entrated e0pression of the

politi%al line approed by the )on3ress5 The )entral )o$$ittee:s report,

presented by #eor3es Mar%hais, $ade the point at 3reat len3th/ in order to

establish a foundation for the de$o%rati% road to so%ialis$ for hi%h the

)o$$unists are fi3htin3, a ne ay $ust be found of posin3 and assessin3 the

theoreti%al Auestion of the di%tatorship of the proletariat5 The )on3ress in fa%t

unani$ously de%ided to abandon the perspe%tie of the di%tatorship of the

proletariat, %onsidered outofdate and in %ontradi%tion ith hat the

)o$$unists ant for Fran%e5

1a%e /t the sa$e ti$e it happened that, althou3h the di%tatorship

of the proletariat the ord and the thin3 appeared to hae been %o$pletely

abandoned, the proble$s hi%h had led to its bein3 brou3ht into Auestion

neertheless re$ained, and ere een a33raated5 ;u%h are the ironies and

upsets of real history5

4f you ant an e0a$ple, ust loo! at the rea%tion of the Fren%h bour3eoisie,hi%h did not $iss the opportunity of fishin3 in troubled aters and of

e0ploitin3 our ea!ness, een at the theoreti%al leel5 4ts $ost illustrious

ideolo3ists &ron( and politi%al %hiefs is%ard d:2stain3(, nely

Aualified as 20perts in Mar0is$, are $a!in3 full use of their positions in order

to trap the )o$$unists in a dile$$a/ either 3ie up the theory and pra%ti%e of

the %lass stru33le, or return to the oneay street of the ;talin deiation, hi%h

30

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

31/204

of %ourse had su%h a lastin3 effe%t in ea!enin3 the Earty5 Their ta%ti%/ to u$p

onto the )o$$unist Earty:s on separation of the Leninist prin%iple of the

di%tatorship of the proletariat fro$ the politi%s of popular union and popular

union really is a %ondition of i%tory oer bi3 %apital in order to ta!e the

ar3u$ent one &lo3i%al( sta3e further/ by de$andin3 that the Earty should

abandon %lass stru33le too, sin%e the di%tatorship of the proletariat is nothin3but the %onseAuent deelop$ent of this %lass stru33le5["4n addition, they %lai$

that the de%ision $ade by the nd )on3ress, thus by the )o$$unists

the$seles, a$ounts to an ad$ission that these sa$e )o$$unists hae up to

the present indeed been opposed to de$o%ra%y, that they hae been fi3htin3

a3ainst it, and a3ainst freedo$, in fi3htin3 for so%ialist reolution5

["?. @i$card d%0$taing, Eress )onferen%e, >pril , 1976/ :These %han3es see$ to be related to an ele%toral

ta%ti%5 The Fren%h )5E5, for the first ti$e in a lon3 period, has the idea that it ill soon be ta!in3 on

3oern$ental responsibilities, and at present it is dire%tin3 all its a%tiity to that end5 hi%h $eans that it

$a!es hateer announ%e$ents and publi% state$ents that it thin!s $i3ht help it to enter the 3oern$ent5This is a $atter of ele%toral ta%ti%s5

:hat is the si3nifi%an%e of the suppression of the di%tatorship of the proletariat, as lon3 as this Earty

%ontinues to affir$ the %lass stru33leG The truth is that the Fren%h )o$$unists %annot renoun%e the %lass

stru33le, be%ause on%e they do so they ill be%o$e ;o%ial'e$o%rats [5555" The only ele$ents ofdisa3ree$ent ith ;oiet poli%y %on%ern Auestions li!e those of liberties and indiidual ri3hts hi%h, sin%e

the Fren%h publi% is sensitie to these $atters, hae to be ta!en a%%ount of [cont. ontop5 C75 ++ DJR" hen the

Fren%h )o$$unist Earty or!s out its ele%toral ta%ti%s5:Raymond ron, inLe 2igaro, May 17, 1976/

:#eor3es Mar%hais suddenly pro%lai$ed the abandon$ent of the for$ula of the di%tatorship of theproletariat a$idst a Auasi3eneral s%epti%is$5 e as not the first to %arry out the operation/ #ottald and

)unhal too $ade si$ilar announ%e$ents5 Oet the for$er eli$inated his allies, or at least brou3ht the$ to

heel, on the first possible o%%asion, and the latter led his party in a bid for the seiHure of poer,

unsu%%essfully it is true, but ithout hesitation5 4n the esoteri% lan3ua3e of Mar0is$Leninis$, the

di%tatorship of the proletariat re$ains a ne%essary transition beteen %apitalis$ and so%ialis$, hateerthe for$ ta!en by this di%tatorship5 Oou %an therefore interpret #eor3es Mar%hais: de%larations in a li$ited,

banal sense, si$ilar to that i$plied by the ords of >laro )unhal, or in a do%trinal sense8 in the latter %ase,

the Fren%h )o$$unist Earty ould hae ta!en a first step in the dire%tion of reisionis$5:

1a%e /*

4t is i$portant that )o$$unists should realiHe that there is no ay out of

these parado0es, out of these real diffi%ulties, e0%ept throu3h a broad %olle%tie

dis%ussion5 They should not be fri3htened that this $i3ht ea!en the$5 =n the

%ontrary, if it 3oes to the root of thin3s, it %an only stren3then their influen%e5

2ery )o$$unist has the duty to help the hole Earty in this respe%t, as far ashe is able5 >nd ith respe%t to the di%tatorship of the proletariat, the )on3ress

does at least hae a 3ood side/ it %an free )o$$unists, in their theoreti%al

or!, fro$ a do3$ati% %on%eption and use of Mar0ist theory, in hi%h

for$ulae li!e :di%tatorship of the proletariat: are ta!en out of their %onte0t and

separated fro$ the lines of ar3u$ent and proof hi%h underlie the$, be%o$in3

blan!et solutions, for$al ready$ade ansers to eery Auestion5 2$ptied of

31

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

32/204

their obe%tie histori%al %ontent, they are then ritually ino!ed in order to

ustify the $ost dierse and een the $ost %ontradi%tory !inds of politi%s5#hi$

u$eof the prin%iples of Mar0is$ and of the %on%ept of the di%tatorship of the

proletariat not only ou3ht to be but ur3ently $ust be ree%ted5

1a%e /9

I

Pari# '()*+,-

.o#co" '()/+,

4n order for a dis%ussion to 3et to the botto$ of a Auestion, it needs %lear

startin3points5 > %orre%t, Mar0ist definition of the di%tatorship of the

proletariat is the first of these startin3points, in the theoreti%al field5 4t is not

suffi%ient in itself/ you %annot settle politi%al Auestions by ino!in3 definitions5

But it is ne%essary5 4f you do not pay e0pli%it attention to it, you run the ris! of

i$pli%itly adoptin3 not the Mar0ist definition of the di%tatorship of the

proletariat but a definition i$posed by the %onstant pressure of the do$inant

bour3eois ideolo3y5 That is hat happened at the nd )on3ress, hateer is

said to the %ontrary5 4 a$ not 3oin3 to Auote or su$ up the details of the

debates/ eeryone re$e$bers the$, or %an loo! the$ up5 4 shall be as brief aspossible, in order to dire%t attention to hat see$s to $e $ost i$portant,

na$ely the ay in hi%h the proble$ as posed8 this $ore or less, leain3

aside details, underlay the reasonin3 presented at the )on3ress5 To $any

%o$rades it see$s to be the only possible ay of posin3 the proble$, it see$s

:obious: to the$ today5 e shall therefore be3in by e0a$inin3 it5

32

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

33/204

0Dictator#hi1 or democracy0

The Auestion as first of all posed ithin the fra$eor! of a si$ple

alternatie/ either:di%tatorship of the proletariat: orthe :de$o%rati% road to

so%ialis$:5 The %hoi%e as beteen these to ter$s/ no third solution, no other

alternatie5 #ien the definitions used, this %hoi%e is i$posed $ore by :lo3i%:than by history5 The histori%al ar3u$ents in fa%t are only introdu%ed after the

eent, they only orna$ent and illustrate a lo3i%al s%he$a so si$ple

1a%e /)

that it see$s unaoidable5 e are told that the %hoi%e is not beteen a

reolutionary path and a refor$ist path, but beteen to reolutionary paths,

both based on $ass stru33le, a %hoi%e beteen to !inds of $eans to $a!e

reolution5 There are :di%tatorial: $eans of stru33le and :de$o%rati%: $eans/

they are suited to different %ir%u$stan%es of pla%e and ti$e, and they produ%edifferent results5 The )on3ress thus had to de$onstrate hat distin3uishes the

de$o%rati% fro$ the di%tatorial $eans, and did so by borroin3 three %o$$on

%ontrasts5

&a( First, the %ontrast beteen :pea%eful: politi%al $eans and :iolent: $eans5 >

de$o%rati% road to so%ialis$, it is said, e0%ludes on prin%iple ar$ed

insurre%tion a3ainst the ;tate as a $eans of ta!in3 poer5 4t e0%ludes %iil ar

beteen the %lasses and their or3aniHations5 4t therefore e0%ludes both hite

terror, e0er%ised by the bour3eoisie, and :red: %ounterterror, e0er%ised by the

proletariat5 4t e0%ludes poli%e repression/ for the or!ers: reolution does not

tend to restri%t liberties but to e0tend the$5 4n order to $aintain the$seles inpoer de$o%rati%ally, the or!ers $ust not pri$arily use %onstraint, the poli%e

and :ad$inistratie $ethods:, but politi%al stru33le i5e5, in the eent,

ideolo3i%al propa3anda, the stru33le of ideas5

&b( ;e%ondly, the %ontrast beteen :le3al: and :ille3al: $eans5 > de$o%rati% road

to so%ialis$ ould allo the e0istin3 syste$ of la to re3ulate its on

transfor$ation, ithout re%ourse to ille3ality5 The transfor$ation of the e0istin3

syste$ of la for e0a$ple, in the for$ of the nationaliHation of enterprises

is only to be %arried out a%%ordin3 to the for$s and nor$s %ontained in

&bour3eois( la itself, a%%ordin3 to the possibilities hi%h it opens up5 ;u%h a

reolution ould therefore not %ontradi%t the la8 on the %ontrary, it ouldsi$ply realiHe in pra%ti%e the prin%iple of popular soerei3nty to hi%h it

%onstantly refers5 )onersely it is the le3ality therefore the le3iti$a%y of

this reolutionary pro%ess hi%h is supposed to authoriHe and stri%tly to li$it

the use of iolen%e5 For eery so%iety and eery ;tate, so the ar3u$ent 3oes,

hae the ri3ht &and the duty( for%ibly to repress :%ri$es:, the ille3al atte$pts of

$inorities to oppose by for%e and by subersion the abolition of their

33

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

34/204

priile3es5 Thus, if the need for %onstraint arises, this ill be %onsidered no

fault of the ne r3i$e itself5 >nd this use of iolen%e ill not be a for$ of

%lass iolen%e, but a %onstraint on parti%ular individual$, ust as bour3eois la

itself

1a%e ;:

no proides5

&%( Finally, the %ontrast beteen union and diision, hi%h is lin!ed to the

%ontrast beteen $aority and $inority5 4n the di%tatorship of the proletariat, it

is said, politi%al poer is e0er%iHed by the or!in3 %lass alone, hi%h itself is

still only a $inority5 ;u%h a $inority is and re$ains isolated/ its poer is

%learly fra3ile, it %an only $aintain itself by iolen%e5 The situation, so the

ar3u$ent 3oes, is e0a%tly opposite hen, in the ne histori%al %onditions, the

so%ialist ;tate represents the de$o%rati% poer of a $aority5 The e0isten%e of

the union of the $aority of the people, the :$aority ill:, e0pressed byuniersal suffra3e and by the le3al 3oern$ent of the $aoritarian politi%al

parties, is therefore supposed to 3uarantee the possibility of pea%eful transition

to so%ialis$ a reolutionary so%ialis$, %ertainly, ith respe%t to its so%ial

%ontent, but 3radual and pro3ressie ith respe%t to its $eans and for$s5

=n%e you a%%ept and reason a%%ordin3 to these %ontrasts &4 hae only

$entioned the $ost i$portant ones(, %ontrasts hi%h be%o$e $ore and $ore

%losely lin!ed to and dependent on one another, then at ea%h sta3e you are

for%ed to %hoose one of the to poles/ %iil ar or %iil pea%e8 le3ality or

ille3ality8 union of the $aority or the isolation of the $inority and the diision

of the people5 >t ea%h step you hae to or! out hi%h %hoi%e is :possible: andhi%h is not8 hi%h is the one that you :ant: and hi%h is the one that you :do

not ant:5 > si$ple %hoi%e beteen to histori%al roads for the transition to

so%ialis$, a %hoi%e beteen to %on%eptions of so%ialis$, to syste$ati%ally

opposed :$odels:5 =n the basis of these %hoi%es, the di%tatorship of the

proletariat, it is i$plied, $ust be defined as the violent political po/er&in both

senses of the ter$ :iolent:/ repression and re%ourse to ille3ality( of

a minoritarian /or)ing cla$$, brin3in3 about the transition to so%ialis$ by

a non+peaceful road&%iil ar(5 To this, one last ar3u$ent and it is not the

least i$portant $ay be added, sin%e it is a natural %onseAuen%e/ that su%h a

road ould lead to the politi%al do$ination of a$ingle partyand end byinstitutionaliHin3 its $onopoly5 Many %o$rades de$and of us/ if you do not

ant to abandon the notion of the di%tatorship of the proletariat, at least ad$it

fran!ly that you are for a oneparty syste$, a3ainst the plurality of parties5 5 5 5

But hat are e to thin! of these pairs of alternatiesG

1a%e ;(

34

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

35/204

Their first %hara%teristi% is that they do not $a!e a real analysis possible,

be%ause they %ontain the anser to eery Auestion ready$ade5 Eosed in these

ter$s, the proble$ of the di%tatorship of the proletariat already i$plies its

solution5 4t is an a%ade$i% e0er%ise5 To define the di%tatorship of the proletariat

be%o$es a si$ple $atter of listin3 its disadanta3es, %o$pared ith the

de$o%rati% road5 To analyHe the %on%rete %onditions of the transition toso%ialis$ in Fran%e be%o$es a si$ple $atter of self%on3ratulation on the fa%t

that the eolution of history no &finally( allos us to ta!e the 3ood road, that

of de$o%ra%y, and not the bad road, that of di%tatorship5 Oou %an be ery

opti$isti% about so%ialis$ hen you !no that history itself is loo!in3 after the

ob of %reatin3 the %onditions hi%h ill i$pose pre%isely the %hoi%e preferred

in the first pla%e5 4t only reAuires one $ore step in order to dra the %on%lusion/

hen a %apitalist %ountry has a nonde$o%rati% ;tate &as in the %ase of Tsarist

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

36/204

ideas, thou3h they are the produ%t of real histori%al %auses, are neertheless

in%orre%t5

Three #im1$e and !a$#e idea#

> fe ords on these three ideas5

4t is enou3h to read the reports of the debates of the nd )on3ress, and earlier

%ontributions,[C"in order to re%o3niHe that behind the Auestion of the

di%tatorship of the proletariat there lies first of all the proble$ posed by the

histori%al eolution of the ;oiet *nion5 4t is no a%%ident if, at the ery sa$e

ti$e that the Earty is %lai$in3 that so%ialis$ is on the a3enda in Fran%e, its

leaders are also publi%ly raisin3 their oi%es to pose the Auestion of its

:differen%es: ith the poli%y of the ;oiet )o$$unists, in ter$s su%h that it is

%lear that a real %ontradi%tion is inoled5 Loo! at the fa%ts, hi%h the %areful

sele%tion of ords %annot hide/ disa3ree$ents on :so%ialist de$o%ra%y:&therefore on the stru%tures of the Earty and ;tate(8 disa3ree$ents on :pea%eful

%oe0isten%e: &hi%h our Earty refuses to a%%ept as i$plyin3 the status Auo for

%apitalist %ountries li!e Fran%e, as oershadoin3 the %lass stru33le, or een

orse as reAuirin3 the so%ialist %ountries to 3ie politi%al support to the

poer of the Fren%h bi3 bour3eoisie(8 disa3ree$ents on :proletarian

internationalis$: &hi%h our Earty refuses to interpret in ter$s of :so%ialist

internationalis$:, an interpretation dra$ati%ally illustrated by the $ilitary

inasion of )He%hosloa!ia(5 ;u%h %ontradi%tions de$and a thorou3h3oin3

e0planation5 This Auestion %learly lay behind the deliberations of the )on3ress5

>nd it is this Auestion, and no other, hi%h underlies the ar3u$ent seeral

ti$es adan%ed by #eor3es Mar%hais/ :The phrase @di%tatorship of the

proletariat@ today has an una%%eptable %onnotation for the or!ers and for the

$asses5: This is the ital Auestion, and not the e0a$ple of the fas%ist

di%tatorships hi%h hae appeared sin%e the

[C"'f5 the series of arti%les published by +ean 2lleinstein in2rance &ouvelle&;epte$ber , 197., andfolloin3 issues( on :'e$o%ra%y and the >dan%e to ;o%ialis$:5 ith ad$irable foresi3ht 2lleinstein as

already adan%in3 ar3u$ents used a fe ee!s later to oppose the prin%iple of the di%tatorship of the

proletariat5

1a%e ;/

ti$e of Mar0 and Lenin5 The or!ers and the $asses obiously e0pe%t nothin3

fro$ fas%is$ but in%reased oppression and e0ploitation5 The e0isten%e of fas%ist

di%tatorships only 3ies in%reased ei3ht to Mar0:s and Lenin:s thesis/ that the

proletariat $ust oppose the %lass di%tatorship of the bour3eoisie ith its on

36

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

37/204

%lass di%tatorship5

hat the )o$$unists are %on%erned ith aboe all is the old idea hi%h

e0pressed their hopes durin3 de%ades of diffi%ult stru33les/ that the di%tatorship

of the proletariat is possible, sin%e it is si$ply the histori%al road ta!en, the road

ta!en in history, by the so%ialist %ountries $a!in3 up the present :so%ialist

orld: or :so%ialist syste$:, and aboe all by the *;;

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

38/204

the eolution of histori%al %onditions(5 But this idea is an obsta%le both to any

%riti%al and s%ientifi% analysis of ;oiet history and to any treat$ent of the

theoreti%al proble$ of the di%tatorship of the proletariat, hile neertheless

proidin3 :histori%al: ar3u$ents to ustify, after the eent, a hasty de%ision5

=f %ourse, there are poerful histori%al reasons for the dire%t identifi%ation

of the %on%ept of the di%tatorship of the proletariat ith ;oiet history5 They arerelated to the deter$inant pla%e of the ;oiet reolution and to its obe%tie role

in the history of the international labour $oe$ent5 4n a %ertain sense this

identifi%ation is a fa%t, an irreersible fa%t, hi%h binds us, for there is no

theory hose $eanin3 is independent of the %onditions of its pra%ti%al

utiliHation5 But if it is an irreersible fa%t, that does not $ean that it is

i$$utable5

K K K

To this first idea, a se%ond is %losely lin!ed an idea hi%h also underlies thear3u$ents of the nd )on3ress a%%ordin3 to hi%h the dictator$hip of the

proletariat i$ only a particular %political rgime%5 4n Mar0ist &or apparently

Mar0ist( ter$inolo3y, the ord :politi%s: refers to the ;tate, to its nature and its

for$s5 But the ;tate does not e0ist in a a%uu$/ eeryone !nos that it is a

:superstru%ture:, i5e5 that it is %onne%ted to an e%ono$i% base on hi%h it

depends, to hi%h it rea%ts5 Oet it is pre%isely not that base and $ust not be

%onfused ith it5 :'e$o%ra%y: and :di%tatorship: are ter$s hi%h %an apparently

only desi3nate politi%al syste$s5 'id not Lenin 3o so far one day as to say that

:'e$o%ra%y is a %ate3ory proper only to the politi%al sphere5 5 5 5 4ndustry is

indispensable, de$o%ra%y is not:G["hy not, ith een better reason,

["4n the rest of the boo!, the referen%es to Lenin:s or!s ill be 3ien in the folloin3 ay/ ???44, 19,$eans olu$e C, pa3e 19 of the 'ollected (or)$, [cont. ontop5 .5 ++ DJR" 2n3lish edition, published by

Laren%e and ishart, London, and Ero3ress Eublishers, Mos%o5 [@The Trade *nions5 The Eresent

;ituation and Trots!y:s Mista!es@5"

1a%e ;nd here a3ain the Auestion of the ;oiet *nion arises5 4t is this

idea for e0a$ple hi%h $i3ht lead us to say/ fro$ the :e%ono$i%: point of ie,

38

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

39/204

essentially, so%ialis$ is the sa$e eeryhere, its :las: are uniersal8 but fro$

the :politi%al: point of ie, it %an and $ust be ery different, sin%e Mar0is$

tea%hes the relatiity of the superstru%tures, the relatie independen%e of the

politi%al superstru%tures and of the ;tate isVis the e%ono$i% base5 >nd it is

this idea too hi%h $i3ht lead us to say/ the di%tatorship of the proletariat in the

;oiet *nion resulted in %atastrophi% %onseAuen%es fro$ the point of ie ofthe politi%al r3i$e, it resulted in the establish$ent of a politi%al r3i$e hi%h

is not really so%ialist, hi%h %ontradi%ts so%ialis$, be%ause, fro$ the politi%al

point of ie, so%ialis$ i$plies the idest possible liberty and de$o%ra%y5 But,

it ill be ar3ued, this did not preent the deelop$ent of so%ialis$ as an

:e%ono$i% syste$:, or at least it only held it ba%! a little, hindered it, $ade it

$ore diffi%ult, ithout affe%tin3 its :nature:, its essen%e5 The proof/ in the ;oiet

*nion there is no e0ploitin3 bour3eoisie, $onopoliHin3 property in the $eans

of produ%tion, no anar%hy in produ%tion8 there is so%ial, %olle%tie appropriation

of the $eans of produ%tion, and so%ial plannin3 of the e%ono$y5 Thus the anti

de$o%rati% politi%al r3i$e has, it is ar3ued, nothin3 to do ith the :nature: of

so%ialis$8 it is only a histori%al :a%%ident:5 To hi%h it is added, ith an

apparently ery $aterialist air, that there is nothin3 astonishin3 about the fa%t

that the superstru%ture is :la33in3 behind: the base su%h is the la of the

history of hu$an so%ieties, hi%h 3uarantees that, sooner or later, the politi%al

r3i$e ill %o$e into line ith the $ode of produ%tion, ill %o$e to

:%orrespond: ith the $ode of produ%tion5

But it has to be pointed out that e are dealin3 here ith an e0traordinarily

$e%hanisti% %ari%ature of Mar0is$, lin!in3 a $e%hanisti% separation beteen

;tate and $eans of produ%tion ith a $e%hanisti% dependen%y of politi%s on thee%ono$i% base

1a%e ;+

&in the for$ of the tal! about the :nature: of so%ialis$, about :a%%idents:, about

thin3s hi%h are :in adan%e: of others hi%h are :la33in3 behind:(5 4n su%h a

perspe%tie it is already i$possible to e0plain the history of the %apitalist ;tate5

4t is a fortiorii$possible to pose the proble$ of /hat change$, in the relation

of politi%s and of the ;tate to the e%ono$i% base, hen a transition is $ade

fro$ %apitalis$ to so%ialis$ and to the di%tatorship of the proletariat5[."

No this idea of the di%tatorship of the proletariat as a si$ple :politi%alr3i$e: dire%tly deter$ines the ter$s in hi%h the proble$ of the politi%al

poer of the or!in3 %lass, or of the or!in3 people, is posed5 The di%tatorship

of the proletariat be%o$es a $pecial form of the political po/er of the /or)ing

people, and a narro for$ at that &sin%e not all or!in3 people are

proletarians(5 4n fa%t, this a$ounts to sayin3 that the di%tatorship of the

proletariat is aform of government&in the le3al, %onstitutional sense(, that it

39

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

40/204

represents a parti%ular$y$tem of in$titution$5 To %hoose beteen a nu$ber of

paths of transition to so%ialis$, for or a3ainst the di%tatorship of the proletariat,

is a%%ordin3 to this idea to %hoose beteen a nu$ber of syste$s of

institutions, notably beteen institutions of a parlia$entary or so%alled

:pluralist: type &%ontainin3 seeral politi%al parties( and institutions of a non

parlia$entary type, in hi%h the poer of the or!in3 people is e0er%iHedthrou3h a sin3le party5 ;o%ialist de$o%ra%y differs fro$ the di%tatorship of the

proletariat, in this ie, as one politi%al r3i$e differs fro$ another8 it is

%on%eied of as another for$ of the politi%al poer of the or!in3 people, in

hi%h other institutions or3aniHe in a different ay the %hoi%e of the

:representaties: of the or!in3 people ho run the 3oern$ent, and the

:parti%ipation: of indiiduals in the fun%tionin3 of the ;tate5

>%%ordin3 to this pi%ture the transition to so%ialis$ %ould be %on%eied, in

theory at least, either in ter$s of a di%tatorial for$ of politi%s or in ter$s of a

de$o%rati% for$5 4t ould depend on the %ir%u$stan%es5 4t ould depend in

parti%ular on the de3ree of deelop$ent, on the leel of :$aturity: of %apitalis$/

in a %ountry here %apitalis$ is parti%ularly deeloped, here it has rea%hed

the sta3e of ;tate Monopoly )apitalis$, bi3 %apital ould already be

pra%ti%ally isolated, the deelop$ent of e%ono$i% relations

[."4 a$ not $a!in3 all this up5 This %ari%ature of Mar0is$ %an be found throu3hout the boo! by +ean

2lleinstein, #he Stalin Phenomenon, Laren%e and ishart, London, 19765

1a%e ;*

ould itself proide the outline for a broad union of all or!in3 people andnon$onopoly so%ial strata, and the di%tatorial road ould be%o$e i$possible

and futile, hile the de$o%rati% road ould be%o$e possible and ne%essary5

But this ay of posin3 the proble$ supposes that there e0ist in history ery

3eneral for$s of the ;tate, r3i$es of different !inds li!e :di%tatorship: or

:de$o%ra%y:, hi%h predate the %hoi%e of a so%iety, the %hoi%e of a path of

transition to so%ialis$ and of a politi%al for$ for so%ialis$5 To put it bluntly/

the alternatie di%tatorshipQde$o%ra%y ould be e9teriorto the field of %lass

stru33le and its history, it ould si$ply be :applied: after the eent, fro$ the

standpoint of the bour3eoisie or fro$ that of the proletariat5 hi%h $eans that

reolutionary Mar0is$ ould be subordinated to the abstra%t %ate3ories ofbour3eois :politi%al s%ien%e:5

But here e tou%h on the $ost deeply rooted of the theoreti%al ideas hi%h

do$inated the ar3u$ents of the nd )on3ress and yet the least %ontroersial

idea in appearan%e, sin%e the ter$s of our ordinary lan3ua3e dire%tly e0press it,

sin%e these ter$s hae entered eeryday usa3e to su%h a de3ree that noone any

lon3er as!s hether they are %orre%t or not5 4 a$ referrin3 to the idea that the

40

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

41/204

dictator$hip of the proletariat i$ only a %path of tran$ition to $ociali$m%, hether

or not it is %onsidered a 3ood one, hether or not it is %onsidered as the only

possible road or as a parti%ular &politi%al( road a$on3 others5 4t is only by

brin3in3 this idea into Auestion that e %an understand the ay in hi%h the

other ideas for%e the$seles on us, the poer of ideolo3i%al :obiousness: fro$

hi%h they benefit5But so$eone ill as! $e/ if the di%tatorship of the proletariat %annot be

defined in this ay, then ho %an it be definedG 4 ill reply to this Auestion

later, at least in prin%iple5 But e hae to understand hat the first definition

i$plies5 4f the di%tatorship of the proletariat is a :path of transition to so%ialis$:,

this $eans that the !ey %on%ept of proletarian politi%s is the %on%ept of

:so%ialis$:5 This $eans that it is enou3h to refer to so%ialis$ in order to study

these politi%s and put the$ into pra%ti%e5 The transition to so%ialis$ and the so

%alled %onstru%tion of so%ialis$ these are the !ey notions5 But hat no

be%o$es of the proble$ of the di%tatorship of the proletariatG 4t be%o$es the

proble$ of the mean$ne%essary for this transition and for this %onstru%tion, in

the different senses of this ter$/ inter$ediate :period: or :sta3e:

1a%e ;9

beteen %apitalis$ and so%ialis$, therefore the hole of the strate3i% and

ta%ti%al, e%ono$i% and politi%al $eans %apable of brin3in3 about the transition

fro$ %apitalis$ to so%ialis$ of :3uaranteein3: it, a%%ordin3 to the e0pression

hi%h spontaneously o%%urs to %ertain %o$rades5 >nd ho are these $eans to

be defined, ho are they to be or3aniHed into a %oherent strate3y, obe%tiely

based in historyG uite naturally, by %onfrontin3 present and past, the point ofdeparture and the point of arrial &i5e5 the point here one /ant$, here one

hopes to arrie 5 5 5(5 By definin3, on the one hand, the de%isie, uniersal

:%onditions: of so%ialis$ %lassi%ally/ the %olle%tie appropriation of the $eans

of produ%tion, %oupled ith the politi%al poer of the or!in3 people and by

e0a$inin3 the ay in hi%h these %onditions %an be fulfilled, 3ien the e0istin3

situation and the national history of ea%h %ountry5 #ood old Jant ould hae

%alled it a :hypotheti%al i$peratie:5

This ould $ean that proletarian politi%s is dependent on the definition of a

:$odel: of so%ialis$ by hi%h it is inspired een hen &indeed, aboe all

hen( this :$odel: is not borroed fro$ other, forei3n e0perien%es, but or!edout independently as a national :$odel:5 2en hen &indeed, aboe all hen(

this $odel is not a senti$ental ision of a future 3olden a3e of so%iety, but is

presented as a %oherent, :s%ientifi% plan: for the reor3aniHation of so%ial

relations, %oupled ith a $eti%ulous %o$putation of the $eans and sta3es of its

realiHation5

>nd it ould $ean, $ore funda$entally, that the Auestion of the di%tatorship

41

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

42/204

of the proletariat %an no lon3er be posed, nor %an the di%tatorship of the

proletariat be defined, e0%eptfrom the point of vie/ of $ociali$m, a%%ordin3 to a

%ertain definition of so%ialis$ and ith a ie to its pra%ti%al realiHation5 =n

this point eeryone apparently is a3reed/ if, up to ery re%ently, )o$$unists

used to insist on the need for the di%tatorship of the proletariat, it as in order

to $a!e the transition to so%ialis$, in one %ountry after the other8 if they haeno de%ided to abandon the di%tatorship of the proletariat, and to set out a

different strate3y, it is neertheless still in order to $a!e the transition to

so%ialis$5

But hen Mar0 dis%oered the histori%al ne%essity of the di%tatorship of the

proletariat, he did not refer si$ply to so%ialis$/ he referred to the pro%ess

hi%h, ithin the ery heart of the

1a%e ;)

e0istin3 %lass stru33les, leads toards the$ociety /ithout cla$$e$, to/ard$communi$m5 ;o%ialis$, alone, is a halfay drea$ house, here eeryone %an

%hoose his on $enu, here the de$ar%ation line beteen proletarian politi%s

and bour3eois or pettybour3eois politi%s %annot be dran in a %lear ay5 The

%lassless so%iety is the real obe%tie hose re%o3nition %hara%teriHes

proletarian politi%s5 This :shade of $eanin3: %han3es eerythin3, as e shall

see5 By definin3 the di%tatorship of the proletariat in ter$s of :so%ialis$:, one

is alreadytrapped ithin a bour3eois fra$eor!5

A Precedent8 ()/+Let us stop there for a $o$ent5 Before underta!in3 the study of the Mar0ist

%on%ept of the di%tatorship of the proletariat for its on sa!e, e $ust briefly

loo! at the histori%al ante%edents of the situation hi%h 4 hae ust des%ribed5

;u%h a situation does not ust drop out of the s!y5 4t is not so $u%h that the

de%ision of the nd )on3ress as the lo3i%al %onseAuen%e, or the re%o3nition

after the eent, of a lon3 politi%al eolution hi%h had led the Earty toards an

ori3inal reolutionary strate3y8 it is rather that the particular%on%eption of the

di%tatorship of the proletariat to hi%h it referred had already, in all essentials,

been for a lon3 ti$e a%%epted and een do$inant in the 4nternational

)o$$unist Moe$ent5 The de%ision of the nd )on3ress does hae anhistori%al pre%edent, ithout hi%h it ould re$ain in part in%o$prehensible5

e ou3ht at this point to re%all a fa%t of hi%h $ost youn3 )o$$unists are

unaare, or hose i$portan%e ith re3ard to the present debate is not %lear to

the$5 4t as the ;oiet )o$$unists the$seles, under ;talin:s dire%tion, ho

first histori%ally :abandoned: the %on%ept of the di%tatorship of the proletariat, in

a Auite e0pli%it and reasoned ay5 They did so in 37AB, on the o%%asion of the

42

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

43/204

introdu%tion of the ne ;oiet )onstitution5 The 19C6 )onstitution sole$nly

pro%lai$ed, less than tenty years after the =%tober

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

44/204

and to the reolution5

;talin did not of %ourse retrospe%tiely ree%t the past appli%

[6"The Auestion hether the basi% :%lasses: are to or three in nu$ber has neer been %learly settled5 >n

ine0haustible field of studies as thereby proided for :Mar0ist so%iolo3y:5

1a%e nd so, he insisted, it

re$ained absolutely ne%essary 5 5 5 for eeryone else, for all other %ountries

hi%h still had to $a!e their reolutions5 The parti%ular ay in hi%h he

pro%lai$ed the end of the di%tatorship of the proletariat thus alloed hi$, at the

sa$e ti$e, to deelop the idea that the ;oiet *nion %onstituted a :$odel: for

all so%ialist reolutions, present or future54f ;talin:s ustifi%ation of the notion of the :;tate of the hole people: i3nored

and for a 3ood reason the e0isten%e of a%ute for$s of %lass stru33le in the

*;;

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

45/204

1a%e

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

46/204

or!in3 people %ollaboratin3 pea%efully to3ether5 >nd it is ithin so%ialis$,

under the dire%tion of the so%ialist ;tate, that the :foundations: of a future

so%iety, %o$$unis$, are bein3 laid, $ore or less Aui%!ly a%%ordin3 to the

rhyth$ of the deelop$ent of the produ%tie for%es8 under %o$$unis$, the

;tate ill be%o$e superfluous, ust as %lasses the$seles ill disappear5 4n all,

therefore, three su%%essie sta3es, ea%h one of hi%h %an only be3in hen thepre%edin3 sta3e has run its %ourse8 and the lin!s beteen the$, a%%ordin3 to

;talin:s theory, %an be e0plained by the 3reat histori%al ne%essity of the

deelop$ent of the produ%tie for%es, to hi%h ;talin:s $e%hani%al $aterialis$

attributes the role of the $otor of history5

>s a %onseAuen%e, to essential fa%tors ere eli$inated, or at least pushed to

one side/ the diale%ti% of histori%al %ontradi%tions, and %lass stru33le5

The diale%ti% disappeared, be%ause ;talin, in his theory of su%%essie sta3es,

purely and si$ply suppressed the tendential %ontradi%tion brou3ht to li3ht by

Mar0 and Lenin/ the proletarian reolution isboththe :%onstitution of the

proletariat as a rulin3 %lass:, the deelop$ent of a ;tate poer hi%h $a!es this

a reality, andthe reolution hi%h underta!es, on the $aterial foundations

%reated by %apitalis$, the abolition of all for$s of %lass do$ination, and

therefore the suppression of eery ;tate5 hat Mar0 and Lenin had analyHed as

a real %ontradi%tion, ;talin dissoled in a s%holasti% $anner &in the stri%t sense

of the ter$(, by di$tingui$hing$e%hani%ally beteen separate aspe%ts and

sta3es/fir$tthe abolition of anta3onis$, thenthe abolition of %lasses8fir$tthe

%onstru%tion of a :ne type: of ;tate, a so%ialist ;tate, thenthe disappearan%e of

eery ;tate &;talin did not anser the le3iti$ate Auestion/ hy should the ;tate

no disappear, sin%e the :so%ialist ;tate: already represents the poer and theinterests of the hole peopleG =r, at least, he as %ontent to point out that

:Mar0 had foreseen: its disappearan%e(5 =ne $ore e0a$ple %an be added to this

list of $e%hani%al distin%tions/ the idea thatfir$t%o$es di%tatorship

&di%tatorship of the proletariat, transition to so%ialis$(, then%o$es de$o%ra%y

&so%ialis$(5

The %lass stru33le %eased, at the sa$e ti$e, to represent in ;talin:s theory the

$otor of histori%al transfor$ations, and in

1a%e

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

47/204

of the %lass stru33le, as an effe%t of a different !ind of ne%essity, a te%hni%al

e%ono$i% ne%essity dire%ted by the ;tate5 >nd there is a ne%essary %onne0ion

beteen this %on%eption of so%ialis$, the pro%la$ation of the :total i%tory of

so%ialis$: in the *;;nyone ho is surprised that the :freest:, $ost de$o%rati%

&restorin3 uniersal suffra3e( %onstitution in the orld should hae been

a%%o$panied by the establish$ent of the $ost antide$o%rati% bureau%rati% and

poli%e apparatus, and a fortiorianyone ho reassures hi$self by interpretin3

all this as a proof that, :at the leel of prin%iples at least:, so%ialis$ $aintained

its lin!s ith de$o%ra%y, thereby per$anently blinds hi$self ith re3ard to the

real history of so%ialis$, ith its %ontradi%tions and retreats5 Oou $ust ta!e

a%%ount of this parado0/ that the tendential fusion of Mar0ist theory and the

Labour Moe$ent, hi%h is the 3reat reolutionary eent of $odern history,

also e0tends to their deiations5 The $isunderstandin3 or underesti$ation ofthe %lass stru33le in theory does not preent it fro$ unleashin3 itself in

pra%ti%e/ for the pre%ise reason, one hi%h

1a%e

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

48/204

the intentions &hi%h hoeer %ount for little in history(, nor espe%ially the

histori%al %onditions, and therefore the anti%ipated effe%ts, are the sa$e5

oeer, the de%ision of the nd )on3ress %an neither be understood nor

seriously dis%ussed independently of this pre%edent5

The first reason is that it does in fa%t %onstitute one of the re$ote

%onseAuen%es of the de%ision of 19C65 To restri%t ourseles to the theoreti%alleel, it is this de%ision, and $ore 3enerally the hole of the ideolo3i%al output

hi%h prepared for it and surrounded it, that i$posed on the hole

4nternational )o$$unist Moe$ent a do$inant $e%hanisti% and eolutionist

%on%eption of Mar0is$, based on the pri$a%y of the deelop$ent of the

produ%tie for%es, ithin hi%h the di%tatorship of the proletariat only

fun%tioned as a $eans, or een as a politi%al :te%hniAue: for the establish$ent of

the so%ialist ;tate &in spite of the fa%t that the #uardians of the 'o3$a

insistently repeated and een ha$$ered in the fa%t that it as a ne%essary

$eans(5 For this de%ision proided at the %ost of a 3i3anti% effort of

idealiHation and thus of $isinterpretation of ;oiet reality, for hi%h $illions

of )o$$unists in eery land ere enrolled, illin3ly or unillin3ly the

$eans

[7"4t is %ertain that the $e%hanisti% defor$ation of Mar0is$ hi%h o%%urred afterLenin as not inented by

;talin, nor did it suddenly appear in 19C65 >s far as the %on%ept of the di%tatorship of the proletariat is%on%erned, it %an be shon that this defor$ation is alreadypresent in the fa$ous te0ts of 19 [ i5e5,#he

2oundation$ of Lenini$m5 DJR" and 196 [ i5e5,'oncerning -ue$tion$ of Lenini$m5 DJR" on the

:prin%iples of Leninis$:/ in parti%ular, in the ery si3nifi%ant for$ %onsistin3 of the tran$po$ition onto legal

terrainof Lenin:s analyses %on%ernin3 the role of the ;oiets and of the Earty in the

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

49/204

fir$ly than eer in the theoryon hose basis the %ritiAue is bein3 deeloped/ it

is posin3, in the $ame general form, the $ame :ue$tionof the :transition to

so%ialis$:, een if it has tried to proide a differentanser5 *nfortunately, it is

the Auestion itself hi%h is ron3, and it is this Auestion hi%h has to be

ree%ted5

But the de%ision of the nd )on3ress is not therefore si$ply a re$ote%onseAuen%e of its 19C6 pre%edent/ it also %onstitutes, in the %han3ed

%onditions, its repetition5 4t is si$ply that hat ;talin and the ;oiet

)o$$unists applied to so%ialis$ in the periodfollo/ingthe seiHure of poer

by the or!ers, the nd )on3ress applied to the period beforethe seiHure of

poer, to the ery pro%ess of the :transition to so%ialis$:5 But the pro%edure is

the sa$e/ hain3 ar3ued that e%ono$i% and so%ial %onditions hae no

:$atured: in this respe%t, the Earty de%lares that the $o$ent has %o$e to

renoun%e the use of di%tatorship, hi%h as alays irre3ular, and adopt

de$o%rati% $eans, espousin3 le3ality and popular soerei3nty5 The sa$e

re%tifi%ation &or reision( of the Mar0ist %on%eption of the ;tate is therefore

ne%essary/ the ;tate, it is said, is not onlyand not al/ay$an instru$ent of %lass

stru33le8 it also has :another: aspe%t, one hi%h is repressed under %apitalis$,

but hi%h allos it to be%o$e an instru$ent for the $ana3e$ent of publi%

affairs in the %o$$on interest of all %itiHens5 The sa$e restri%tion of the

%on%ept of the di%tatorship of the proletariat to its repressie aspe%t is inoled,

to3ether ith its i$$ediate identifi%ation ith the institutional pe%uliarities of

the

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

50/204

trun%ated and defor$ed i$a3e that is today bein3 in all inno%en%e reprodu%ed5

>nd be%ause fifty years of the history of the )o$$unist Earties and of

reolutionary stru33les, $ar!ed ith i%tories and ith defeats, hae brou3ht

their on obe%tie and %ontradi%tory san%tion to Leninis$, hi%h the sa$e

;talin as not ron3 to define, for$ally, as :Mar0is$ in the epo%h of

i$perialis$ and proletarian reolution:, it is also and ne%essarily a Auestion ofsettlin3 a%%ounts ith Leninis$5 Therefore, in order to be3in, e $ust re

establish hat it is and study it, so that e %an dis%oer the real Auestions

hi%h it raises5

1a%e s

far as Mar0 and 2n3els are %on%erned, the reason is obious/ apart fro$ the

brief and fra3$entary e0perien%es of the 1DD reolutions and of the Earis

)o$$une, hose $ain tenden%y they ere able to dis%oer and to analyHe,

they ere neer able to study :real e0a$ples: of the proble$s of the di%tatorship

of the proletariat5 >s far as Lenin is %on%erned, the reason is different/ for the

fir$t time,Lenin /a$ confronted /ith the real e9perience of the dictator$hip of

the proletariat5 No this e0perien%e as e0traordinarily diffi%ult and

50

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

51/204

%ontradi%tory5 4t is the contradiction$ of the dictator$hip of the proletariat, as it

as be3innin3 to deelop in

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

52/204

nor does it diide it up a$on3 its on fra%tions5 >nd this is true hateer the

parti%ular histori%al for$s in hi%h the politi%al do$ination of the bour3eoisie

is realiHed, hateer the parti%ular for$s hi%h the bour3eoisie has to $a!e

use of in the history of ea%h %apitalist so%ial for$ation in order to presere its

;tate poer, hi%h is %onstantly $ena%ed by the deelop$ent of the %lass

stru33le5The first thesis has the folloin3 %onseAuen%e/ the only possible histori%al

:alternatie: to the ;tate poer of the bour3eoisie is an eAually absolute hold on

;tate poer by the proletariat, the %lass of a3elabourers e0ploited by %apital5

+ust as the bour3eoisie

1a%e +:

%annot share ;tate poer, so the proletariat %annot share it ith other %lasses5

>nd this absolute hold on ;tate poer is the essen%e of all the for$s of the

di%tatorship of the proletariat, hateer their transfor$ations and histori%alariety5 To tal! about an alternatie, hoeer, is really i$pre%ise/ e ou3ht

rather to say that the %lass stru33le leads ineitably to the ;tate poer of the

proletariat5 But it is i$possible to predi%t in adan%e, in any %ertain ay, either

the $o$ent at hi%h the proletariat ill be able to seiHe ;tate poer or the

parti%ular for$s in hi%h it ill do so5 2en less %an e :3uarantee: the su%%ess

of the proletarian reolution, as if it as :auto$ati%:5 The deelop$ent of the

%lass stru33le %an neither be planned nor pro3ra$$ed5

#he $econd argument deal$ /ith the State apparatu$.

Oou %an su$ it up by sayin3 that the ;tate poer of the rulin3 %lass %annot e0istin history, nor %an it be realiHed and $aintained, ithout ta!in3 $aterial for$

in the deelop$ent and fun%tionin3 of the ;tate apparatus or, to use one of

Mar0:s $etaphors hi%h Lenin is alays borroin3, in the fun%tionin3 of the

:;tate $a%hine:, hose %ore &the prin%ipal aspe%t/ but not the only aspe%t

Lenin neer said that( is %onstituted by the ;tate repre$$iveapparatus or

apparatuses5 These are/ on the one hand, the standin3 ar$y, as ell as the

poli%e and the le3al apparatus8 and on the other hand, the ;tate ad$inistration

or :bureau%ra%y: &Lenin uses these to ter$s $ore or less synony$ously(5 This

thesis has the folloin3 %onseAuen%e, ith hi%h it is absolutely bound up/ the

proletarian reolution, that is, the oerthro of the ;tate poer of thebour3eoisie, is i$possible ithout the de$truction of the e9i$ting State

apparatu$in hi%h the ;tate poer of the bour3eoisie ta!es $aterial for$5

*nless this apparatus is destroyed hi%h is a %o$ple0 and diffi%ult tas! the

di%tatorship of the proletariat %annot deelop and fulfil its histori%al tas!, the

oerthro of relations of e0ploitation and the %reation of a so%iety ithout

e0ploitation or %lasses5 *nless this apparatus is destroyed, the proletarian

52

7/25/2019 Etienne Balibar.on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

53/204

reolution ill ineitably be oer%o$e, and e0ploitation ill be $aintained,

hateer the histori%al for$s in hi%h this ta!es pla%e5

4t is %lear that Lenin:s ar3u$ents hae i$$ediate bearin3 both on the State

and on the dictator$hip of the proletariat5 The to proble$s are inseparable5 4n

Mar0is$ you do not hae on one side a 3eneral theory of the ;tate, and on the

other side a &parti%u

1a%e +(

lar( theory of the di%tatorship of the proletariat5 #here i$ one $ingle theory only5

The first to ar3u$ents, hi%h 4 hae ust set out, are alr