The dictatorship of the proletariat
Categories: Home -> Political Science
Last updated: 2026-08-26
This article is part of the Intermediate course on Libertarianism and the Austrian School of Economics -> Marxism
1. What is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"?
In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the phase of political and state transition that occurs immediately after the anti-capitalist revolution and before communism (the society without classes or State) is reached.
- Seizure and monopoly of power: It consists in the working class (the proletariat) appropriating the apparatus of the State and using it as an instrument of domination.
- Coercive power: During this phase, the State is used in an authoritarian and coercive manner to expropriate the means of production from the bourgeoisie, centralize credit, and repress any attempt at capitalist counterrevolution.
- Class rule: For Marx, the term "dictatorship" did not allude to the tyrannical government of a single individual, but to the absolute rule of one class over another. He argued that the capitalist system and representative democracy were, in essence, a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," so the proletariat had to establish its own in order to dismantle the system from within.
The formula is one of the most charged in Marxism: it does not describe a whim of Lenin, but the transitional regime that Marx considered inevitable between capitalism and classless society.
The dispute with Austrians and liberals is not only semantic (“is it or is it not a dictatorship?”). It is about whether a power that declares itself of a class, temporary, and self-extinguishing can fail to become a permanent State over the population.
2. What Marxism says
Marx uses the expression little, but at the decisive points.
In the letter to Joseph Weydemeyer of 5 March 1852 he states that he does not claim the discovery of classes or of their struggle; his own contribution is:
that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat;
that this dictatorship itself is only the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.
In the Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875):
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Manifesto (1848) does not yet use the word, but it describes the thing: “the first step in the workers’ revolution is the constitution of the proletariat as ruling class, the winning of democracy”; the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie and centralize the means in the hands of the State, “that is, of the proletariat organized as the ruling class.”
What it implies, in the doctrine:
- Every State is a dictatorship of a class. The “bourgeois” State, even if it has a parliament and suffrage, is the dictatorship of the possessing class. The novelty is not that there is coercion; it is who exercises it and for what.
- The state machine is not inherited. It must be “smashed” (The Civil War in France, concerning the Commune of 1871): standing army, bureaucracy, political police of the old order. The Commune —revocable mandate, officials on a worker’s wage, fusion of executive and legislative— is the model that Engels, in 1891, points to with his finger: “Look at the Paris Commune: that was the dictatorship of the proletariat.”
- It is a transition, not a goal. It must crush the resistance of the expropriated, prevent restoration, socialize the means. Then the State “withers away” because, once classes have disappeared, there is no one left to subjugate.
- Variable political form. Engels goes so far as to say that the democratic republic is “the specific form” of that dictatorship, as the French Revolution already showed. Lenin, in The State and Revolution (1917), radicalizes the other pole: soviets, destruction of the State, popular militia. The tradition splits here: social democracy (parliamentary path toward a State “of the whole people”) versus Bolshevism (power of the soviets and vanguard party).
In theory, it is not the dictatorship of a man or of a secret committee in the Blanquist style. Engels expressly distinguishes the dictatorship of the whole class from that of a conspiratorial minority. In Leninist practice, the party speaks in the name of the class; that mediation is the point that critics do not forgive.
Critiques from the Austrian School and Libertarianism
For the theorists of the Austrian School of Economics and classical liberals, this phase of the Marxist project is the point where the theory reveals its most destructive practical consequences. Far from being a bridge toward emancipation, it is considered the institutional recipe for permanent tyranny:
1. The absolute concentration of power and totalitarianism (Friedrich Hayek):
Liberal thinkers warn that concentrating the monopoly of political force and the absolute control of economic resources (the means of production) in the hands of the State eliminates any limit on governmental power.
As Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) argued in The Road to Serfdom, when a State is the only employer and the owner of all capital goods, it has the power to decide over the life, livelihood, and liberty of all citizens. This in practice requires a totalitarian regime.
2. The fallacy of the "withering away of the State":
Marxism promises that once class antagonisms have been eliminated, the proletarian State will "wither away" or extinguish itself of its own accord, giving way to a free society.
From libertarianism, this is considered a dangerous naivety about the nature of power.
A coercive, bureaucratic, and militarized apparatus that has accumulated absolute power never dissolves voluntarily. Instead of withering away, it tends to expand and to perpetuate itself through control and repression.
3. The appearance of a new oppressive "New Class":
The Public Choice School and Austrian methodological individualism point out that the State is not an infallible abstract entity; it is composed of individuals with interests of their own. The dictatorship of the proletariat is never really exercised by "the workers" in assembly, but by a small bureaucratic and managerial vanguard. This elite quickly becomes a "new class" (the Nomenklatura) that monopolizes privileges and oppresses the workers themselves in the name of socialism.
4. The institutionalization of violence and the violation of rights:
From liberal and libertarian political philosophy, the dictatorship of the proletariat legitimizes systematic coercion and the violation of the non-aggression principle.
It justifies as a "historical necessity" theft (forcible expropriation), political persecution, and the suppression of freedom of expression, sacrificing the inalienable rights of the individual (life, liberty, and property) on the altar of a future collectivist utopia.
5. Whoever allocates the means is the sovereign (Mises)
The dictatorship of the proletariat coincides with the socialization of the means of production. For Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) that is not an institutional detail: without private property in the factors of production there are no capital prices and there is no economic calculation.
The “transition period” cannot be a brief technical interregnum. It is the moment when someone —committee, soviet, Gosplan— decides what is produced, with what, and for whom.
That someone is not “the class.” It is a set of officials.
Mises: the State is the use of armed men. To ask for “more State” in the transition is to ask for more compulsion.
To call that “the proletariat organized as the ruling class” conceals the only politically relevant fact: the monopoly of coercion and of allocation.
The later withering away has no mechanism. Whoever already distributes the bread and the steel does not hand power back of his own accord.
6. The plan requires a single plan —and a single plan does not tolerate opposition (Hayek)
The Road to Serfdom is not a philological commentary on Gotha; it is the political consequence of planning.
If the economy must serve “one” class purpose, rival purposes (that of the peasant who wants his plot, that of the worker who wants another working day, that of the technician who disagrees with the plan) become sabotage.
Dictatorship is not an excess: it is the means by which one plan is imposed on millions of plans.
Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) underlines adverse selection: the more cooperation has to be forced, the more men willing to use the police are needed.
It is not accidental that the “transition” attracts the type of leader who does not let go of command. The thesis of temporariness collides with the logic of office and with the argument that Hayek himself used against socialists who dreamed of a provisional dictatorship toward “libertarian” socialism: the provisional tends to stay.
7. “Ruling class” without individual subjects is a fiction (praxeology)
The dictatorship of the proletariat presupposes that a class can govern.
For Mises, persons govern. “The proletariat” does not sign decrees. A central committee, a Cheka, a ministry do. Bakunin’s question —are forty million Germans going to be the government?— is not rhetorical: either an impossible assembly governs, or a minority that represents the class governs.
In the second case, the representation that was said to be bourgeois has been reintroduced, without the constraints of liberal constitutionalism (separation of powers, rights opposable to the sovereign, legal opposition).
8. The transition has no criterion of termination
When does bourgeois resistance cease? When is the higher phase “ripe”? Without prices and without legal opposition, the criterion is set by the apparatus itself.
All dissent can be read as a class residue or as “false consciousness.”
That turns the temporary dictatorship into a defining dictatorship: it decides when it has ceased to be necessary.
Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) sees here the same millenarian pattern: the Kingdom justifies the interregnum; the interregnum does not end because the Kingdom never fully arrives.
This article is part of the Intermediate course on Libertarianism and the Austrian School of Economics -> Marxism
| Previous topic | Next topic | |
|---|---|---|
| <-Class struggle | <--> | The Internationals-> |
Categories: Home -> Political Science
Last updated: 2026-08-26
| | | |
This site was written based on publicly available free articles from the internet.
The content of this site is available under the: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
You can freely copy, redistribute and modify the material, as long as the source is mentioned: liberwiki.com