------------------
Maybe Marx did not argue alone for the conquest of political power of the working class as a necessity for socialism, but he certainly did argue precisely that in conjunction with Frederick Engels in the Communist Manifesto, arguably the most basic text of all of communism: "The Communists do not form a separate party [notice that word-- ed.] opposed to other working-class parties [notice that word again]." ..... "The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties [notice that word again] of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. "The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties [notice that word again]: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of brougeois supremacy, CONQUEST OF POLITICAL POWER BY THE PROLETARIAT." (Ch.2, CM)
-----------------
> Marx argued for a working *class* capture of state power, just
> like you say here:
>
>>Establishing a state controlled by the proletariat, as advocated by the
>> Manifesto, is not possible and attempts to do so leads to the
>>formation of a new group of exploiters to replace the old ones.
>
>
> Has there ever been a working *class* capture of political power?
"No, the workers have never seized state power because such a thing is
not possible. A "proletarian state" is like a square circle; it doesn't
exist. You could call something a square circle, but that doesn't mean
it exists."
> Or has
> there been a capture of power on their behalf by a vanguard party, as
> advocated by Lenin but not Marx.
---------------------
"The seizure of state power by a minority is the logical outcome of an attempt to establish a worker's state since the state is an organ for the domination of the majority by a minority."
-------------------
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this dogmatic assertion. This is the assertion shared by Stalin, too: That a minority seizure of power was necessary, and is necessary for all socialism to exist. But, as to how much the Bolsheviks really represented the proletariat, it doesn't matter because the proletariat was a minority within Russia! Only about 25-30% of those polled at the time favord the Bolsheviks, because the majority of Russia was undeveloped and the majority of its people were not proletarians but PEASANTS! Why would socialism look the same in a mass peasant society in a backwards country at the turn of the 20th century, as it would in a mass proletarian society in the most developed countries at the turn of the 21st?
????????????
-- David