> Subject: Re: war and the state (was milton, etc.)
> Marx didn't really say what form his "dictatorship of the proletariat"
> would take, what it would look like or how the proletariat are supposed
> to maintain control of a state.
Engels cited the Paris Commune of 1871 as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat (non-hierarchical, the use of revocable delegates, etc).
> Most of his 20th followers took the term to mean the rule of their party.
You mean followers of Lenin, since rule of the party is antithetical to Marx's outlook.
> > 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.
Marx did not favour workers' control of the state per se (and he did not use the Trotskyite oxymoron "workers' state"). Rather, he favoured workers' control of the state for particular and historically specific purposes. In underdeveloped countries the state was to encourage industrialisation. Marx thought it was necessary to use control of the state to prevent that power being used against the workers. The ultimate goal was the creation of a classless, stateless society.
Marx would agree with your implied criticism of the state as an organ for the domination of the majority by a minority. It's good to see an anarchist arguing for democratic, and in this case Marxian, principles.
-- Lew