why do you think that marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat " did not happen?

Answer 1

In those societies that did have Communist revolutions, such as the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, local revolutionary political philosophers modified Marx's philosophy to varying degrees. The concept of the "vanguard of the proletariat" introduced a leadership class that would set the course for political and economic development. This quickly devolved to political fighting and purges amongst a powerful elite.

In the west, most capitalistic societies, especially during the Great Depression, introduced social welfare programs that addressed the material concerns of the working class and sought to redistribute wealth to create more equal and stable societies. Instead of red revolutions, most western countries struck a balance between market economies and social programs financed by tax revenues.

In the more general sense, while he made some valid critiques of the economic disparities between the classes of his day, much of Marx's philosophy was simply unworkable and unsustainable by actual human beings in practice. Many communistic societies have become brutal in no small part because they are trying to force people to behave in ways against their natural inclinations or create artificial incentives.

Answer 2

Because Marx was a proto-sociologist rather than a student of history. He was convinced of his theory and saw enough details and evidence to prove he was right. Unfortunately he ignored and disregarded those details that upset his theory. Marx believed he understood human behavior and that his predictions had shown themselves throughout history, but his conclusions were largely based on assumptions.

Marx didn't fathom that capitalist interests would recognize the need to reform working conditions and work with labor unions - he was a century before game theory would reveal that the best answer is not just what is good for capitalists (cheap labor costs and high profits), nor what is good for labor (high costs and low profits), but the best system, free of unrest, was one of moderate costs and moderate profits. The proletariat never materialized because workers could agree to their wages and working conditions. Capitalists could avoid revolution by increasing the cost of labor and in the long run, ensuring uninterupted profits.

Marx didn't anticipate any of this, he was entirely certain of human behavior and that capitalists would maximize their own interests only by robbing from labor. There were no examples in history that entirely support this scenario that Marx theorized, so he made general assumptions and discarded any notions that the proletariat actually could benefit within capitalism (albeit not in the pure market capitalism that Marx believed would develop... more of a softer capitalism-lite, complete with welfare safety nets, church and private charities, and unions, workers' insurance and a protective state).

Answer 3

In a sense, Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" did happen. But it didn't happen in the way that Marx predicted.

Marx predicted that capitalists would chase an ever smaller margin of profit, and the only source of profits was the wages of labor. The increasing "immiseration of labor" would force the workers to rebel for reasons of pure survival, and when the revolution had ended in the workers' favor a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be established. Marx saw these rebellions occuring in the most advanced nations - Great Britain, Germany, The United States - but the communist revolutions that did occur came about in backward nations like Russia.

Why did Marx have it completely backwards? For a number of reasons, probably the greatest being Marx's underestimation of technology and the ability of technlogy to outstrip population growth, and from his underestimation of democracy as a political system. It turned out that workers, as voters, really did have ultimate power in democratic countries. And workers, as workers, were able to leverage their economic power in trade unions. Marx was logically consistent in his analysis of his form of capitalism, but his assumptions were entirely off base.

Answer 4

To answer you briefly and clearly, as I hope to do, I think that the proletariat did not and has not till today gained the knowledge, courage, and will to make this dictatorship happen. I am not saying they are not intelligent enough, but I do believe that collectively they lack the unified skill set required to successfully overthrow and maintain a government which will not morph into some sort of oligarchy or rule by an elite whose interests will not coincide with the working class.

The day that enough workers band together to protect their interests as a class across any nation, then we may have this hope. So far, very few societies have enough educated workers to get this done. Maybe the Scandinavian countries or northern European countries might approach this state. Maybe Canada. Maybe Japan.

However, to my knowledge this has yet to happen. Please correct me if I am in error.

Answer 5

because greedy corrupt men got involved in the process. Had Lenin, Mao, and Stalin founded democracy or republicanism, these types of governments would be spurned today. Had George, Tom, Ben and the boys founded Communism or even Fascism they would have been the greatest boons to government ever known. You need only look at how the world has frowned on American Democracy based on the actions of the Bush administration to see that even democratic ideology can be viewed as evil.

Marx and many of the philosophers/sociologists of the late 19th century were good men looking for equality of all humanity because of the problems the common man was having with capitalism (Read Cahan's "The Rise of David Levinsky"). The poor and the immigrants of that time were victims to the whims of the so called Robber Barons. Unfortunately these champions of equality would not be the instituters of the changes in government. Militant radicals and paranoid dictators would wave the flag of socialism knocking equality on its ear for another 100 years.

Answer 6

i've got not got a textbook definition yet i'm hoping this facilitates, China works around communism meaning there is one occasion that stands in each and every election meaning the voters have one determination which leads to a one occasion government. the government is democratically elected 'interior the definition of democracy' yet they have absolute skill over the voters.

Answer 7

1

Answer 8

Human nature.
When people attain power they tend to want to exercise without any control from other people for the benefit of themselves and their friends.