The MKP has a problematic approach on the question of the proletarian dictatorship as well. Let us introduce the matter from the example of the Paris Commune, which the MKP heavily relies on while explaining its views. There is an extremely important conclusion by Garibaldi about the Commune. He said that the Paris Commune was defeated because there was no authoritative power in Paris, that there was nothing other than anarchy. This assessment entirely overlaps with the analysis of Engels, who concluded that what cost the life of the Paris Commune is the lack of centralization and authority. Marx, who put the concept of proletarian dictatorship in its right place from the practical consequences of stormy revolutions that took place in the process of 1848-1849 wars, in his letter to Weydemeyer, dated March 08, 1852, writes that the class struggle necessarily leads to dictatorship of the proletariat, and thus contributing a clear depth and broadness to the theory of dictatorship. Finally, in 1871, with the lessons drawn from the defeat of the Paris Commune, which survived for only two and a half months, Marx was to further develop his theory of the proletarian dictatorship. He arrived at the following theory: The proletariat should not be content with the seizing of the existing state mechanism and using it for its own purposes; it must also destroy this machine and in its place establish a new type of state, a Paris Commune type state. This means that the proletariat, as the ruling class, needs a state in the process of transition from capitalism to communism.
The proletarian dictatorship forms that we have seen up to now have all used "standing armies" instead of using the path of "arming the people". Then the question is, by doing so, did they not break away from the example of the Paris Commune and therefore from Marx? If they did indeed break away, how come? The MKP fails to give the correct answer to this question and holds a position that is against the dictatorship of the proletariat, being capable of defending it only by softening, carving, and diluting it. And it does so by decorating the proletarian dictatorship with the pudding of democratism and by disowning its name [dictatorship] and returning to the Paris Commune (p. 106, 119), a format that has been long surpassed. Instead of relying on the experiences of people's democracy and socialism, which was a reality for one third of the world, the MKP relies on the limited experience of the Paris Commune.
Now we can go on to answering the question we asked at the beginning of this section. Garibaldi is right: The Paris Commune was defeated because of the lack of an authority. The Commune prepared its own end by depriving itself of a party and centralization that would be capable of direction. Marx drew concrete lessons from the Commune's defeat. His conclusions expressed in the letter to Weydemeyer found the right place to sit when combined with the lessons he drew from the 1871 defeat. As the ruling class, the proletariat must destroy the old state and create a new one in its place. It should be noted that neither the post-October Revolution nor the post-Chinese Revolution and nor the post-other revolutions, the proletarian dictatorships or the democratic people's dictatorships were not organizational models that could establish the model of arming the people as opposed to establishing standing armies. In this regard, those experiences did not coincide with Marx's doctrine that originated by the lessons from the Commune. Written only several months before the October Revolution, in his book the State and Revolution, one of the fundamental works of Marxism, Lenin was proposing the model of arming the people, in accordance with the example of the Paris Commune. In this work, Lenin was relying on the example of the Paris Commune and the lessons drawn by Marx from this limited experience. However, the new and vibrant practice of the October Revolution, the happenings in Hungary, short-lived experiences of German revolutions, and more importantly what was taking place in Russia inevitably compelled the proletariat to establish a centralization of the rule of the proletarian class and a united military force. Thus, the experiences accumulated with the October Revolution and afterwards moved the thesis of armed people as opposed to a standing army on to the shelves as a "surpassed point of view". As Stalin had accurate stated; "Clearly, in its development [Marxism-Leninism] it is bound to become enriched by new experience and new knowledge, and some of its propositions and conclusions are bound to change in the course of time, are bound to be replaced by new conclusions and propositions corresponding to the new historical conditions." (Stalin, Works, A.16, p. 23) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch13.htm]
Indeed, after the October Revolution, Lenin was to abandon his proposition about the armed forces as formulated in the State and Revolution and to recognize the necessity of a state with a standing army. He repeatedly emphasized the necessity of coming up with the united and centralized forces of the proletariat against the united and centralized forces of the bourgeoisie. In Lenin's doctrine, this was a new and practical approach as given birth by the revolutionary movement. A new and living experience, shooting up from the October Revolution, was to surpass the limited experience of the Paris Commune. Furthermore, revolutions that took place after the October Revolution and especially the revolution in China followed the example of the October Revolution, which prescribed the necessity of maintaining a standing and consistent revolutionary army. Under the capitalist imperialist siege, in a society still containing classes, class contradictions, and class struggle, that goes through the transition from capitalism to communism, it is impossible to reach the next stage from contradictions filled stage of socialism and wipe out the bourgeoisie step by step without a centralized authority and means of oppression, in other words without an organized "revolutionary force".
State is the tool for organizing the force. A socialist state is still a state of a society that contains classes. It contains antagonistic contradictions in all realms of life, whether economic, political, cultural or otherwise. It is a transition society where the question of who wins the ultimate victory is not yet finalized. In such conditions, approaching the organization of the force in a socialist state from the angel of arming the people, leaving the state without a standing army would be leaving the proletariat disarmed in benefit of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, it must be noted that a socialist state inherits its population from capitalism. This is a population that capitalism put great efforts to corrupt, to suppress its consciousness, and to ideologically influence. Arming such a population would be opening the gates to a complete chaos and creating an "anarchism of authority", just like the organizational anarchism.
Of course the communists are the proponents of entirely eliminating the state, albeit a proletarian state, and its army. However, this cannot be done overnight. This is one of the main points that distinguish the communists from the anarchists. It is in fact one of the principle questions. Limitations on the social conditions of the socialist stage obligate the existence of the state. These conditions are fed on imperialism, bourgeoisie, classes, and class struggle and as long as these sources of limitations continue to exist, it is necessary to have, coupled with the directing role of the party, a revolutionary authority and an "iron hand" based on a "standing army". The experience of the Paris Commune during Marx's period was too limited and narrow to extend itself to this necessity. Understandably, it could not come up with the theory of dictatorship, which matured only after the experience of the October Revolution.
After all these experiences and all these theories that are matured through these experiences, going back to a point of view that is long exceeded by new, richer, and time proven theories would be a step backward. After all, practice provides richer and more valuable materials to work with then any theory would. Furthermore, proposing a transition from capitalism to communism without the dictatorship of the proletariat or diluting and castrating that necessary dictatorship (by replacing the standing army with armed people, for example) would mean nothing other than breaking away from Marxism, preaching an anarchism mixed revisionism, and being swayed away by liberalism. The energetic criticisms that the MKP directs towards the dictatorship of the proletariat, through opinions expressed on the "standing army" (p. 113-114) and the "secret intelligence service(s)" (p. 120) do not constitute a key to resolve this question. On the contrary, they represent, logically, the very deadlock on the matter.
The MKP has been swayed away so far on the point of proletarian dictatorship that it is not even able to tolerate its name. The Congress Documents state: "We are in the opinion that the definition such as the new state of the proletariat and the toilers, instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat, would be a more robust and accurate term as it contains a sharper distinction from any type of bourgeois understanding of dictatorship. This could also be called the democracy of the proletariat and the toilers. "(p. 119)
The Third Congress of the MKP is just trying to cover up the truth with empty words. The main thing that they oppose is the dictatorship of the proletariat. As Lenin had said: "Those who recognize only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; they may be found to be still within the bounds of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics. To confine Marxism to the theory of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is what constitutes the most profound distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois."(Lenin, Selected Works, Volume 7, p. 44) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch02.htm]
The MKP should know that the question of dictatorship of the proletariat is the main problem of the modern labour movement. It is also the area that first attacked by anyone who descended to the liberal-labour politics. As soon as you start negotiating over this principle matter, you would be breaking the backbone of the party. Moreover, you would be putting the proletarian socialism on the interrogation chair. This would openly mean turning away from Marxism and carrying water to the bourgeoisie's mill.
Bluntly put, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a form of power that directly relies on force. Against whom? Against the bourgeoisie. It is the oppression apparatus of the once exploited majority over the once exploiting minority. In short, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the force used against the bourgeoisie in order to keep it under the oppression, to break down its resistance, and to rouse fear in it. Oppression of the exploiters, the bourgeoisie, with force is the indispensable condition, the necessary and absolute element of the dictatorship and it is the chief element that determines its nature. This is the essence of the matter. We cannot really change this essence by calling it the state of the proletariat and the toilers or the democracy of the proletariat and the toilers. As Lenin had said: "Principles are not an aim, a programme, a tactic or a theory. Tactics and theory are not principles. How do we differ from the anarchists on principles? The principles of communism consist in the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and in the use of state coercion in the transition period." (Lenin, Selected Works, Volume 10, p. 307-308) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jun/12.htm]
In this regard, attempting to put new meanings on the proletarian dictatorship by calling it the state or the democracy of the proletariat and the toilers and juggling with words in an effort to make it "charming" (!) is neither scientific and nor does it contribute anything to the topic.
Lenin wrote: "Attempts are sometimes made to lend these words what is considered to be greater force by speaking of the “dictatorship of democracy”. That is sheer nonsense. (Lenin, Selected Works, Volume 8, p. 183) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/rcp8th/06.htm]
Marx, too, in the footnotes to the Programme of the German Workers' Party, had taken a clear position against such juggling of words:
"This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.
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." (Marx Engels, Selected Works 3, p. 32-33) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm]