Why Marx’s Predictions Regarding the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” Have Been Fulfilled

The dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist theory:

Marxist theory is renowned for predicting the collapse of the capitalist system and its replacement by communism, leading to the eventual disappearance of the State—an entity whose existence is viewed as fundamentally tied to capitalism itself. According to Marx and his followers, these conclusions are based on scientific and objective analysis. Within this process of historical and revolutionary transformation, what Marxist literature terms the “dictatorship of the proletariat” (the dictatorship of the working class) plays a pivotal role. This stage represents a “transitional phase immediately following the socialist revolution, characterized by the replacement of the bourgeois state with one where the proletariat holds sole power, thereby facilitating the transition to a stateless and classless society” (Larousse Encyclopedia, “dictatorship of the proletariat”). In his 1875 work, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx specified the necessity of this phase to eradicate capitalism: “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

A mere utopian and messianic theory?

What remains today of this Marxist theory regarding the movement of history, the evolution of societies, the future of the economy, or the end of capitalism? Likely nothing. Capitalism appears to have triumphed, even as Marxism—through historical materialism, the dialectical method, and the concept of class struggle as the engine of history—announced that capitalism was in its final hours, marching inevitably toward its demise. As for the workers, upon whom this theory relied to end the system, they remain under the yoke of capitalism, working as wage earners for owners of capital and the means of production. Far from disappearing as predicted under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the State has instead grown in power, authority, and influence. It has even become more dictatorial through its omnipresence and constant surveillance of every facet of life.

Consequently, the entirety of Marxist theory regarding the fate of capitalist societies—and specifically the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessary step toward building communism and abolishing the State—would seem to be nothing more than a messianic vision. It offers a utopian, religious, and eschatological conception of the end of the world and history, divorced from science, truth, or reality.

But is this truly the case? Is it accurate to say that Marx’s theory on the end of capitalism and, more specifically, on the dictatorship of the proletariat as a prelude to a communist society, is pure utopia? In other words, something that—according to the Greek etymology of the term—exists and will exist nowhere?

Worker exploitation: The engine behind capitalism’s inevitable collapse

The capitalist system analyzed by Marx in the 19th century was that of the Industrial Revolution. This revolution was both the cause and the consequence of the system: it shaped it while simultaneously feeding off it to grow and prosper. At that time, the capitalist economy was dominated by industrial production with an insatiable appetite for raw materials. Because it relied on heavy industry and the processing of resources to manufacture machines—themselves intended for further production—the need for labor increased in tandem with the number of factories. These workers labored under miserable conditions, often for more than twelve hours a day, without any of the rights they enjoy today. In an era when automation and technology were only in their infancy, work relied essentially on muscular strength. Under such conditions, a few hours of toil were enough to exhaust a man. Working more than twelve hours therefore represented an unbearable ordeal, a hell that destroyed workers’ health in record time. All this for a pittance, barely covering the food necessary to regenerate their labor power. If we add to this the total absence of labor laws, vacations, family allowances, health insurance, accident compensation, or pensions, it is easy to understand that the worker indeed had “nothing to lose but his chains.” This was the proclamation of Marx’s famous call in the Communist Manifesto: “Workers of the world, unite!” The revolution against this system then appeared inevitable. It was this historical necessity that led Marx to speak of the end of capitalism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the victory of communism as scientific and objective data, confirmed by “the concrete analysis of concrete reality,” to use the consecrated expression of Marxist literature.

This “concrete analysis of concrete reality” thus provides us with the following equation, intended to lead to the eradication of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a prelude to the triumph of communism: capitalism (the bourgeois class owning the means of production and exploiting the workers) plus the proletariat (the working class) equals (leads inevitably to) the disappearance of that very capitalism. Their coexistence—that of the proletariat and the capitalism that exploits it—is indeed based on conflict (the class struggle) and a contradiction whose only outcome is the extinction of the capitalist system and its mutation into a communist system. This process results from an accumulation of quantitative and partial changes until a threshold of qualitative and global transformation is reached; at this stage, the capitalist system tips toward a radically different economic, social, and political model: the communist system. The origin of this qualitative transformation, which culminates in the communist order, thus resides in an internal mutation of the capitalist system, which constitutes the first element of the equation leading to its own downfall.

Why must this transformation necessarily affect capitalism and not the working class?

In other words, why would this same equation not result in a mutation of the second element—namely, the working class—rather than that of the first, capitalism?

What we observe today, particularly since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, is the absolute hegemony of capitalism. This system has taken on a predominantly financial character, marked by the growing and dominant role of financial institutions—a shift that constitutes the second phase of its evolution. This follows its first stage during Marx’s era, when capitalism was purely industrial. We might even argue that since the beginning of the 21st century, capitalism has been transitioning into a third phase defined by the digital economy. This dominance proves that instead of weakening, collapsing, or dying, capitalism has grown stronger, regained its vigor, and flourished. This observation is further corroborated by the fact that socialist regimes, which were expected to signal the death throes of capitalism, have themselves transformed into capitalist systems. This is the case for both Russia and China; the latter has become a nerve center of global capitalism, even though its ruling party still retains the name of the Communist Party.

This is the current state of affairs: capitalism triumphant on a global and overwhelming scale. However, a fundamental difference separates the 19th-century worker—whom Marx expected to rise up against capitalism to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat—from the worker within this victorious capitalism. The modern worker, particularly since the second half of the 20th century, works fewer than forty hours a week in most European countries where capitalism first emerged. This duration corresponds to only three days of labor for the 19th-century worker who made up the proletarian class in Marx’s analysis. Today’s worker earns a decent wage that guarantees a life of dignity. But the most radical break between these two types of workers lies in the fact that the modern employee enjoys rights and benefits that were simply unthinkable for the laborer Marx described. Today’s worker benefits from annual leave, a retirement pension (which even supports a spouse after the worker’s death), social security, health insurance, protection against workplace accidents, and family allowances. They also possess the right to strike to pressure employers—who now greatly fear social movements. Furthermore, employers are prohibited from arbitrary dismissal. In many countries, workers even receive an income when they find themselves out of work: the unemployment benefit.

Moreover, technical development and its application to human effort have made modern working conditions comfortable and far less grueling than those of Marx’s time. Added to these advantages is the opportunity for employees to develop their skills and talents through continuous training and professional development. This fosters social mobility and career advancement, leading individuals to value their work and encouraging diligence and innovation. This dynamism breaks the routine born from the repetition of the same movements over decades, as was the case for the 19th-century worker. Consequently, while labor in the 19th century was a form of alienation—a negation of one’s energy and a brake on one’s abilities—it represents today an opportunity for emancipation, skill development, and the fulfillment of potential. As a result, the working class no longer consists solely of manual or physical laborers—such as builders, carpenters, drivers, mechanics, blacksmiths, or farmers—but now encompasses teachers, doctors, engineers, merchants, company directors, pilots, judges, and police officers.

All these social benefits (referring to labor-related rights, as in the term “social law” which denotes employment law), these comfortable conditions, and these incentives mean that the modern worker lives like a king within a triumphant capitalism. It is now possible for a worker in Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, or Australia, for instance, to own a luxury villa, buy a high-end car, spend year-end holidays at the Sharm el-Sheikh seaside resort in Egypt, or purchase a “riad” in Marrakech for their retirement years. They have transformed themselves into the bourgeoisie, even though Marx expected them to annihilate it.

What has changed, therefore, in the binary relationship between capitalism and the working class is not capitalism itself—which, as I have noted, has grown stronger and more triumphant—but rather the working class. The latter now benefits, in a clear and undeniable way, from this capitalism through the rights and advantages it provides them—benefits they could not have even dreamed of in Marx’s time during the 19th century.

From Capitalism’s Gravedigger to its Protector

What worker, enjoying such privileges and rights offered by the capitalist system, would think of revolting against that system to destroy it? For them, would that not be a form of economic and professional suicide?

Consequently, if the capitalist system did not transform into a communist system as Marx predicted, it does not mean his analysis was flawed. Rather, it is because the workers (the proletariat), who represent the second element of the equation explaining the collapse of capitalism, are no longer the same as those Marx was targeting. He spoke of workers living under injustice and oppression, deprived of the most basic rights, victims of fierce exploitation, and working in miserable, inhuman conditions. The persistence of such a working class, with those same characteristics and working conditions, would have inevitably led to the collapse of capitalism, thus confirming Marx’s expectations.

However, since those workers have disappeared, the cause of capitalism’s collapse has vanished with them. As a result, capitalism remains in excellent health; it has even intensified its expansion, hegemony, and triumph. Why? Because the worker—the one who, according to Marx’s predictions, was expected to annihilate it and had nothing to lose but their chains and shackles—is precisely the one who today protects this capitalism and contributes to its survival. Why? Because destroying it would mean losing all those considerable advantages we have mentioned, which they enjoy thanks to this very system. For them, destroying capitalism no longer means merely losing their alienation and chains, as was the case for the 19th-century worker, but losing their very existence as a human being who achieves fulfillment and exercises freedom through work, production, and professional creativity.

Do Workers Under Communism Enjoy the Same Rights?

The claim that the achievements secured by workers under capitalism would be preserved or even enhanced in a communist system, as Marxism promised, is untenable. Post-World War II socialist and communist experiments in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Latin America, and Asia proved that workers’ rights in those regimes were far inferior to those of their counterparts in capitalist countries. This is one of the reasons these states could never match the economic progress of capitalist nations in Europe and the United States. The West advanced because workers contribute actively to economic development. When working within a capitalist framework, employees are convinced—by the benefits, gains, and rights they receive—that they are also working for their own self-interest. This serves as a driver for dedication and seriousness, providing an incentive for innovation and creativity. Conversely, in socialist and communist countries, the lack of benefits compared to the capitalist world convinces workers that they are merely laboring for the interests of the ruling party and its ideology. This provides no personal fulfillment or material improvement, failing to stimulate effort or innovation. Ultimately, a vital condition for economic development is lost: the worker, an indispensable element of growth, feels no personal stake in it. This explains why countries like Russia and China only reached development levels comparable to Europe, the United States, or Japan after adopting capitalist approaches.

If a worker’s output—in terms of productivity, efficiency, innovation, and diligence—is lower in a communist system than in a capitalist one, the reason lies in the concept of freedom. The capitalist system grants workers greater liberty, or at least instills a profound conviction that they possess it. Even if one were to assume a communist system could offer such freedom—which is highly unlikely—its very nature leads the worker to believe they are deprived of it and to act accordingly. This is where the genius of capitalism lies, making it so resilient: its sanctification and protection of individual liberty are such that certain forms of inherent “slavery” become a “voluntary servitude,” chosen freely and with full conviction. Consider the employee who takes out a bank loan to buy a home, becoming the nearly exclusive “property” of the bank for years or decades. Yet, they have chosen this path freely, with consent and responsibility. In contrast, the forms of bondage found in communist systems are never chosen by their victims; they are imposed by the system itself.

A New Concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

A comparison between the 19th-century worker, upon whom Karl Marx based his analysis of capitalism’s collapse, and the worker of today reveals that the latter does indeed exercise a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” but not in the Marxist sense. It is no longer a dictatorship aimed at undermining capitalism to replace it with communism. Instead, due to their pivotal role in the production process essential to the market economy, and the numerous rights and benefits they have secured, workers have become the masters of capitalism’s survival, growth, and evolution. They are the ones who protect it, guarantee its longevity, and ensure the conditions for its prosperity and triumph.

While this new relationship between capital and the working class seems to contradict the fate predicted by Marxism, it is because exploitation is no longer the sole preserve of capitalists extracting surplus value from labor. Today, the worker in turn “exploits” triumphant capitalism through the privileges, rights, and benefits they derive from it. One can therefore argue that the working class (the proletariat) exerts a true dictatorship by controlling the capitalism that employs it. However, this control can only be maintained by preserving capitalism itself. It is here that Karl Marx’s predictions regarding the dictatorship of the proletariat have been realized—not to end the capitalist system, but to perpetuate and strengthen it.

Whether it was capitalism’s capacity for adaptation or a forced restructuring of its relationship with labor that turned the worker into a “cherished” employee—or even a minor dictator—is secondary. What matters is the result: the worker’s new role is to protect and fortify capitalism rather than to combat or weaken it.

Finally, one cannot object to this analysis by pointing out that 19th-century-style exploitation persists in many societies across Africa, Asia, or Latin America. This analysis takes as its model capitalist Europe, the cradle of the system and the historical stage of its most fierce exploitation. The “dictatorship of the workers” manifests there today in the robust rights and benefits enjoyed by the Western worker: protective laws against employer abuse or unfair dismissal, and the right to strike. The latter can, in extreme cases, lead to the definitive closure and bankruptcy of a factory. Are these not the very instruments through which workers exercise a true dictatorship over their employers?

Arabic version | French version