According to some commentators, Marx saw socialism as a radical form of democracy. Why, then, did he advocate a "dictatorship of the Proletariat"?

The phrase "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is not one that was used frequently by either Marx or Engels. Overall, one can find no more than 20 uses of it in their written works, and only two occasions in which they spoke the phrase. Thus, there has been great debate over how much importance was attached to it by the two, and consequently over how central it was to the ideas expressed in their thought. However, we can be sure that their use of the word "dictator" was not what we would immediately associate with the word today. The modern form would be associated with totalitarianism; a permanent dictator with unchecked power, who would usually have destroyed the pre-existing Government and suppress individual rights and liberties. The fact that this exists for a long period of time has lead to it being called a continuing dictatorship, which is far removed from the original use of the word, which dates from Roman times, where it was used to describe a period of benign governance by an individual during a time of crisis. This would involve the temporary suspension of normal governmental functions, which would be taken over by one person, the dictator, who would assume control only long enough to resolve the crisis, and would then relinquish power. Key to the success was the fact that the dictator had extended (and not unlimited) executive power. This idea survives in the provisions made in many modern constitutions today for the President or other head of state to invoke martial law during times of crisis, usually defined as times where the state is threatened. The Roman form was essentially preservative, and hence its being called a preservative dictatorship.
Marx and Engel�s view of dictatorship involved the proletariat assuming a governmental function after the revolution against the bourgeoisie, and prior to the implementation of a new political system. They thought that the masses, whilst perhaps initially uneducated, could and would educate, organise, liberate, and govern themselves. In the time period that existed between the revolution and the withering away of the state, Government and political decisions would still need to be made, and would be made outside an established framework of rules, i.e. dictatorially. This was the sense in which the exercise of power would be a dictatorship. The other elements that we might associate with a totalitarian regime - denial of political rights to opponents of the revolution, restrictions of freedom of speech, association, and the right to vote, were all condemned by Marx and Engels. Thus, what they would term dictatorship might seem to us to be more like a provisional Government, which would itself wither away with the onset of communism when the state and politics would cease to exist. Finally, what might also be a key difference between the two concepts of dictatorship is that power would be exercised not by one or several individuals, but by the whole proletariat.
Marx�s theory was based on what he saw as irreconcilable class-based divisions within society, which arose when one section of an initially classless society (such as early tribes) gained control of the means of production of goods, and formed a dominant or ruling class both economically and politically. There developed a class of non-producing capitalists who could live off the productive activities of others. These capitalists, who were in the minority, owned the factories and technology. The vast majority of the population became wage-labourers, who were propertyless, and had to sell their labour to earn a living. The state existed to reconcile the differences between the capitalists (known as the bourgeoisie), and the wage-labourers (the proletariat). Marx saw the capitalists as oppressive and exploitative; the proletariat was governed by the bourgeoisie. Even socialism, with its redistributing effects, could not reconcile the antagonisms between the two classes. Only when the proletariat were in complete command of their affairs would there be a true democracy, where Government was truly responsible to those who were governed. This was why Marx advocated a dictatorship of the proletariat. However, once there were no more class differences, there would be no need for a state, and according to Marx, it would "wither away", along with politics itself. Thus the dictatorship of the proletariat is a stage of political transition in the movement between capitalism and the final form of communism. It is characterised by majority rule, extra-legality (the revolution involved in the movement to this form of government would undoubtedly be against the existing laws of the country, although as it would have the support of the majority of the population, it can be called democratic), the dismantling of state apparatus, and the revocability of the representatives.
Why did Marx see a need to go this far, instead of settling for a form of socialism that could remove the unacceptable features of a laissez-faire economy? He talks about two forms of socialism, market socialism and state capitalism, both of which attempt to manage the market. In the former, a system of workers' co-operatives would engage in market transactions with one another; in effect, there would be an exchange of products for money. In state capitalism, there would be an exchange of labour for goods. Both retain some features of capitalism, whilst abolishing others. However, whilst they would both eliminate some of the unacceptable features of capitalism, neither could totally remove all of them, and thus were unacceptable to Marx because of this. Market socialism may abolish classes, but could conceivably retain exploitation, and would certainly have alienation in it. This is because there would be an unequal endowment of either natural resources or human resources (or both) between the different co-operatives, which would lead to exploitation through exchange, even though there would be no labour market. Furthermore, the absence of planning from a central authority would inevitably lead to market failures, i.e. periodic economic crises and recessions, with associated unemployment and wastefulness. A further problem that Marx failed to mention was the possible re-emergence of classes. State capitalism fares no better, for although it gets rid of classes and exploitation, it still retains alienation.
Marx believed there could be a system that avoided having classes, exploitation, and alienation. This could happen only when there was common ownership of the means of production; in such a system, individuals would sell their labour to society as opposed to individual capitalists in a market-orientated system. As a result of this, the class divisions explained earlier could not develop because there would not emerge a class of capital-owning bourgeoisie who dominated the wage-labourers of the proletariat.
Furthermore, there could be no exploitation in a communist society. A worker would consume in proportion to their contribution to society through their labour efforts (there would be social security for those who were unable to contribute). Thus there could be no exploitation, as there would be no consumption without a contribution to society. However, this fails to take into account the diversity of labour; some workers are more skilled than others, and any one worker's contribution to society is surely impossible to judge. This seems an over-simplistic idealistic view of how labour would be rewarded.
Thus what Marx was after was a society without any of the negative features of capitalism, and he was of the opinion that no amount of managing or softening of the market mechanism would eliminate all of the negative features. Furthermore, true political freedom would only come with economic freedom and the abolition of the class divisions. Socialism would still involve the many being ruled by the few. The justification for this would be that the many do not know what they want nor what is best for them. However, as already mentioned, Marx's theory presupposed self-education of the masses. Once this was achieved, a person could not be free when being told what to do by another. Political freedom would be achieved when the state disappeared, and this would occur with the disappearance of class differences. Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat would be the first stage towards the achievement of a communist society. Once power was seized by the proletariat, and the means of production owned commonly, class differences would vanish, as would the state, and the dictatorship itself, which was intended to be a temporary phenomenon.