<p>Marx's vision of socialism is an eminently reasonable projection of what is likely to occur if and when the workers succeed the capitalists as the dominant class. What is absolutely certain is the demise of capitalism. Marx divides the communist future, into halves, a first stage, or socialism, which is often referred to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat", and a second stage that is also called "full communism". The historical boundaries of the first stage are set in the claim that, "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".The overall character of this period is supplied by Marx's statement that "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges". This first stage is the necessary birth period for full communism: it is a time when the people who have destroyed capitalism are engaged in the task of total reconstruction. As a way of life and organization, it has traits in common with both capitalism and full communism and many which are uniquely its own. When its work is done—and Marx never indicates how long this may take—the first stage gives way gradually, almost imperceptibly, to the second.
The main sources for Marx's views on the dictatorship of the proletariat are the Communist Manifesto, the "Critique of the Gotha Program", and "Civil War in France", in which he discusses the reforms of the Paris Commune. In the Communist Manifesto, there are ten measures that workers' parties (ergo Paris Commune) are urged to put into effect immediately after their victory over the capitalists.</p>

<pre><code>What Marx asks for are : "Abolition of property in land and application of all Rents on land to public purposes. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Abolition of all right of inheritance. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

<p>Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. Centralization of communication and transport in the hands of the state. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing in cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of population over the country. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present or was present form and combination of education with industrial production. While there are more these can be used to explain why he was against the nation-state.</p>

<pre><code>Marx never wavered in his belief that if socialism is to "have any chance whatever of victory, it must at least be able to do as much immediately for the peasants, mutatis mutandis, as the French bourgeoisie did in its revolution". For Marx, the peasant, despite his numerous delusions, is "above all a man of reckoning". He could not fail to be attracted by the tax benefits and material comforts, work conditions and cultural life available on collectives. All this, it would appear, without depriving the small-holding peasant of anything he already has, are the arguments that will convince him to collectivize his property. Marx did not envision great difficulty in making this transition, nor that it would take much time. It was in opposition to Blanqui's elitist views on the organization of the coming workers' state that Marx first introduced the expression "dictatorship of the proletariat", and by it he meant the democratic rule of the entire working class (including farm laborers), which made up the large majority of the population in all advanced countries.

<p>Most of the details on the workers' government come from Marx's account of the Paris Commune. The Commune was not a true dictatorship of the proletariat, but it was a close enough, if not the exact configuration, of the workers' state. Marx says the "true secret" of the Commune is that "It was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing class against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economic emancipation of labor"."The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms… The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time. Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible and at all times revocable agent of the Commune". The long arm of popular rule extended into the chambers of the judiciary, ending what Marx calls their "sham independence": "Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable". A clear line was drawn between church and state, and that the army, like the police, was disbanded and replaced by the armed people. The organization of the Paris Commune was to serve as a model not only for the other cities of France, but for small towns and rural districts as well. And at every level, the "delegates" (not representatives) elected were "to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandate imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents". People's control over their elected officials was quite extensive. According to Marx, " Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly". Marx's defense of the Commune's program of frequent elections for all government functionaries—mandated instructions from their constituents, and their easy recall whenever they prove unworthy reflect his belief that people of all classes recognize or—in the absence of capitalist “brain washing” techniques—can easily be made to recognize their interests and to act upon them.</p>