I mean, there's pretty clearly a difference between the Cuban approach of letting capitalists leave vs the Russian approach of imprisoning them.
There's also a difference between the Bolivian approach of arming and training the peasantry and the GDR approach of maintaining an armed military police into peace time.
There is a meaningful difference between methods of protecting working class power, and pretending there isn't serves more heavy handed approaches.
For those of us who are abolitionists, this is a central question.
I don't understand your response. How is what you've described authoritarian, especially in order to achieve communism as op stated? Those were all communist governments.
I could be mistaken, but this sounds people in different revolutions at different times defend themselves differently against the threats of the bourgeoisie. I don't see how that is authoritarian, especially if the people are the ones involved, heard, and implementing decisions
“A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?”
― Frederick Engels
Moreover, the natural development of economic antagonisms, the waking consciousness of an important fraction of the proletariat, the constantly increasing number of unemployed, the blind resistance of the ruling classes, in short contemporary evolution as a whole, is conducting us inevitably towards the outbreak of a great revolution, which will overthrow everything by its violence, and the fore-running signs of which are already visible. This revolution will happen, with us or without us; and the existence of a revolutionary party, conscious of the end to be attained, will serve to give a useful direction to the violence, and to moderate its excesses by the influence of a lofty ideal.
The beginning of that quote is worth adding for context for folks unfamiliar with Engel's argument here:
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?
And his conclusion:
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
I was comparing more or less heavy handed ways of doing it. I'm advocating for as light a touch as possible. I'm trying to say that authority is a meaningful concept and that we should engage with it because it's actually very important.
It's like how some US cities put you on a payment plan for debts, while others put you in jail. They're both situations of capitalist class rule, but it's fair to call the latter authoritarian.
Those approaches came as a result of the material conditions. The capitalists in Russia had a literal army. The USSR was invaded by the us and the UK as well as the white army.
I mean, there's pretty clearly a difference between the Cuban approach of letting capitalists leave vs the Russian approach of imprisoning them.
There's also a difference between the Bolivian approach of arming and training the peasantry and the GDR approach of maintaining an armed military police into peace time.
There is a meaningful difference between methods of protecting working class power, and pretending there isn't serves more heavy handed approaches.
For those of us who are abolitionists, this is a central question.
I don't understand your response. How is what you've described authoritarian, especially in order to achieve communism as op stated? Those were all communist governments.
I could be mistaken, but this sounds people in different revolutions at different times defend themselves differently against the threats of the bourgeoisie. I don't see how that is authoritarian, especially if the people are the ones involved, heard, and implementing decisions
“A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?” ― Frederick Engels
--Ericco Malatesta, Anarchy and Violence
The beginning of that quote is worth adding for context for folks unfamiliar with Engel's argument here:
And his conclusion:
The short entire essay is worth reading for other folks reading.
I was comparing more or less heavy handed ways of doing it. I'm advocating for as light a touch as possible. I'm trying to say that authority is a meaningful concept and that we should engage with it because it's actually very important.
It's like how some US cities put you on a payment plan for debts, while others put you in jail. They're both situations of capitalist class rule, but it's fair to call the latter authoritarian.
Those approaches came as a result of the material conditions. The capitalists in Russia had a literal army. The USSR was invaded by the us and the UK as well as the white army.