I'mma do this in mutliple comments as I'm in the shitter and my phone screen isn't that big lmao sorry
Yes every violent revolution is going to be authoritarian because you have lined people against the wall and you are not going to get every dissenter in the first round and unsurprisingly they are going to be pissed. So now you have a violent government and and a violent opposition, not exactly fun times for everyone stuck in the middle, Which once that happens is not just the liberals as many hexbears use as an insult for everyone not Auth-Left but basically the whole political spectrum that aren't on the far ends.
Actually liberal is something with a very precise definition, both inside and out if Marxism. The way we use it at the end of the day comes down to our views on ideology and class, or the "trashcan of ideology". Lenin defined ideology as an unreal thing, a big vague blob of ideas that's hard to pin down but at the end of the day results in the supremacy of one class over another. Liberalism is not merely the adherence to private property, believing in a free market, etc as those can all be very nebulous and have been shown to change in the past, liberalism is at the end of the day the ideology of the supremacy of the bourgeois class. Much in the same way if we still had monarchists or something their ideology would at the end of the day result in the supremacy of the aristocratic class (but scarce few really believe in that anymore).
So even an ideology that does not view itself as liberal, like fascism, would in our eyes be liberal because it is entirely all about the supremacy of the bourgeois class over every other. You may also hear us consider some anarchists as "liberal" as well because their ideas would, at the end of the day, not create something strong enough to truly lead to the liberation of the proletarian and peasant classes. This is not true of all anarchists, and I really appreciate those who are capable of the rigorous self criticism required, but many folks who get their start with radical politics in the global north go from the dominant ideology (liberalism) to something that is revolutionary but not enough to truly challenge the status quo (large swaths of anarchism). This was my path, and I eventually became an ML out of seeing the failure of real life organizations I myself was a member of.
Additionally, yes, most of what you're describing in the first part of this paragraph is a civil war, and those almost always happen when a socialist government comes into charge and always have, it's an unavoidable misery of the change we need immediately. Revolution is a bad and dangerous thing only soothed by the fact it will bring necessary victories to the working class, and there's no way around that.
I'mma do this in mutliple comments as I'm in the shitter and my phone screen isn't that big lmao sorry
Actually liberal is something with a very precise definition, both inside and out if Marxism. The way we use it at the end of the day comes down to our views on ideology and class, or the "trashcan of ideology". Lenin defined ideology as an unreal thing, a big vague blob of ideas that's hard to pin down but at the end of the day results in the supremacy of one class over another. Liberalism is not merely the adherence to private property, believing in a free market, etc as those can all be very nebulous and have been shown to change in the past, liberalism is at the end of the day the ideology of the supremacy of the bourgeois class. Much in the same way if we still had monarchists or something their ideology would at the end of the day result in the supremacy of the aristocratic class (but scarce few really believe in that anymore).
So even an ideology that does not view itself as liberal, like fascism, would in our eyes be liberal because it is entirely all about the supremacy of the bourgeois class over every other. You may also hear us consider some anarchists as "liberal" as well because their ideas would, at the end of the day, not create something strong enough to truly lead to the liberation of the proletarian and peasant classes. This is not true of all anarchists, and I really appreciate those who are capable of the rigorous self criticism required, but many folks who get their start with radical politics in the global north go from the dominant ideology (liberalism) to something that is revolutionary but not enough to truly challenge the status quo (large swaths of anarchism). This was my path, and I eventually became an ML out of seeing the failure of real life organizations I myself was a member of.
Additionally, yes, most of what you're describing in the first part of this paragraph is a civil war, and those almost always happen when a socialist government comes into charge and always have, it's an unavoidable misery of the change we need immediately. Revolution is a bad and dangerous thing only soothed by the fact it will bring necessary victories to the working class, and there's no way around that.