So, someone who supports totalitarian rule to achieve communism? Like... A revolution vs voting? I'm asking in good faith btw, I am legit trying to understand
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.
I think the framing is off on that question. Communism is not a political system, its an economic one. Tankies are pro authoritarian, but just so happen to have a communist economic theory.
I believe in Democratic communism, preferably with a much smaller government.
How is human society organized? What do humans do? They create things and they consume things. What is politics? It is deciding who in a society resources are taken from and what they applied to.
Why do you draw a line between these things? Especially as a socialist who presumably wants to bring democracy to the workplace?
Communism is most definitely a political system as it has an inherent system of power relations, representation of workers, ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves, and distribution of decisions among the people until the state can be dissolved. Internationalism is a huge part of communism as is real politik, historical materialism, and other political approaches.
What I don't understand is what you mean by authoritarian? Do you mean a literal dictatorship like in Latin America? I don't know if a single communist country that has not had better representation than the USA as far as voting goes. I guess maybe the Khmer Rouge (I don't know anything beyond Wikipedia for that one)?
authoritarianism is when you do things and get results, the more results you get the more authoritarian it is
true democracy is when so much nothing is happening that everyone is stochastically dissolving into elementary particles like it's the heat death of the universe
There aren't that many Communist experiments, sadly. According to Marx, Communism as we think of it is post Capitalism. We just aren't there yet unfortunately. I think we are edging towards the socialist stage, then we can achieve communism, although I'd like it sooner.
Communism is indissociable from its three components, which includes a political system: dialectical materialism (the philosophical part), the labour theory of value (the economic part), and the class struggle (the social thus political part).
Anything other than Marxism is ineffectual in the real world and leads to nothing as exemplified by 200 years of history. "Tankies" don't "happen" to have an economic theory, it's an integral part to the whole of Marxism and Marxism could not exist without the economic basis for it. Why do we dislike capitalism? Because through math we can prove it is rife with contradictions and invariably leads to imperialism. Otherwise why would we want communism? Just because it's cool to be a communist? Just because it's a hobby? There has to be an actual justification for what we want.
I appreciate the attempt to engage in discussion about it, but it is an interesting position. Do you not think your position directly competes with assertions from The Communist Manifesto, or State and Revolution, or most communist texts?
I do not think communism, as paid out by Marx, was anything more than an economic framework, and as such do not believe that an authoritarian component is required or even recommended for a communist society. So no
Communist (not a problem) that supports totalitarian rule to achieve those means (a big problem)
So, someone who supports totalitarian rule to achieve communism? Like... A revolution vs voting? I'm asking in good faith btw, I am legit trying to understand
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.
deleted by creator
I think the framing is off on that question. Communism is not a political system, its an economic one. Tankies are pro authoritarian, but just so happen to have a communist economic theory.
I believe in Democratic communism, preferably with a much smaller government.
Revolutions that are anti authoritarian is great.
The problem is authoritarianism, not communism
This distinction is pure capitalist ideology
Well that's unlikely since I don't even believe in currency.
How is human society organized? What do humans do? They create things and they consume things. What is politics? It is deciding who in a society resources are taken from and what they applied to.
Why do you draw a line between these things? Especially as a socialist who presumably wants to bring democracy to the workplace?
deleted by creator
Communism is most definitely a political system as it has an inherent system of power relations, representation of workers, ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves, and distribution of decisions among the people until the state can be dissolved. Internationalism is a huge part of communism as is real politik, historical materialism, and other political approaches.
What I don't understand is what you mean by authoritarian? Do you mean a literal dictatorship like in Latin America? I don't know if a single communist country that has not had better representation than the USA as far as voting goes. I guess maybe the Khmer Rouge (I don't know anything beyond Wikipedia for that one)?
authoritarianism is when you do things and get results, the more results you get the more authoritarian it is
true democracy is when so much nothing is happening that everyone is stochastically dissolving into elementary particles like it's the heat death of the universe
Interesting! Are there any Communist countries that you would classify as non-authoritarian/tankie?
There aren't that many Communist experiments, sadly. According to Marx, Communism as we think of it is post Capitalism. We just aren't there yet unfortunately. I think we are edging towards the socialist stage, then we can achieve communism, although I'd like it sooner.
deleted by creator
The Russian citizenry could make Putin end the war.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Kibbutzism would fall under a non authoritarian communism, I think.
ooh, a "small government" communist
Yes sir. Communism's root word is "commune". Those are pretty small.
You're not getting all your theory from Websters, are you?
deleted by creator
Communism is indissociable from its three components, which includes a political system: dialectical materialism (the philosophical part), the labour theory of value (the economic part), and the class struggle (the social thus political part).
Anything other than Marxism is ineffectual in the real world and leads to nothing as exemplified by 200 years of history. "Tankies" don't "happen" to have an economic theory, it's an integral part to the whole of Marxism and Marxism could not exist without the economic basis for it. Why do we dislike capitalism? Because through math we can prove it is rife with contradictions and invariably leads to imperialism. Otherwise why would we want communism? Just because it's cool to be a communist? Just because it's a hobby? There has to be an actual justification for what we want.
I appreciate the attempt to engage in discussion about it, but it is an interesting position. Do you not think your position directly competes with assertions from The Communist Manifesto, or State and Revolution, or most communist texts?
I do not think communism, as paid out by Marx, was anything more than an economic framework, and as such do not believe that an authoritarian component is required or even recommended for a communist society. So no
you should read more Marx if you think Marx only said things about economics
The guy is just waiting for the movie to come out
deleted by creator
Tries to act like he's read anything, clearly hasn't, opinion discarded
This commenter thinks that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.