Do you support totalitarianism?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[ComradeOm]

Totalitarianism is a bankrupt academic structure that posits that there were fundamental similarities between non-liberal states, particularly Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Its Cold War nonsense that has little bearing on the actual regimes in question; push past the superficial similarities and you'll see that no two (supposedly) 'totalitarian' states are actually much alike. The sole purpose of this flawed methodology is in differentiating between Western liberal democracies and the 'abnormal' non-liberal states of 'the East'

[Black Sheep]

No,because worker's democracy, and much more a socialist workers' democracy is contradictory to that.
Unless you can define the DotP as totalitarian, which wouldn't work that well (the definition), any state is 'totalitarian' to those who seek its destruction.

[Kassad]

I'm proud to be the only other vote. :laugh:

I do not support totalitarian or authoritarian exploitation of the working class, but I do support suppression of capitalists and reactionary forces in a post-revolutionary society. See 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

[rednordman]

Totalitarianism is a bankrupt academic structure that posits that there were fundamental similarities between non-liberal states, particularly Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Its Cold War nonsense that has little bearing on the actual regimes in question; push past the superficial similarities and you'll see that no two (supposedly) 'totalitarian' states are actually much alike. The sole purpose of this flawed methodology is in differentiating between Western liberal democracies and the 'abnormal' non-liberal states of 'the East'well said. The funny thing is that even some 'western liberal' states have totalitarian elements to them. We just do not take notice as there not on the surface.

[#FF0000]

Nobody is going to vote "Yes" to this except as a joke.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Please read State and Revolution by Lenin. Seriously you must be joking.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yes, I support totalitarianism.

[Charles Xavier]

Who doesn't support a made up Utopian word! I love totalitarianism!! LONG LIVE TOTALITARIANISM!

[Charles Xavier]

Could you elaborate? How can a word be "utopian"?

Aren't all words made up? It depends on whether you accept such a concept and support it or not. If you don't accept such a concept, this poll has the option "other".


I support totalitarian, the problem being it doesn't exist.

[ComradeOm]

Could you elaborate? How can a word be "utopian"Its utopian because a society featuring "absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution" is impossible. It has never existed for obvious reasons

[Glorious Union]

Yes, so long as I am the one in control.

But really no, because...just no.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

No, totalitarianism has nothing to do with freedom, self management and direct democracy.

[Rjevan]

Yes, so long as I am the one in control.

But really no, because...just no.
That's it, as long as I'm in control I guess it would be fun, but otherwise... ;)

Seriously, why should I be in favour of an oppressive system? I think we want to build up a free society and fight against oppression, so I definitely won't shout "Hurray!" if the Fuehrer marches in. The only suppression I tolerate is this:

suppression of capitalists and reactionary forces in a post-revolutionary society. See 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

[Dimentio]

Would any of you support a leader who claimed to be a God if He executed all the bankers, politicians and capitalists in gruesome public executions involving lots of gore and gave food to starving people and helped the world's poors?

[Glorious Union]

Would any of you support a leader who claimed to be a God if He executed all the bankers, politicians and capitalists in gruesome public executions involving lots of gore and gave food to starving people and helped the world's poors?

No. If he claimed to be an average normal human like most of us, then maybe, and if he swore to surrender his power to the proletariat once he has had his fun, then possibly.

But there are always doubts when it somes to totalitarianism, and you have to find a way to trust the guy too. Maybe if he was me...

Mm, no. I just don't trust anyone that much.

[Vendetta]

Absolutely not.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I voted no. Totalitarianism is just as oppressive as the current Capitalist Dictatorship we have now. I support the real meaning of Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Worker's Democracy. It's their "dictatorship" over the ruling class. Much better than our current system of Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

[Charles Xavier]

Funny how people are trying to make this a serious discussion.

This belongs in chit chat.

[Glorious Union]

I voted no. Totalitarianism is just as oppressive as the current Capitalist Dictatorship we have now. I support the real meaning of Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Worker's Democracy. It's their "dictatorship" over the ruling class. Much better than our current system of Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

Yeah, your right. I always try to get myself to see from another person's point of view by finding a way to agree with them, but I'm having a hard time doing that here...

[jbaez]

I voted no. I don't support totalitarianism now and never plan to. It is everything that I am against.

[Glenn Beck]

1. the practices and principles of a totalitarian regime.

Oh, look, a circular definition! How useful!


2. absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.

Absolute control of what? What about absolute control by a decentralized institution? If the institution (centralized or not) is legitimate, progressive, and democratic, should we make a virtue of it being too weak to exercise absolute control over its jurisdiction? Sounds a little like a smokescreen for private property now, doesn't it?


3. the character or quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, group, or government: the totalitarianism of the father.

Why not just say authoritarian or autocratic instead of making up new terms that don't mean anything?


I voted "yes" partly as a joke but also out of opposition to the liberal theories of representative and limited "private" democracy as opposed to an all encompassing democracy that is truly radical (can act upon the very roots of society).

[Rjevan]

Would any of you support a leader who claimed to be a God if He executed all the bankers, politicians and capitalists in gruesome public executions involving lots of gore and gave food to starving people and helped the world's poors?
If he would revoke that he's God (plus the lots of gore isn't essential, it's just a nice bonus ;)) then ... maybe... No!
I wouldn't trust him, ok, now he helps poor people but what will he do tomorrow?

[Lynx]

I support subtotalitarianism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I support subtotalitarianism.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "subtotalitarianism".

[PRC-UTE]

Doesn't exist, just a word the Yanks made up to justify being war mongers

[Dimentio]

Doesn't exist, just a word the Yanks made up to justify being war mongers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp7RkdvyDDI&feature=related

[9]

I think all this nonsense about "totalitarianism" being a made up word is just done out of self-importance. Obviously, the word "authoritarianism" would have been more appropriate, but it seems quite clear to me what the poll is asking.
And being an anarchist, my answer of course, is no. I don't support totalitarianism, I don't support authoritarianism.

[Diagoras]

Off to the camps with the 10.61% of persons that voted 'Yes'!

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

This is ridicoulous.You can't be a leftist and believe in totalatarianism it is the complete practice of the right wing.It is run by the military and is a dictatorship [military dictatorship].It is run by an upper class of the rich [Bourgeogies capitalism].It gains absolute power through the idea that the dictator is a "GOD'' of some sort.It is completely run on military force,capitalism,exploitation and unequality.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

Thank you

[ComradeOm]

They may not all be exactly the same, but there are indisputable similarities among themSuch as?

[Dimentio]

I think all this nonsense about "totalitarianism" being a made up word is just done out of self-importance. Obviously, the word "authoritarianism" would have been more appropriate, but it seems quite clear to me what the poll is asking.
And being an anarchist, my answer of course, is no. I don't support totalitarianism, I don't support authoritarianism.

Personally I think there is a difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. An authoritarian state puts limits on people, but allow them to go on with their daily lives.

A totalitarian state forces people to take part in rituals and military parades, and organises everyone in organisations aligned with the ruling class.

[ComradeOm]

I missed this above:


I think all this nonsense about "totalitarianism" being a made up word is just done out of self-importance. Obviously, the word "authoritarianism" would have been more appropriate, but it seems quite clear to me what the poll is asking.I suspect that this is because you lack much knowledge about Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. These are the two archetypal 'totalitarian' societies and yet they were not nearly as similar as proponents of the totalitarian thesis assume. Which is why the label has always sat very uneasily with real historians - they know that any attempt to lump these two, or other, societies into a single category inevitably fails due to the very real difference between them. Totalitarian as a label, not to mention actual academic framework, only works in the vaguest sense; ie it simply means 'non-liberal'. In short, its a made-up category that no nation in history has ever filled

And you'd be wrong to conflate "totalitarianism" with "authoritarianism". You may be against both but that does not change the fact that these are two different concepts. The same applies to other posters, 'totalitarianism' is not a shorthand for 'the state', and does not come in many different varieties, but is an academic theory that states that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia (also classically including Fascist Italy and often expanded to include N Korea, the PRC, and other 'dictatorships of the month') were fundamentally identical (or at least very similar) regimes in regards their control over society

[NecroCommie]

Every one in this thread has their own definition of totalitarianism, and I refuse to answer before people agree on what totalitarianism actually is.

But more generally speaking, I am somewhat authoritharian communist. Not extremely, but somewhat.

[9]

I missed this above:

I suspect that this is because you lack much knowledge about Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. These are the two archetypal 'totalitarian' societies and yet they were not nearly as similar as proponents of the totalitarian thesis assume. Which is why the label has always sat very uneasily with real historians - they know that any attempt to lump these two, or other, societies into a single category inevitably fails due to the very real difference between them. Totalitarian as a label, not to mention actual academic framework, only works in the vaguest sense; ie it simply means 'non-liberal'. In short, its a made-up category that no nation in history has ever filled

And you'd be wrong to conflate "totalitarianism" with "authoritarianism". You may be against both but that does not change the fact that these are two different concepts. The same applies to other posters, 'totalitarianism' is not a shorthand for 'the state', and does not come in many different varieties, but is an academic theory that states that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia (also classically including Fascist Italy and often expanded to include N Korea, the PRC, and other 'dictatorships of the month') were fundamentally identical (or at least very similar) regimes in regards their control over society
You've completely misunderstood what I was attempting to say. My point was that I suspect - at least it seems quite obvious to me - that the question posed in the poll is "do you support authoritarianism?", and that the word totalitarianism was substituted instead. After the first response citing the misuse of the word "totalitarianism", I don't see the necessity in incessant intellectual posturing about the word's inadequacy. Getting dragged so far off track by such nuances of semantics tends to lay waste to these entire discussions, which is unfortunate, because I think the question posed (minus the substitution of "totalitarianism" for "authoritarianism) is a very important one indeed.

[ComradeOm]

You've completely misunderstood what I was attempting to say. My point was that I suspect - at least it seems quite obvious to me - that the question posed in the poll is "do you support authoritarianism?", and that the word totalitarianism was substituted insteadIf I've misunderstood you then I apologise. However given that the OP went so far as to post a definition of totalitarianism I think its safe to say that he intended to use that specific term


After the first response citing the misuse of the word "totalitarianism", I don't see the necessity in incessant intellectual posturing about the word's inadequacyThen read my posts again. The term is nonsense and describes a state that has never existed and never can exist. You might as well ask "Do you support a society ruled by unicorns". It is hardly "intellectual posturing" to rubbish such a notion

To repeat, again, the entire concept is bullshit dreamt up by bourgeois academics with an axe to grind. Treating the term with respect, or engaging in discussion on the basis that they were correct, is both misleading and counter-productive. At the worst it gives credit to the theory and the ideologues who dreamt it up

[Matina]

Nobody is going to vote "Yes" to this except as a joke.

Well I support Cuba and North Korea against imperialism.
Those states are characterized as totalitarian by many liberals including the liberals on revleft. I still support those regimes and I think they provide a better living standard for their respective working classes. Therefore I would not support the return to capitalism by either North Korea or Cuba.

Voted "Yes".

[Jimmie Higgins]

What do you think of totalitarianism (http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-totalitarianism.htm)? Would you support it or not? Is it defensible under communism in any of its stages? Do you support totalitarian regimes? Discuss.
No, never.

[ComradeOm]

To those who claim totalitarianism is a bogus concept made up by liberals, I'd request them to kindly point out the actual differences they see between North Korea, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and to a limited extent perhaps liberal democraciesWhere do you want me to start? Social, political, or economic differences? Typically I'd demand that the burden of proof lies with you, as the person asserting the positive, but this is a topic that interests me so I'll elaborate a bit. But then there are so many differences... I'll start with governance and you can tell me if you want to continue. Or you could simply read Fitzpatrick's Beyond Totalitarianism - a series of essays dealing with the different aspects of both nations

Let's start off with the rather obvious claim that both the USSR and Nazi Germany were monolithic "one-party states". This is probably the most regular comparison drawn and the easiest to knock down. Any student of Nazi Germany will tell you that this was a regime as removed from a united totalitarian state as is possible. I'll touch on the two major points below

The first problem is of course the relationship between the party and the state. In the USSR, as we all know, the state structures that evolved following the Russian Revolution were notably for the degree to which they were integrated with the Communist Party apparatus. For all intents and purposes the Party was the state and assumed its responsibilities/powers. Hence the fact that Stalin remained without any formal role in the official state until 1941. All this was in sharp contrast to Germany where the Nazis, despite their own propaganda, were not a revolutionary movement and did not attempt, out of necessity or otherwise, to remake the state in their own image. State structures in Germany largely continued to function as they had prior to 1933 and the existing bureaucracy retained most of its power. Indeed IIRC there were only a handful of Nazis in Hitler's early cabinets. As such the NSDAP was never a tool for governance (which quickly became the prime function of the CPSU) and on Hitler's ascension to power its primary duties (propaganda and mobilisation) were soon assumed by Reich bodies. So far from setting policy, the NSDAP, as a entity in itself, quickly devolved into a grassroots body with very little input into government

Aha, I hear you say, what about the regional Gauleiters? Surely they had considerable influence? These provide another key lesson into the composition of Nazi Germany's government. The Gauleiters (regional NSDAP bosses) were indeed pillars of Nazi rule but by and large they, and lesser ranked Nazis, owed their authority primarily to their ability to crave out small empires in existing state structures. I say 'primarily' because Hitler's patronage was another vital component. Hitler had no time for organised government (indeed by the mid-1930s there was no cabinet level meeting with actual power!) preferring instead to allow his subordinates to cultivate their own powerbases. So you had Himmler, Goring, Speer, etc, who each had near total personal control over their own ministries and relying on Hitler for support. Similarly with the Gauleiters. Far from being monolithic in character, Nazi government was absurdly chaotic with myriad strands of government and party competing against each other in some bizarre form of organised chaos

Needless to say the typical image of totalitarianism is far more accurate in the much more bureaucratic and rational USSR. If Stalin was good at anything it was managing committees and governance in Stalinist Russia was really nothing more than a giant pyramid of committees. This was a relatively meritocratic system specifically designed to discourage the growth of personal empires and couldn't be further removed from the chaos and empire building of Nazi Germany. Resolutions were made by committee, passed by committee, and enacted by committee. This also explains Stalin's role within the Party (which didn't become that of undisputed leader until the early or mid 1930s) as he, unlike Hitler, did not rule by decree or occupy a super-constitutional position. Rather his success stems from his ability to manage these committees (the system of which he played a major role in designing). This created a far more monolithic and stable state structure, although even this is an over simplification, than that seen in Nazi Germany

So there you have an example of how these supposedly identical (or at least similar) states actually varied greatly in the critical field of governance. Hopefully you can see from above that both the roles of the ruling parties and the nature of the state structures bear little resemblance to each other. Hitler presided over a multitude of shifting personal empires based on pre-existing state structures and a near emasculated NSDAP. In contrast Stalin designed and ran a smoothly uniform bureaucracy in which the CPSU was an integral part


Of course, if one insists that all critics who criticize the Soviet Union or North Korea are doing so because of bourgeois propaganda, I don't have much to discuss with them, sorry.;)There are many grounds on which you can criticise each nation but that is not the same as pretending that they are fundamentally the same

[ComradeOm]

...but totalitarian regimes allow very little or no freedom for its people. For a start the idea that the so-called totalitarian states exercised such degree of social control - be it through Ardent's 'atomisation' of society or Orwell's Big Brother - is simply false. Although it does demonstrate the degree to which the idea of 'totalitarianism' relies on popular preconceptions rather than actual fact

Push past the superficial similarities (ie, their non-liberalism) and both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia appear very different in their visions of society (such as the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft, for which there was no direct Soviet comparison), their classification and conceptions of individuals within this framework, the violence employed to further their aims, and the cultivation of social bonds. To simply address the point at hand, both regimes co-opted their populations in very different ways and neither exercised anywhere near the degree of control typically ascribed to them. Neither would have survived/thrived without energising certain segments of the population - yet they did so in different ways - and both faced different challenges to their authority from within and without

Were these two police states? Unquestionably. Did they exercise an unremarkable degree of social or individual control? No. Did they approach social questions in the same way or with the same aims? Absolutely not

[ComradeOm]

The only difference being that control in those regimes, where ever such a thing was enforced, was enforced at the point of a gunYes and no. See, this is why I hate the term and the notion that we can make generalisations that apply to different nations in different circumstances. Attempting to lump both regimes together is fraught with dangers. It doesn't mean that the comparison can't be made, just that you have to be very careful in doing so

For Stalinist Russia you'd be largely correct. Mass violence was an integral aspect of the Stalinist system and it was unquestionably a coercive regime. The level of violence employed against its own population (through dekulakisation, the sweeps of 'socially harmful elements', 'national operations', and eventually purging the state apparatus itself) is probably without parallel in history. Certainly in Europe. Yet at the same time this was not simply a police state inflicting violence from above - the state successfully mobilised vast sections of the population in either carrying out violence or generally furthering its aims. For every GULAG inmate you had a proud Stakhanovite or newly promoted worker

In contrast the Nazi were, perhaps surprisingly, not nearly as violent towards their own population. With the obvious disclaimer that the Nazis, as racial ideologues, viewed the Jews as alien and thus 'fair game'. The crushing of the German socialist and trade union movements was accompanied with relatively few deaths (a couple thousand max, significantly less than even the most conservative estimates for the USSR) and even their anti-Semitism didn't take on an overtly exterminationist drive until the war years. 'Asocials' of all stripes were of course discriminated against but this was relatively tame compared to the treatment meted out to 'socially harmful elements' in the USSR. There was widespread collaboration amongst all sectors of the public as the Nazi idea of the Volksgemeinschaft became widely accepted throughout German society. Beyond removing his opponents Hitler did not employ mass violence/terror in his initial years in power. It was only after the war, when German soldiers moved beyond the borders of the Reich, that this bore cruel fruit and an unbelievable programme of indiscriminate violence was unleashed by the regime

It was impossible for either Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany to simply coerce all of society. There were always those elements that, to varying degrees, bought into the hegemonic ideals of the regime and it various campaigns of violence would have been impossible with this support

A lot of the above can be put down to the fundamentally different environments of both nations - Germany was an established mature industrial nation while the USSR was emerging from semi-feudalism and desperately industrialising at a breakneck pace - but the different actors and their respective ideologies have to play a role. At the end of the day these were just very different regimes and they only appear similar when placed against an equally different benchmark (in the case the West)... and even then only if you don't look too closely

[an apple]

It would seem to me that totalitarianism, like Communism is to be interpreted differently by different people.

For example, Castro's Cuba is significantly different from Stalin's Russia, just as Maoism is different to Leninism etc.

I myself believe that totalitarianism is inexcusable. Once a leader is in that much power there is no going back until they die.

[Dimentio]

It would seem to me that totalitarianism, like Communism is to be interpreted differently by different people.

For example, Castro's Cuba is significantly different from Stalin's Russia, just as Maoism is different to Leninism etc.

I myself believe that totalitarianism is inexcusable. Once a leader is in that much power there is no going back until they die.

Totalitarianism is'nt about a leader, but about a structure.

There is a difference between an authoritarian state where the dictator is just a supreme commander or a security boss and don't give a damn about people's spare-time, and a totalitarian state where the leader is glorified as a God.

[Lynx]

Please elaborate on what you mean by "subtotalitarianism".
This is a word I made up. I didn't consider this thread to be a serious discussion at the time and I apologize.

[Hoxhaist]

I support the total suppression of revisionist, reformist, reactionary, and capitalist dissent if thats totalitarian, sign me up!

[Rosa Provokateur]

A totalitarian state is the ultimate evil.

[FreeFocus]

No communist supports totalitarianism, by definition. It is the complete usurpation of human rights and dignity.

[Hoxhaist]

Marxism-Leninism calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat

[Klaatu]

It is a natural instinct to wish to have a "leader." Humans share such behavior with socially-oriented animals, especially certain insects like ants and bees. We want someone to look out for us, to make everything all right. Governments are supposed to serve this function, but sometimes government can get out of control, and serve only itself (consider dictatorships.) Therefore, totalitarianism exists as an unjustifiable structure.

As "socialist" has pointed out, totalitarianism is not only a form of government, it can be the large capitalistic corporation or other entity. In fact, any form of "total control" is within this sphere, however small. Thus, even a bad marriage with one spouse dominating over the other can be thought of as a mini-totalistic union.

I do not support totalitarianism, as it is the antithesis of human rights.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Marxism-Leninism calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat

Now that all in itself has different interpretations. For example, as you've mentioned Marxist-Leninists literally interpret it as being a Dictatorship and put an authoritarian leader in charge. Trots on the other hand interpret it as being as being worker's Democracy where the workers have complete control thus being a "Dictatorship".

[Black Sheep]

Marxism-Leninism calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat


ffs, look at the meaning of each term and draw the dividing line.


1. the practices and principles of a totalitarian regime.
That's a circular definition. :bored:

2. absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.
If the institution is democratically run, something which all communists advocate, then no.

3. the character or quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, group, or government: the totalitarianism of the father.
If the authoritarianism is solely directed to an enemy minority, who are expected - and will - counterattack against the rights of the formerly oppressed majority, then again no.

I can't believe there are 11 yes by this moment.

[originofopinion]

I voted Yes, Because under Totalitarianism The benefits and non-benefits depend on the LEADER not the ideal, Benevolent Dictatorship such as the one in Cuba(yes I know they're was a few faults with Castro's Leadership, but for the most part he cared for his people.) are fine as long as It doesn't become oppressive. :)

[Black Cross]

Voted no.


I voted no. Totalitarianism is just as oppressive as the current Capitalist Dictatorship we have now. I support the real meaning of Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Worker's Democracy. It's their "dictatorship" over the ruling class. Much better than our current system of Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

Isn't the bourgeoisie delimited by its relation to the means of production? If expropriation takes the means of production from them, what then makes them the ruling class/bourgoisie? So it seems to me it would ideally be a dictatorship over the former ruling class (unemployed workers?).

[RHIZOMES]

It must be noted however in liberal Western states, most of the oppression and brutality takes place outside the countries.

Try telling that to an illegal immigrant. Or a victim of police brutality.

[mosfeld]

Now that all in itself has different interpretations. For example, as you've mentioned Marxist-Leninists literally interpret it as being a Dictatorship and put an authoritarian leader in charge. Trots on the other hand interpret it as being as being worker's Democracy where the workers have complete control thus being a "Dictatorship". :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Is this a joke? Stop thinking of yourself and your ideology as some fucking libertarian alternative to those other, supposedly, brutish evil red ideologies. Marxist-Leninists, which includes Trots, all call for your latter ''Trot-exclusive'' definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[ZeroNowhere]

I dislike words such as 'totalitarian' and 'game'. For example, there are too many differences between ring-a-ring-a-roses, chess and rugby for them to be classified under the same banner while that banner can still be used properly, surely, and you can't find a common characteristic between them which differentiates them from non-games.


Trots on the other hand interpret it as being as being worker's Democracy where the workers have complete control thus being a "Dictatorship".That sounds rather shit for students and people who have retired.

[Outinleftfield]

I support the total suppression of revisionist, reformist, reactionary, and capitalist dissent if thats totalitarian, sign me up!

Who gets to decide what form of marxism is revisionist? Mao thought post-stalinist USSR was revisionist. Trotskyists think Stalin is revisionist for turning the revolution away from worker's control and forming a new bureaucratic class.

[Velkas]

I voted no.
Socialism is about as far you can get from totalitarianism and as close as you can get to true equality.

[KC]

Totalitarianism doesn't exist, so I didn't vote.

[Radical]

I am an Authortarian because I am a Revolutionary. However I do not support Totalitarianism.

Comrades, Please realise that Revolution is one of the most Authortarian things.


"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" (Friedrich Engels -- from his controversy with the Anarchists).

[Durruti's Ghost]

Revolution is certainly the most libertarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population ends the process by which the other part has imposed its will upon it by means of rifles, bayonets, and cannon.

[Luisrah]

Voted no.



Isn't the bourgeoisie delimited by its relation to the means of production? If expropriation takes the means of production from them, what then makes them the ruling class/bourgoisie? So it seems to me it would ideally be a dictatorship over the former ruling class (unemployed workers?).

But a reasonable ''dictatorship''. See, it's not really a dictatorship, it's something like a revenge maybe. The opressed workers revolt, and they push away the bourgeoisie from power. They start ruling.

There's nothing undemocratical about it. When before, the bourgeoisie ruled, only 1% of people ruled.
After the revolution, 99% of the people rule.
Which is more democratical?

The only problem is that the bourgeoisie normally has more education, wealth and power, and connections (to the military and etc...) and that's why the workers must keep pushing them away with violence if necessary (as stated by Lenin)

PS: Careful, I'm still a young communist :)

[RIKU]

I don't believe Totalitarianism has ever really existed; but I voted "Yes", as I have little faith in the majority of individuals, and such a thing as Totalitarianism might serve as a useful tool in the transition to Communism. Maybe I'm a little impatient...:blushing:

[Trosso]

People are too stupid to be left to their own devices, especially working and under class people.

[Manifesto]

People are too stupid to be left to their own devices, especially working and under class people.


I don't believe Totalitarianism has ever really existed; but I voted "Yes", as I have little faith in the majority of individuals, and such a thing as Totalitarianism might serve as a useful tool in the transition to Communism. Maybe I'm a little impatient...:blushing:
Ok you two sound exactly like my Capitalist friend and Trosso you sound a bit bourgeois.

[Durruti's Ghost]

People are too stupid to be left to their own devices, especially working and under class people.

I smell a capitalist...:eek:

[Искра]

I voted no.
Why? Because Stalin made me do it.

[samizdat]

Totalitarianism is appearently worse under socialist and communist regimes than it is under democratic capitalists ones.

[samizdat]

I don't believe Totalitarianism has ever really existed; but I voted "Yes", as I have little faith in the majority of individuals, and such a thing as Totalitarianism might serve as a useful tool in the transition to Communism. Maybe I'm a little impatient...:blushing:
Totalitarinism, autocracies and oligarchies seems to go against everything that represents what a revolution by the people should represent.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Only Hitler's

[Bright Banana Beard]

There is no such thing as totalitarianism except for bougeois academia.

[Искра]

"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" (Friedrich Engels -- from his controversy with the Anarchists).

Quoting capitalists on revleft forum... lovely :)
Authority, authority, authority... remind me again... what's the end resort of revolution: communism or authority?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Quoting capitalists on revleft forum... lovely :)
Authority, authority, authority... remind me again... what's the end resort of revolution: communism or authority?
Kropotkin also support allies in WWI. Damn capitalist. :)

[Ismail]

I support "totalitarianism," the French Revolution transformed the entire society of France from feudalism to capitalism and other states followed. So, too, will international revolution transform the world from capitalism to socialism, and then the ultimate "totalitarian" goal: communism.

Of course I don't use anti-communist buzzwords, so yeah.

[Искра]

Kropotkin also support allies in WWI. Damn capitalist. :)
That's why anarchists follow the ideas not people :)

[JohnnyC]

That's why anarchists follow the ideas not people :)
All socialists follow exclusively ideas and not people.

[JJM 777]

The very concept of a "state" is totalitarian, creating a central government to impose some laws on the population. The idea of creating a police force to hunt murderers and thieves is totalitarian, and a damn good idea.

There are no "totalitarian" and "not totalitarian" states. There are only "states with many strict totalitarian laws" and "states with fewer or less strict totalitarian laws".