No freedom in socialism?

[Raven of Odin]

Hello,
I have a question that has been bothering for quite some time now. Basically, how can we, as a proletariat, allow some people to come into power and establish a totalitarian regime? Socialism teaches that once Capitalism gets far too out of hand, the people themselves would start a revolution and take over power. Democratic enough, it seems. However, once the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is commenced, the people themselves won't actually be in power, it's going to be a very small group of people in charge. It's happening all the time, it seems. Name a Socialist country, and you will soon see that it has a totalitarian, oppressing regime. The USSR, North Korea, China are all perfect examples of oppressing regimes. Ofcourse, I won't go so far to say that people there were constantly oppressed, because that is in fact not true, judging on both of my parents' accounts of the USSR, but still the idea that the state COULD oppress people if it chose to is deeply worrying :bored:. I for one would like to have the civil liberties that are there in most Western countries today. However, if the state allowed me to keep my civil liberties, then it is very possible that it would fall (as we have seen with glasnost and perestroika), and thus fail at its objective of creating economic equality. Thus, it seems that Socialism is self-contradicting. It wants to give pure freedom to people, through the elimination of unrighteous wages-as Alexander Berkman states it:

“Can't you see that your wage - your salary or income - is all the freedom that you have? Your freedom, your liberty, don't go a step further than the wages you get.”

-and yet in the process of eliminating economical inequality, the peoples' political rights will be removed, which certainly goes against the idea of "freedom".
Drawing from that, I fail to see how a state with high autonomy will wither and thus open up the way for Communism. A weak state, sure. However, a state as strong as in Socialism, i do not see how it could happen :bored:.

Thus, it seems to me more and more that Social Democracy is the answer-I'd rather have a little economic inequality, if it means that I will at least be able to maintain my "freedom". :(

Of course, I might be completely wrong about the levels of freedom in a Socialist state, so please enlighten me :)

[RadioRaheem84]

Read Richard Levins excellent article in Monthly Review about finding socialism and freedom in Cuba. It explains a lot. Basically the freedom we enjoy in bourgeois democracies come at an expense to the developing world. We translate a lot of these freedoms onto other countries and use them as a way to create a standard that must be met in all countries. Remember that the freedoms we have didn't just spring out of a vacuum, they have a lot to do with repressing other nations for cheap labor and cheap goods so we can buy with cheap credit.

It is true to some extent that the less the market is "free" i.e. the less it is free to exploit the hell out of third world workers, the more "controlling" a system can seem to be. Coming from the USA, I can even sense less "freedom" in some European nations in terms of consumer choices, freedom of choice in certain areas, etc. Now imagine if a nation was totally independent of private capital; the bourgeoisie freedoms that trickle down would disappear. Yet, you would be surprised at some of the freedoms Cubans have in comparison to Americans, as much as you would be surprised at the freedoms they don't share with Americans. We tend to focus too much on the latter and not the former. You should also note that the deficiencies in democracy in Cuba are also due to the economic blockade and the state of war they've been under for some 50 years with the USA. Same with the former USSR.

Social Democracy is not the answer because there will always be a tug of war with private interests and the working class with an incompetent state acting as a mediator. Social Democrats are probably the worst, aside from liberals, in examining the situation of the working class and dealing with social ills. Most of the ones I have met who are gearing up for work in politics in their home nation are technocratic elitists who are sympathetic, yet disdainful toward the working class. They always tend to side with the interests of the bourgeois more though, as they win concessions out of them to silence the masses.

[ComradeOm]

Name a Socialist country...I'm struggling to think of one

As for the very concept of totalitarianism, see my posts, and links, in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/totalitarianism-t115932/index.html?t=115932)

[Zanthorus]

However, once the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is commenced, the people themselves won't actually be in power

Apart from in the classic example cited by Marx and Engels of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the Paris Commune, which had delegates to the Commune instantly recallable and payed the wages of skilled workmen.

I dispute the "socialism" of the regimes you name for the reason that they didn't abolish the wage and class systems. However the standard western account of them as totalitarian systems where all life is under the control of the red beuracracy ala Orwell's 1984 is deeply flawed and based on cold-war era propaganda not actual historical research.

[RadioRaheem84]

OP, it's difficult to live in the US and explain to people that the US was/is repressive toward other nations (in ways that would've never even have been conceived of by Stalin), while the USSR was mainly repressive internally. People seem to believe our freedoms came out of a vacuum (or because of capitalism) and had nothing to do with dominance over the world market and imperial global policy.

[Barry Lyndon]

Comrade,

I agree with you that socialism must be democratic in order to succeed, and that it is justifiable that people are afraid that a revolution will simply create a new system of injustice and coercion in place of an old one, which has indeed happened. However, I don't think that the horrors of the past(Stalin, Beria, Pol Pot, Menghitsu), should deter us from trying to create an alternative to capitalism, which is what the capitalist class wants. We should instead rigorously examine what went wrong, learn from our mistakes, and when the time comes, do much better the next time around. Because the greatest oppression, brutality, and suffering arises not from trying to change the world, as the bourgeoisie would tell us, but maintaining the world as it is.

When talking about the subject of freedom, too, we should try to think about what such a word really means. In his book 'Blackshirts and Reds', Michael Parenti says the main problem with the question of freedom is that we live in a capitalist society that purposefully defines freedom too narrowly:

"Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor undemocratic or 'Stalinist' sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substansive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom.

There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social benefits, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context.

Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary oppression in the 1990's, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before.

U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy, there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful US-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under US-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky.

Of course, revolutions do limit the freedom of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to environmental and human costs, the freedom to love in extreme opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on. "
(Michael Parenti, 'Blackshirts and Reds', pages 35-36)

[Weezer]

Socialism IS freedom.

[ed miliband]

Socialism IS freedom.

Precisely. Socialism and freedom are inseperable; socialism is the most beautiful of freedoms.

[Crusade]

OP, sounds like you're looking for this.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=2

or at the very least, this

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=274

[bie]

Basically, how can we, as a proletariat, allow some people to come into power and establish a totalitarian regime?

Every time when proletariat comes to power it is said that it establishes a "totalitarian regime". It occurred in all the revolutions and will occur in the future too. If it happens to you by any chance to be among victorious workers you will be surprised to hear that your workers democracy, regardless of the number of people involved in the decision making process, democratic mechanisms, your achievements, progress, real freedoms etc. is "totalitarian", that in your country there is no freedom, liberty, people are killed,
prosecuted, children are eaten alive and terrible crimes are committed etc etc etc.

It is quite normal way of dealing with insubordinate societies that dare to challenge the global capitalism. So the only way is to get used to that. There would be no control over what the bourgeoisie propaganda will say. But - on the other hand - it should not stop anyone from realization of his historic mission of building communist society. As some say - "the dogs bark, but caravan goes on."

Concerning social democracy - it is just spreading an illusion that capitalism can be "corrected". No, it can't.

[RadioRaheem84]

How come no one in the media ever examines what the Communist Bloc was holding back? After the fall of the wall, neo-liberalism reigned supreme and brought the standard of living back to the early twentieth century worldwide. What freedom did the people of Russia have when they were pawning off their goods to buy food?

[bie]

This "freedom" is nothing but the freedom to exploit man by man. It is trivial - but who controls the media - controls peoples minds. And now there is the well designed action aiming to forget or falsify all the achievements of countries from the Communist Block.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

OP, it's difficult to live in the US and explain to people that the US was/is repressive toward other nations (in ways that would've never even have been conceived of by Stalin), while the USSR was mainly repressive internally. People seem to believe our freedoms came out of a vacuum (or because of capitalism) and had nothing to do with dominance over the world market and imperial global policy.

U.S. is just as repressive as the SSSR. The U.S. just doesn't need to be direct about it, the methods to maintain order and perpetuate its own social system are much more subtle and indirect. You don't have to be blatant to repress.

[A.R.Amistad]

The dictatorship of the proletariet is really nothing more than direct participatory democracy in the hands of the working class, ie, the majority. This is opposed to the "freedom" under a capitalist parliamentary system where political power rests in the capitalist class. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the most democratic form of the state before the total withering away of the state, ie, communism, where freedom for all becomes reality. After all, democracy as a form of the state can only mean formal equality (seeing as universal rights and sufferage are still preserved, but the state is the product of irreconcialible class antagonism.)

[Antifa94]

Concerning social freedoms- In the USSR, social realism was mandated as the sole ideology of the art under Stalin, and post-Stalin avant-garde art was viewed as seditious and "dissident" artworks were destroyed. This is obviously ridiculous and no true leftist would do such a thing to apolitical abstract art. The Communist ideal is a world of deep intellectualism and avant-gardism. Capitalist economic treatises can be kept for academic purposes, but obviously a capitalist party should be suppressed.
Absolute freedom of thought within the leftist spectrum ( luxemburgism-stalinism) and academic freedom to study rightism/capitalism as long as it is not supported.

[Antifa94]

One reason I love literature( the entire spectrum, fiction to nonfiction) is that the trade is so resistant to capitalism( other than the cheap romances and pulp fiction sold in grocery stores)... there' s a book called Reluctant Capitalist: bookselling and the culture of consumption. Literature isn't a temporal object to be consumed, it is an object that requires thought and time and can not be prostituted like cosmetics or clothing. A spiritual aura of holiness exists within the book that can not be destroyed by capitalism.
There is no better cure for the mindfog and misery of a bourgeois lifestyle than literature and the arts.

[Ocean Seal]

Hello,
I have a question that has been bothering for quite some time now. Basically, how can we, as a proletariat, allow some people to come into power and establish a totalitarian regime? Socialism teaches that once Capitalism gets far too out of hand, the people themselves would start a revolution and take over power. Democratic enough, it seems. However, once the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is commenced, the people themselves won't actually be in power, it's going to be a very small group of people in charge. It's happening all the time, it seems. Name a Socialist country, and you will soon see that it has a totalitarian, oppressing regime. The USSR, North Korea, China are all perfect examples of oppressing regimes. Ofcourse, I won't go so far to say that people there were constantly oppressed, because that is in fact not true, judging on both of my parents' accounts of the USSR, but still the idea that the state COULD oppress people if it chose to is deeply worrying :bored:. I for one would like to have the civil liberties that are there in most Western countries today. However, if the state allowed me to keep my civil liberties, then it is very possible that it would fall (as we have seen with glasnost and perestroika), and thus fail at its objective of creating economic equality. Thus, it seems that Socialism is self-contradicting. It wants to give pure freedom to people, through the elimination of unrighteous wages-as Alexander Berkman states it:

“Can't you see that your wage - your salary or income - is all the freedom that you have? Your freedom, your liberty, don't go a step further than the wages you get.”

-and yet in the process of eliminating economical inequality, the peoples' political rights will be removed, which certainly goes against the idea of "freedom".
Drawing from that, I fail to see how a state with high autonomy will wither and thus open up the way for Communism. A weak state, sure. However, a state as strong as in Socialism, i do not see how it could happen :bored:.

Thus, it seems to me more and more that Social Democracy is the answer-I'd rather have a little economic inequality, if it means that I will at least be able to maintain my "freedom". :(

Of course, I might be completely wrong about the levels of freedom in a Socialist state, so please enlighten me :)
Socialism in its dictatorial form is still more progressive than any capitalist state. Although, it may be in certain cases dictatorial, more often than not the socialist regime must adhere to what the people want as there are no distinctions among the common people as opposed to fascism where there exists a civilian hierarchy. Therefore, the government must constantly look to please the working class as they are the largest portion of the people. So therefore, dictatorship or not the people are freer than they are in capitalism.

[Antifa94]

Socialism in its dictatorial form is still more progressive than any capitalist state. Although, it may be in certain cases dictatorial, more often than not the socialist regime must adhere to what the people want as there are no distinctions among the common people as opposed to fascism where there exists a civilian hierarchy. Therefore, the government must constantly look to please the working class as they are the largest portion of the people. So therefore, dictatorship or not the people are freer than they are in capitalism.

Wow that's a massive fail. dictatorial socialism becomes state capitalism which is completely out of tune with the people. A new gubernatorial elite is formed consisting of army generals, government officials and top ranking party members.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This is obviously ridiculous and no true leftist would do such a thing to apolitical abstract art.

No such thing as apolitical art exist.

And abstract art and avant-garde are terribly ugly.

[Antifa94]

A painting of a shoe definitely has political undertones.

They're ugly to you. Don't fucking ban them because you have philistine tastes in art.

[NGNM85]

Hello,
I have a question that has been bothering for quite some time now. Basically, how can we, as a proletariat, allow some people to come into power and establish a totalitarian regime? Socialism teaches that once Capitalism gets far too out of hand, the people themselves would start a revolution and take over power. Democratic enough, it seems. However, once the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is commenced, the people themselves won't actually be in power, it's going to be a very small group of people in charge. It's happening all the time, it seems. Name a Socialist country, and you will soon see that it has a totalitarian, oppressing regime. The USSR, North Korea, China are all perfect examples of oppressing regimes. Ofcourse, I won't go so far to say that people there were constantly oppressed, because that is in fact not true, judging on both of my parents' accounts of the USSR, but still the idea that the state COULD oppress people if it chose to is deeply worrying :bored:. I for one would like to have the civil liberties that are there in most Western countries today. However, if the state allowed me to keep my civil liberties, then it is very possible that it would fall (as we have seen with glasnost and perestroika), and thus fail at its objective of creating economic equality. Thus, it seems that Socialism is self-contradicting. It wants to give pure freedom to people, through the elimination of unrighteous wages-as Alexander Berkman states it:

“Can't you see that your wage - your salary or income - is all the freedom that you have? Your freedom, your liberty, don't go a step further than the wages you get.”

-and yet in the process of eliminating economical inequality, the peoples' political rights will be removed, which certainly goes against the idea of "freedom".
Drawing from that, I fail to see how a state with high autonomy will wither and thus open up the way for Communism. A weak state, sure. However, a state as strong as in Socialism, i do not see how it could happen :bored:.

Thus, it seems to me more and more that Social Democracy is the answer-I'd rather have a little economic inequality, if it means that I will at least be able to maintain my "freedom". :(

Of course, I might be completely wrong about the levels of freedom in a Socialist state, so please enlighten me :)

I think you sort of answered your own question. What you initially describe, is a very accurate depiction of the right wing, or authoritarian school of socialist thought; Marx, Lenin, etc. However, there's a whole different side to that, being the libertarian socialist, or Anarchist wing which has always been very critical of that approach, specifically for that reason. You quoted Berkman, Bakunin had the same criticism, as did Emma Goldman, etc. The anarchist position has essentially always been that socialism must involve democratic control over people's productive lives, as well as the public ownership. Any socialist society worthy of the name must have this feature, otherwise it's just sort of a fraud.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think you sort of answered your own question. What you initially describe, is a very accurate depiction of the right wing, or authoritarian school of socialist thought; Marx, Lenin, etc.
[citation needed]

[AK]

No such thing as apolitical art exist.
What's the political message behind this, then? I'd be delighted to know.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_knVrVWA4Upc/R-RbnZt5E2I/AAAAAAAABSM/kGNXXAMLcQI/s400/Sheep210308.jpg

Socialism in its dictatorial form is still more progressive than any capitalist state. Although, it may be in certain cases dictatorial, more often than not the socialist regime must adhere to what the people want as there are no distinctions among the common people as opposed to fascism where there exists a civilian hierarchy. Therefore, the government must constantly look to please the working class as they are the largest portion of the people. So therefore, dictatorship or not the people are freer than they are in capitalism.
Socialism + dictatorial form ("dictatorial" being the way the world sees it today, not how Marx, etc. saw dictatorships) = non-existent.
Socialism requires freedom, there is no doubt about that.

We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Ultimately, "dictatorial" socialism cannot be socialist either, for it requires state ownership. Otherwise, power would be in the hands of the workers (through their assemblies, councils and ownership of the means of production) and not of the government and state.

It's depressing to see a "socialist" defending dictatorship.

The USSR, North Korea, China are all perfect examples of oppressing regimes.
True, and a repressive regime can never be socialist.

[Zanthorus]

I think you sort of answered your own question. What you initially describe, is a very accurate depiction of the right wing, or authoritarian school of socialist thought; Marx, Lenin, etc.

Please, for the love of all that's holy, stop reading anarchist "criticisms" Marxism of all of which seem to be based on the formula - 1) Don't read a word of Marx. Instead take the practice of so-called "Marxist" regimes to be indicative of what Marx actually wrote and 2) Remember that at all times Bakunin was the holiest of holies and would never do something like say, organising secret societies within the International Workingmen's Association which would lead him to get kicked out by the Marxist faction. Because the only possible reason he could've been kicked out would be because of evil Marxist authoritarianism.

[bie]

A painting of a shoe definitely has political undertones.

They're ugly to you. Don't fucking ban them because you have philistine tastes in art.
Even if it is CIA based political provocation? ("The Congress promoted Modern Art, particularly Abstract Expressionism and Atonal music. One theory is that its policy was to promote types of art that were opposed in the Soviet Union.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Cultural_Freedom

"Give me a hundred million dollars and a thousand dedicated people, and I will guarantee to generate such a wave of democratic unrest among the masses--yes, even among the soldiers--of Stalin's own empire, that all his problems for a long period of time to come will be internal. I can find the people. "

Sidney Hook, 1949 from: http://bss.sfsu.edu/fischer/ir%20360/Readings/Congress%20Cultural%20Freedom.htm


One reason I love literature( the entire spectrum, fiction to nonfiction)
Therefore you will be probably interested in the fact that only in 1932 there were 55 000 of new "titles" published in USSR in 500 000 000 copies, that probably exceeds the output of the for the year of all publishers in the rest of the world. And all of that was accessible to everyone by the network of newly build libraries. Of course for some it is more important that they did not allow to publish things "openly hostile and provocative, deliberately untrue or insulting the state or its leaders"! What a "limitation of freedom"!:lol:

[Leaf]

Hey! Interesting question.

I think your question stems from your misunderstanding of socialism/communism.

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, there isn't a dictatorship in the modern sense, Marx meant that the proletariat, ie us workers, would be the class in power. We would oppress the bourgeoisie minority like they have been oppressing us before we achieve classlessness - no classes at all! I think that is what socialism teaches.

We certaintly don't want a totalitarian regime enforcing income equality in exchange for freedom. In communism there will be no income - everyone will just take what they need and contribute according to their ability. Most importantly, there will be a direct democracy where the people rule themselves.

Therefore in the socialist transition phase the people themselves actually will be in power. Maybe you get the idea of a very small group of people in charge from Lenin's idea of a vanguard party or how attempts to enforce socialist principles on a country have panned out.

We can keep civil liberties and economic equality of opportunity and power etc.

In the process of eliminating economical inequality, the peoples' political rights will not be removed.

During the revolution, the workers will sieze the state's weapons etc and power thus using the state temporarily before it dissolves. The proletariat ie the majority will be in power, not an authorative govt.

However I think anarchists have a different take on the matter which i don't know that much about.

Cheers.

[Ocean Seal]

Wow that's a massive fail. dictatorial socialism becomes state capitalism which is completely out of tune with the people. A new gubernatorial elite is formed consisting of army generals, government officials and top ranking party members.

I'm not entirely for dictatorial socialism, but compared to bourgeois democracy it is certainly the preferable alternative. If you'll look at the Soviet Union it is not a dictatorship at all like Nazi Germany or any other fascist states. A communist dictator understands that he/she is the servant to the people unlike a capitalist dictator who believes that he/she is the master of the people. Certainly the Soviet system needed to work out some kinks because it had no feedback system, but once again communism>capitalism is my main argument here.

[Barry Lyndon]

Please, for the love of all that's holy, stop reading anarchist "criticisms" Marxism of all of which seem to be based on the formula - 1) Don't read a word of Marx. Instead take the practice of so-called "Marxist" regimes to be indicative of what Marx actually wrote and 2) Remember that at all times Bakunin was the holiest of holies and would never do something like say, organising secret societies within the International Workingmen's Association which would lead him to get kicked out by the Marxist faction. Because the only possible reason he could've been kicked out would be because of evil Marxist authoritarianism.

Yean, I have to side with Zanthorus on this. It's obvious that those who call Marx 'right-wing' don't have a damn clue what their talking about. Most serious anarchist analysis that Iv'e read(such as Noam Chomsky) has a respect for Marx himself because of his critique of capitalism but are instead strongly opposed to the Leninist appilcation of his ideas. Many of the prominent radicals who were active in the American labor movement in the late 19th century were influenced by both anarchist and Marxist ideas, there wasn't this sectarian bs you see today.

[Ocean Seal]

Yes, I agree with Barry Lyndon we cannot accept sectarianism to the extent that every one of the thousand leftist sects considers the other 999 as counter-revolutionary. The way to victory is by accepting socialism as the doctrine to free mankind. Learning from all those who are socialists, not just those that we sympathize most with and rejecting the rest.

[bie]

Sectarianism is not the matter of someone's bad will or differences in ideas etc. but it is the conscious strategy applied by the enemy of the working class in order to cause confusion and divisions. It aims in prevention from the formation of the strong and militant working class political organization (ie. the communist parties). It is nothing but the application of the old principle: divide and rule. And the rest is just meaningless.

[Zanthorus]

Most serious anarchist analysis that Iv'e read(such as Noam Chomsky), in my view, has a respect for Marx himself for his critique of capitalism but are instead strongly opposed to the Leninist appilcation of his ideas.

It should probably be noted that Chomsky posits a rupture between the earlier "humanist" Marx and the late "authoritarian" Marx somewhat similar to the Stalinist myth of an epistemological break between the hard-nosed dialectical materialist and proto-Stalinist who wrote Capital and the idealistic-humanist who wrote the Paris Manuscripts.

I agree with the bit about sectarianism though.

[Antifa94]

For fuck's sake are you an idiot RedBrother? "socialist" dictators have been and always will be state capitalists completely out of tune with the people.
Get your head out of your ass, now.
"socialist" dictatorship=East Germany.
Enjoy.

[NGNM85]

Please, for the love of all that's holy, stop reading anarchist "criticisms" Marxism of all of which seem to be based on the formula - 1) Don't read a word of Marx. Instead take the practice of so-called "Marxist" regimes to be indicative of what Marx actually wrote

That's a little unfair. I was primarily thinking of Chomsky, who has said just about the same thing. As have, in one form or another, obviously, Bakunin, Goldman, Alexander Berkman, etc., etc. There IS a fundamental difference in tactics. Perhaps I overstepped the bounds when I consigned Marx entirely to this tradition, I was speaking in very broad terms. There should be no disagreement about Lenin. However, whether or not placing Marx squarely in this tradition, which, I admit, might have been careless, in no way undermines or invalidates the fact that this distinction exists. What he was describing was, in very simplistic terms, and perhaps without knowing it, what has generally been the Anarchist objection to this tendency.



and 2) Remember that at all times Bakunin was the holiest of holies and would never do something like say, organising secret societies within the International Workingmen's Association which would lead him to get kicked out by the Marxist faction. Because the only possible reason he could've been kicked out would be because of evil Marxist authoritarianism.

Now, you’re just being hyperbolic. Bakunin was hardly a saint, he could be a hypocrite, and probably a number of other things. That, again, does not negate the very real tactical and philosophical split between authoritarian and libertarian socialists.

[AK]

Good post Leaf, and it's great to hear from you again. But, there's something I need to clarify.

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, there isn't a dictatorship in the modern sense, Marx meant that the proletariat, ie us workers, would be the class in power. We would oppress the bourgeoisie minority like they have been oppressing us before we achieve classlessness - no classes at all! I think that is what socialism teaches.
We are not here to oppress those Bourgeoisie that oppressed us, during socialism. It is only in the revolution that we do the most authoritarian thing possible: enforce our class' will on the Bourgeoisie (by this I am talking using a state-to-state perspective; the remaining global proletariat must still revolt). What's done is done. Sure, the means of production and excess wealth will be expropriated, but we must not seek venegance, nor should we discriminate against ex-Bourgeoisie. The oppression you speak of must only ever come during revolution. There should be no classes under socialism, nor should there be the vestiges of a class-based society (such as state ownership - a hallmark of the failures of capitalism. Come to think about it, why is it that the state is viewed as a shining beacon of hope under socialism but the ultimate evil under capitalism?). We must all become the one people - having no subjective economic conditions between us that divide us into different classes - thereby allocating us into no classes.


We certaintly don't want a totalitarian regime enforcing income equality in exchange for freedom. In communism there will be no income - everyone will just take what they need and contribute according to their ability. Most importantly, there will be a direct democracy where the people rule themselves.This. Direct democracy FTW. Unlike the Leninist idea of the vanguard taking power for the "greater good" of the working class.

[AK]

I'm not entirely for dictatorial socialism, but compared to bourgeois democracy it is certainly the preferable alternative. If you'll look at the Soviet Union it is not a dictatorship at all like Nazi Germany or any other fascist states. A communist dictator understands that he/she is the servant to the people unlike a capitalist dictator who believes that he/she is the master of the people. Certainly the Soviet system needed to work out some kinks because it had no feedback system, but once again communism>capitalism is my main argument here.
:mad:

It's better to die upon your feet than to live upon your knees!
With the living upon our knees being the time when we are ruled by false socialists and the dying upon our feet being fighting for true democracy and equality - the culmination of class struggle.

Having said that, do you really think it's good for the working class to settle for second best? Do you think that people being fine living under the false ideal of authoritarian state capitalism is good for socialism?

What impact will this have on our struggle? Workers all over the world would just again see socialism as another half-baked ideology which ends in shit and betrays those who it seeks to liberate.

[NecroCommie]

Freedom is a subjective concept. Socialism is claimed to restrict freedom... in what regard exactly? Name the precise freedom that is inherently repressed in socialism.

[AK]

Freedom is a subjective concept. Socialism is claimed to restrict freedom... in what regard exactly? Name the precise freedom that is inherently repressed in socialism.
The freedom to own private property; to exploit workers and the environment, destroy competing businesses, pursue capital, get paid ridiculously large amounts for being the head of a corporate bureaucracy whilst putting in no productive labor, spawn racism, sexism, nationalism and homophobia and play Russian Roulette via the free market with people's jobs and lives.

Freedom is a beautiful thing, no?

[NGNM85]

Of course for some it is more important that they did not allow to publish things "openly hostile and provocative, deliberately untrue or insulting the state or its leaders"! What a "limitation of freedom"!:lol:

Precisely. That's what free expression means, that's what it means to have a free and democratic society. Nobody goes to jail for supporting the status quo. You always have the 'freedom' to do what you're told, and espouse the authorized opinions, even in the most repressive regimes.

[Robocommie]

play Russian Roulette via the free market with people's jobs and lives.


Hah, it isn't Russian Roulette, in Russian Roulette, you're the one who has to pay the consequences, not the government backing you with free money. ;)

[NecroCommie]

The freedom to own private property; to exploit workers and the environment, destroy competing businesses, pursue capital, get paid ridiculously large amounts for being the head of a corporate bureaucracy whilst putting in no productive labor, spawn racism, sexism, nationalism and homophobia and play Russian Roulette via the free market with people's jobs and lives.

Freedom is a beautiful thing, no?
My point exactly.

[bie]

Class struggle is not a picnic. And information is one of its fronts of a huge importance. If someone doesn't like it I recommend to move to a different planet.

[AK]

Hah, it isn't Russian Roulette, in Russian Roulette, you're the one who has to pay the consequences, not the government backing you with free money. ;)
Oh no, see, the Bourgeoisie hold the gun to our heads and we are left to pull the trigger.

[NGNM85]

Class struggle is not a picnic. And information is one of its fronts of a huge importance. If someone doesn't like it I recommend to move to a different planet.

This sort of talk reminds me of the line attributed to an unnamed army major in Vietnam; "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I also think that when we talk about freedom we cant just use our system that we are living in right now as the benchmark. Instead we should talk about what we really have, ore to be more correct, what we havnt got. Fore eaxample freedom of speech and freedom to organise an oppossition isnt absolute in todays system, a couple of weeks ago one of my colleague had an argue with the boss at our job. The whole thing was about that our boss thought that my collegaue shouldnt talk so much during work (observe he didnt stop working anytime he was just chating in the same time as working) so he said that that was none of his buisness, then our boss got mad as shit and started threating with firing him, so finally my colleague had to obey his command. What kind of freedom is that? its the society we live in today, you have to obey some persons that allready got the power of the production and the reasources ore you will end up unemployed and poor, you might even end up living on the streets in a world where somones have 7 houses. The freedom that liberals allways talks about is the freedom fore some individuals to exploite the mayority, the freedom to sell heroin so you can afford to buy a prostitute and servants.
In socialism we all will get not just the necessites to survive and live comfortable, but to get the chance to trully do what we want with our life, the thing is that your freedom can never run over someone elses freedom and therefore you still have to take out your own garbage (if your not to old, sick ore handicaped then offcourse you will get help) maybe a silly example but the best i could comme up with right now.