Authoritarian V. Libertarian Socialism

[Outinleftfield]

I know I agree with socialism but I'm not sure where I stand on the authoritarian v. libertarian issue.

Part of me thinks from all my bad experiences that anyone who takes advantage of anybody no matter how slight or anyone who thinks in a gullible way, believing rumors without even hearing what the other party has to say should be put on trial and if convicted executed. A more reasonable part of me thinks that for a functioning socialist society to work these people should be assigned to reeducation but we should be compassionate and let them go once they are reeducated.

And then part of me thinks they should be left alone except in extreme cases and then rehabilitated in extreme cases.

Even part of me, and this is what I thought at first thinks "voluntary association" should be used for social control and no mandatory reeducation should ever be used and punishment should be limited to "self-defense".

Its a conflict between the part of me that's aware that if you give anyone power it can be abused, but on the other hand there are a lot of bad people in the world who will hurt you if given the chance and I've been hurt many times. It's hard to stay objective when you've been hurt as much as I have, but then who is objective? All our opinions are the product of our material circumstances.

Another thing is that many of those people who hurt me were poor. Don't they understand that I stick up for their rights? We even talked about politics at some points and some of these people even said they agreed with me or even presented similar views before I did(this was when I was a sure libertarian socialist). I guess these are what you call the lumpen proletariat.

I'm just not sure how effective "voluntary association" can be used for social control. How can you make sure it applies to the right people? What if the wrong people get blamed and then denied access to resources due to a rumor in a libertarian socialist society?

But then in a more authoritarian socialist society how do you stop power from being abused?

NOTE: I know many people don't like the term "authoritarian" but I have to distinguish somehow

[fa2991]

But then in a more authoritarian socialist society how do you stop power from being abused?

Well, that's the big question, isn't it? My answer would be that you can't, really. "Authoritarian" socialist states seem to invite abuse and a gradual backslide into capitalism - which is more or less the whole reason I'm an anarchist communist, i.e. "libertarian" socialist.

[Outinleftfield]

Here's more.

I was robbed by two of my "friends". One of them claimed he didn't participate and was about to tell me. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for about a year.

Then this summer we got into an argument. We had had arguments before, but this time he had a girlfriend who had a car and money. We were in the car together, me him and his gf.

After the argument he went on to exaggerate what happened to his friends. I even hear he and his gf yelled at them about it, which makes me think he was yelling about wanting them to not be my friend. I had been ready to apologize for getting upset in the car. He had every right to be angry, but he lied and said I threatened to run the car off the bridge(I learned this from his mom)! At first I even gave him the benefit of the doubt. I thought he had misheard something I said. I even called him and messaged him apologizing and saying I was sorry had misheard me.

Then I found out from some people who didn't buy his bs that he had really been taking advantage of me. I even found out from someone credible that he had been involved in the theft(I had thought it was just the one person). He was just looking for an excuse to ditch me after I bought him concert tickets because he had a gf to take advantage of. She was in the car too so she must be a terrible person(if you can even call her a person) too for going along with his lies.

Long before this I've been beat up, blackmailed for hundreds of dollars, and often harrassed even starting back in preschool. This is why part of me thinks we should have a powerful state to punish people who do these things. And yet another part of me is afraid of that state abusing its power, but is it really an unacceptable risk when a stateless society might just follow the words of the most persuasive person. Most people believed this ahole I thought was a friend!

[NoOneIsIllegal]

This is why part of me thinks we should have a powerful state to punish people who do these things.
You're forgetting one thing: In a socialist society, whether libertarian or authoritarian, the working class should be well-provided for. Most crime, such as robbing/stealing, would nearly cease to exist. Even when it would happen, people should be held accountable for, whether by a overpowering state, or by the good will of the community.

[Optiow]

You're forgetting one thing: In a socialist society, whether libertarian or authoritarian, the working class should be well-provided for. Most crime, such as robbing/stealing, would nearly cease to exist. Even when it would happen, people should be held accountable for, whether by a overpowering state, or by the good will of the community.
That is true.

~I personally am on the fence also. However, I tend to be more libertarian these days as opposed to authoritarian.

[ContrarianLemming]

authoritarian, instead of stopping these kinds of things, actually creates it.

There was a lot more crime, blackmail and beatings in fascist italy then post fascist italy

You can say that you want a strong state to protect you, but I find that, almost universally, nations where the state is so powerful have by far more crime.

[Qayin]

authoritarian, instead of stopping these kinds of things, actually creates it.

There was a lot more crime, blackmail and beatings in fascist italy then post fascist italy
Because Marxism-Leninism is comparable to Fascism... :laugh:

The more I am on this forum the more it becomes clear alot of people (not all) who claim to be "Libertarian Socialists" or "Anarchists" are just liberals looking to pose more rigid. It's beginning to stink.

[Outinleftfield]

I've thought about this a little more.

Maybe something in the middle of authoritarian socialism and anarchism?

Immediately after the revolution people are still going to be influenced by their experiences under capitalism, so there will still be people committing acts of anti-social behavior after the revolution.

So we'll still need prisons of some kind, not like the kind we have now. More of a mandatory reeducation center, aimed at protecting society from these people by containing them but at the same time reeducating them so they will be ready to rejoin society. No brutality and no executions. They should have their needs met and not made uncomfortable other than discomfort that might come in the process of reexamining their old attitudes.

We'll have to have some kind of socialist constitution and court system with due process to protect innocent people from going to jail. Looking at how broken the justice system is now there's going to have to be some major changes though.

I used to put out the objection "why do we need a state to suppress the bourgeoisie if the bourgeoisie is abolished?" From my experiences I now understand. In the dictatorship of the proletariat the suppressed "bourgeoisie class" is anyone who seeks to exploit, even a common thief or murderer not just conspirators trying to resurrect capitalism.

So there should be a state, but for the most part production should be determined according to the will of the workers at the bottom rather than being imposed from above. The state should primarily perform a policing function and national defense function(before the world revolution is finished). The "center" should be elected by worker's groups from the bottom and only meddle in the decisions of the workers at the bottom if there's a true need. Most people's "needs" will be secured by the agreements arising out of the interdependent nature of the worker's groups but if there was a case where in spite of this some people would starve without some form of taxation and redistribution from the center to save them then it would be justified.

The mechanics of this are tricky but no reason it couldn't be figured out and then the state could wither away in a few generations as people grow up under a socialist society. The state would essentially cease to exist when the last "prison" closes and there's enough abundance to prevent any need for "forced distribution" of any kind.

[ContrarianLemming]

Because Marxism-Leninism is comparable to Fascism... :laugh:

I don't think it is.

It was claimed that we could have a stronger state to protect people, when in fact stronger states generally mean more crime, the biggest criminal is, after all, the state. I happened to use Italy as a well known example.


The more I am on this forum the more it becomes clear alot of people (not all) who claim to be "Libertarian Socialists" or "Anarchists" are just liberals looking to pose more rigid. It's beginning to stink.

this is just unacceptable sectarianism, it really has no place here, have respect.

[ContrarianLemming]

I've thought about this a little more.


You seem somewhat confused comrade :(

first, what is a state? What anarchist has ever said a jail means a state? Or what is necessary to protect people from people.
There is no argument in your post for a state, none, but rather, for action over another individual, which may be collective, or done by a minority of governors (as opposed to the governed) - the state. It is a mistake made to often that civics, coordination, law, court, prison and military cannot exist in a stateless society, they are not defining points in statehood, but rather, the monopoly of violence, the seperation of power between governed and governors, the rule of one class over another.

[Qayin]

It was claimed that we could have a stronger state to protect people, when in fact stronger states generally mean more crime, the biggest criminal is, after all, the state. I happened to use Italy as a well known example.But that really lacks analysis of certain states and there condition, the class in power, ect.

Fascist Italy is not even an example of this.

To be Anti-State is not without great analysis.



this is just unacceptable sectarianism, it really has no place here, have respect. You are an Anarchist arn't you? Your picture and group is Anarchist, I'm simply taking positions actual Class Struggle Anarchists take.

[ContrarianLemming]

You are an Anarchist arn't you? Your picture and group is Anarchist, I'm simply taking positions actual Class Struggle Anarchists take.

After looking at your posts, you seem to simply act agressivly towards others while consistently accusing comrades of being "liberals", really, I read your first page of posts in your statistics and you show minimal respect or curtasy. That's not a "position".

[AK]

This is why part of me thinks we should have a powerful state to punish people who do these things.
fapfapfap

But seriously, it is still possible to have an accountable law enforcement without it being a tool of the ruling class.

[GPDP]

Am I the only one who finds the whole "authoritarian" vs. "libertarian" socialism dichotomy to be silly and, well, practically non-existent outside wildly sectarian anarchist circles?

Seriously, who the fuck identifies as an "authoritarian socialist" in all seriousness.

And for that matter, what does it even mean without resorting to stupid strawmen about TEH STATE.

[Os Cangaceiros]

And for that matter, what does it even mean without resorting to stupid strawmen about TEH STATE.

Or likewise resort to stupid strawmen about "WHO WILL RUN THE RAILWAYS IF THERE'S NO AUTHORITY?"

[Qayin]

After looking at your posts, you seem to simply act agressivly towards others while consistently accusing comrades of being "liberals", really, I read your first page of posts in your statistics and you show minimal respect or curtasy. That's not a "position".
Because they were being Liberal, others in those threads had the same accusations. Its a position to call out those who use anarchist rhetoric when they do not represent what we're talking about.



But seriously, it is still possible to have an accountable law enforcement without it being a tool of the ruling class.
We change the idea of what law enforcement is under a classless society. The paris commune changed the idea of a state as a whole we can change the idea of "law enforcement" as well. Possibilities include community oversight via workers councils, everyone being armed and sorted into peoples militias if needed,ect



Am I the only one who finds the whole "authoritarian" vs. "libertarian" socialism dichotomy to be silly and, well, practically non-existent outside wildly sectarian anarchist circles?

Seriously, who the fuck identifies as an "authoritarian socialist" in all seriousness.

And for that matter, what does it even mean without resorting to stupid strawmen about TEH STATE.
Tankies love too.

Some people do worry about The State more then needed that is true.


Or likewise resort to stupid strawmen about "WHO WILL RUN THE RAILWAYS IF THERE'S NO AUTHORITY?"
This is also true.

[ContrarianLemming]

Am I the only one who finds the whole "authoritarian" vs. "libertarian" socialism dichotomy to be silly and, well, practically non-existent outside wildly sectarian anarchist circles?No, but that said, you just implied that only anarchists are sectarian like this, which is, in itself, sectarianism.


who the fuck identifies as an "authoritarian socialist" in all seriousness.

theres a group, but it's a joke group.

there are authoritarian socialists, those who consider "democracy" and "free speech" to be liberal bourgeois crap, but they just come off as rediculous.

[ContrarianLemming]

Or likewise resort to stupid strawmen about "WHO WILL RUN THE RAILWAYS IF THERE'S NO AUTHORITY?"

My friend, welcome to my signature

[Qayin]

Part of me thinks from all my bad experiences that anyone who takes advantage of anybody no matter how slight or anyone who thinks in a gullible way, believing rumors without even hearing what the other party has to say should be put on trial and if convicted executed. A more reasonable part of me thinks that for a functioning socialist society to work these people should be assigned to reeducation but we should be compassionate and let them go once they are reeducated.Fuck that, I'm not sure if even ML's are for that. The concept of re-education and executing people over trivial shit is fucking horrible.


And then part of me thinks they should be left alone except in extreme cases and then rehabilitated(Re-educated) in extreme cases.I think I could agree with you here.



Even part of me, and this is what I thought at first thinks "voluntary association" should be used for social control and no mandatory reeducation should ever be used and punishment should be limited to "self-defense".I also agree with you here.



Its a conflict between the part of me that's aware that if you give anyone power it can be abused, but on the other hand there are a lot of bad people in the world who will hurt you if given the chance and I've been hurt many times. It's hard to stay objective when you've been hurt as much as I have, but then who is objective? All our opinions are the product of our material circumstances.Look into Historical Materialism.

The Idea that one man because of a Socialist Revolution(Per say its Statist leaning) is going to be a crazed dictator and eat babies is ridiculous. The ML's still give a damn as much as us but have other means of achieving such results, I give props to the Hoxhaists for such consistency.


Another thing is that many of those people who hurt me were poor. Don't they understand that I stick up for their rights? We even talked about politics at some points and some of these people even said they agreed with me or even presented similar views before I did(this was when I was a sure libertarian socialist). I guess these are what you call the lumpen proletariat.Don't take an elitist attitude towards these things. Class Consciousness develops gradually as long as a foundation is formed are ready to respond to the conditions of our lives as the working class. Sometimes Class Consciousness even gains little boosts due to State repression like we saw in Oakland or Greece 2008. I do not agree with the concept of Lumpen Proletariat.



I'm just not sure how effective "voluntary association" can be used for social control. How can you make sure it applies to the right people? What if the wrong people get blamed and then denied access to resources due to a rumor in a libertarian socialist society?I would read history of examples of such associations, also fully understand such concepts. It applies to the working class as a whole, the idea of getting denied resources isn't socialist, I doubt a rumor is going to lead to someone getting starved or something within a socialist society.



But then in a more authoritarian socialist society how do you stop power from being abused?Checks and balances within the Party and State Organs, Constitutional foundations, ect.

-AMK

[Qayin]

there are authoritarian socialists, those who consider "democracy" and "free speech" to be liberal bourgeois crap, but they just come off as rediculous. Where did the current ideas of modern "Free Speech" and "Democracy" come from that effect Liberal Democracies?
Oh wait..

[scarletghoul]

The whole authoritarian/libertarian thing is a false dichotomy and shows you're not looking at it from a class perspective. We need freedom for the workers obviously, which means we must use authority against the reactionary forces.

[ContrarianLemming]

Where did the current ideas of modern "Free Speech" and "Democracy" come from that effect Liberal Democracies?
Oh wait..

this just shows an ignorance of worker struggle, they most certainly did not come from bourgeoisie (capitalists giving us freedom? puleez) nor did they come from liberals, it was the working people.

But I'll let Michael Parenti explain it better, pay attention to the second half, it's not long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJLaRhTKzw8

[Qayin]

this just shows an ignorance of worker struggle, they most certainly did not come from bourgeoisie (capitalists giving us freedom? puleez) nor did they come from liberals, it was the working people.

But I'll let Michael Parenti explain it better, pay attention to the second half, it's not long.
You have no clue of History.
Classical Liberalism.
Locke? Paine? Smith?

All those Bourgeois philosophers and theorists whos influence that lead to the Feudal system being overthrown.

Go read up on Natural Rights and Law and put it into the context of the class struggle of that era, not to hard.

Thread about this already also.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/leninists-maoists-etc-t139986/index.html

[AK]

The whole authoritarian/libertarian thing is a false dichotomy and shows you're not looking at it from a class perspective. We need freedom for the workers obviously, which means we must use authority against the reactionary forces.
I'm not sure who else I can speak for aside from myself when I say this, but when I talk about an opposition to authoritarianism I mean an opposition to any government that is out of direct control of the masses - an opposition to a new ruling class (which in this sense is not the working class). I say this because there are a few "communists" out there who feel that government should remain the business of an elite few (whilst somehow claiming this is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat).

[ContrarianLemming]

You have no clue of History.
Classical Liberalism.
Locke? Paine? Smith?

All those Bourgeois philosophers and theorists whos influence that lead to the Feudal system being overthrown.

Go read up on Natural Rights and Law and put it into the context of the class struggle of that era, not to hard.

Thread about this already also.watch the video

edit; you're in the wrong tendency

[scarletghoul]

To expand on my previous post, the realistic authority-to-protect-liberty is usually just called 'authoritarianism', and the word 'libertarianism' usually refers to those who want liberty but are unwilling to use authority for it.. Authoritarian and Libertarian socialism are not opposites, one is just an incomplete version of the other.

Many socialists who call themselves 'libertarian' don't see the fact that authority and violence exists as long as there is class conflict, and that revolutionaries must be authoritarian towards reactionaries or they will be authoritarian towards us. These 'libertarians' would defend the 'rights' of every reactionary (probably some would even defend the right of private property :LOL: ), and then wonder why their movements fail..

'Authoritarian socialists' on the other hand are authoritarian precisely because they see that it's necessary to defend and build freedom for the working class. In this sense, authoritarian socialists are the practical libertarians whereas 'libertarian socialists' in practice serve reactionary authority, by disarming the revolution.

So this is why I am 'authoritarian socialist', because it means seeing through the false dichotomy and understanding the need for both liberty and authority.

[Qayin]

watch the video

edit; you're in the wrong tendency I practically spelled it out for you and this is all you have to say?

I'm in the right tendency I am an Anarcho-Communist and an Insurrectionist that focuses on Class Struggle and Material perspectives as Marxists do over Utopian Rhetoric and particularly with North American Anarchist Primmies/Chomskyists; Liberalism. You would be in the wrong to use Parenti if you were an Anarchist since Parenti is most likely a Marxist-Leninist from what I have read from him.

[ContrarianLemming]

and the word 'libertarianism' usually refers to those who want liberty but are unwilling to use authority for it..


let's ignore the revolutions in libertarian struggle then.
strawman


Many socialists who call themselves 'libertarian' don't see the fact that authority and violence exists as long as there is class conflict, and that revolutionaries must be authoritarian towards reactionaries or they will be authoritarian towards us. These 'libertarians' would defend the 'rights' of every reactionary (probably some would even defend the right of private property :LOL: ), and then wonder why their movements fail..

none of this is true, I'd point to historical libertarian revolutions and armed struggles,
the Italian anarcho syndicalists did, after all, kill enemy fascists in 1920-22, the liberal Italian government of the time ignored the fascists crimes.
it's a strawman, libertarians dont support any of this.


'Authoritarian socialists' on the other hand are authoritarian precisely because they see that it's necessary to defend and build freedom for the working class.

I've never met a libertarian socialist who didnt support this
again, strawmen everywhere.

[scarletghoul]

I'm not sure who else I can speak for aside from myself when I say this, but when I talk about an opposition to authoritarianism I mean an opposition to any government that is out of direct control of the masses - an opposition to a new ruling class (which in this sense is not the working class). I say this because there are a few "communists" out there who feel that government should remain the business of an elite few (whilst somehow claiming this is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat).
Well, I certainly agree with you being against all that. But it's not right to call that 'authoritarianism', as authority itself is not the problem. The problem is the gap between the government and the masses and as you say the government being a 'new ruling class'. The problem is not the existence of authority but the class dynamic of that authority..

[ContrarianLemming]

I practically spelled it out for you and this is all you have to say?

these bougeois philosopher you mention theorised about freedom and speech and such, but where did it actually first manifest itself in modern society? In struggle, in true working class struggle, we have our freedom of speech despite capitalists! These democratic ideas were brought about through populist movements. ideas about democracy and freedom to say what you want were ideas which Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon talked about, how O how could you possibly oppose democracy?

How would descisions be made in anarchy?
Parenti is most likely a Marxist-Leninist from what I have read from him.

He's only ever been defined a a Marxist, however he's never brought it up, not that it matters if he's a Leninist or not, it has no relation here.

[Qayin]

Many socialists who call themselves 'libertarian' don't see the fact that authority and violence exists as long as there is class conflict, and that revolutionaries must be authoritarian towards reactionaries or they will be authoritarian towards us. These 'libertarians' would defend the 'rights' of every reactionary (probably some would even defend the right of private property :LOL: ), and then wonder why their movements fail..Hmm..
Would you call the CNT-FAI during the Spanish Revolution libertarian? I think the term deals with more the construction of the socialist society more so then how we view violence and class conflict. I would never defend priviate property and would be aggressive towards those counter-revolutionaries.






'Authoritarian socialists' on the other hand are authoritarian precisely because they see that it's necessary to defend and build freedom for the working class. In this sense, authoritarian socialists are the practical libertarians whereas 'libertarian socialists' in practice serve reactionary authority, by disarming the revolution.This is not a fair analysis at all.


So this is why I am 'authoritarian socialist', because it means seeing through the false dichotomy and understanding the need for both liberty and authority. I would consider myself libertarian but I see the need for both liberty and authority

[scarletghoul]

let's ignore the revolutions in libertarian struggle then.
I agree there were some great anarchist revolutions, like the one in Spain which was defended heroically by the authoritarian actions of what I consider a workers' state. They understood the dialect of authority/liberty. However many modern 'libertarians' who I'm talking about seem to be against any kind of 'authoritarianism' and I think that's silly.


none of this is true, I'd point to historical libertarian revolutions and armed struggles,
the Italian anarcho syndicalists did, after all, kill enemy fascists in 1920-22, the liberal Italian government of the time ignored the fascists crimes.
it's a strawman, libertarians dont support any of this.


I've never met a libertarian socialist who didnt support this
again, strawmen everywhere.Well why do you call yourselves libertarians if you are in favour of authoritarian methods ??

edit- AMK I don't consider the CNT-FAI to be libertarian (edit: at least, no more libertarian than Stalin). There was ruthless suppression of reactionaries, forced collectivisation of peasants, and obviously violent authoritarian actions against religion and fascism etc.. My problem is with the modern Anarchists who often don't seem to face up to this and deny the authoritarian element, just saying they're 'libertarian'. Its cool that you're not all like that but many seem to be

[ContrarianLemming]

I agree there were some great anarchist revolutions, like the one in Spain which was defended heroically by the authoritarian actions of what I consider a workers' state. They understood the dialect of authority/liberty. However many modern 'libertarians' who I'm talking about seem to be against any kind of 'authoritarianism' and I think that's silly.I've never met any, all the anarchists I know - and I know a lot - support "authoritarian" revolution, anything as else is crushed easilly.


Well why do you call yourselves libertarians if you are in favour of authoritarian methods ?? I don't call myself a libertarian, and you already pointed out that it's rediculous, theres no libertarianism or authoritarianism, it's just different methods, there all revolutionary and armed.

[Qayin]

these bougeois philosopher you mention theorised about freedom and speech and such, but where did it actually first manifest itself in modern society? In struggle, in true working class struggle, we have our freedom of speech despite capitalists! These democratic ideas were brought about through populist movements. ideas about democracy and freedom to say what you want were ideas which Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon talked about, how O how could you possibly oppose democracy?

How would decisions be made in anarchy?We gained these "freedoms" from a Bourgeois revolution. The concept of freedom of speech is Utopian, no nation has complete freedom of speech. What if Post-Revolution the fcounter revolutionaries lash out and you use this "freedom of speech" to defend there "right"? Fuck that, these freedoms set by the Bourgeois are just cheap rhetoric. Populist movements are not revolutionary but reformist. Does that make me against things the working class fought for such as the 8 hour day? Fuck no.

SHOCK! italicized! I am against Democracy now according to you?


Decisions could be made through all those forms of Voluntary Association be it Syndicates, Workers councils, Self-Management, Co-Ops, Parecon, Communes, ect


He's only ever been defined a a Marxist, however he's never brought it up, not that it matters if he's a Leninist or not, it has no relation here. Then don't say im in the wrong tendency using someone who isn't even in your or my tendency to prove that it's ironic.

[ContrarianLemming]

We gained these "freedoms" from a Bourgeois revolution.

watch the video


SHOCK! italicized! I am against Democracy now according to you?
http://libertariananarchy.com/2008/1...nst-democracy/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libertariananarchy.com/2008/12/against-democracy/)

I'm confused, you link to a page which excplains why democracy is wrong.

i don't see your views overshadowed in any anarchist ideas, you're a crank, we're done

[Qayin]

I've never met any, all the anarchists I know - and I know a lot - support "authoritarian" revolution, anything as else is crushed easilly.
A Proletariat revolution IS "Authoritarian" in nature be it Anarchists or ML's. What the hell do you think revolution is?


I don't call myself a libertarian, and you already pointed out that it's rediculous, theres no libertarianism or authoritarianism, it's just different methods, there all revolutionary and armed.
:thumbup1:

[Qayin]

I'm confused, you link to a page which excplains why democracy is wrong.

i don't see your views overshadowed in any anarchist ideas, you're a crank, we're done I sent the wrong link, I accidentally posted a stupid ass Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalist bullshit link.

Yes I am an anarchist I clearly am If you examine my views on revolution and socialist society.
Anyways regardless everyone else is getting what im saying its not rocket science. Resorting to
calling me a crank is hilarious though keep at it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080611031314/www.thoughtcrime.org/writings/democracy.html



Malatesta

Democracy is a lie, it is oppression and is in reality, oligarchy; that is, government by the few to the advantage of a privileged class. But we can still fight it in the name of freedom and equality, unlike those who have replaced it or want to replace it with something worse.
We are not democrats for, among other reasons, democracy sooner or later leads to war and dictatorship. Just as we are not supporters of dictatorships, among other things, because dictatorship arouses a desire for democracy, provokes a return to democracy, and thus tends to perpetuate a vicious circle in which human society oscillates between open and brutal tyranny and a the and lying freedom.
So, we declare war on dictatorship and war on democracy. But what do we put in their place?
Not all democrats are like those described above – hypocrites who are more or less aware that in the name of the people they wish to dominate the people and exploit and oppress them.
There are many, especially among the young republicans, who have a serious belief in democracy and see it as the means of obtaining full and complete freedom of development for all. These are the young people we should like to disabuse, persuade not to mistake an abstraction, ‘the people’, for the living reality, which is men and women with all their different needs, passions and often contradictory aspirations.
It is not the intention here to repeat our critique of the parliament system and all the means thought up to have deputies who really do represent the will of the people; a critique which, after fifty years anarchist propaganda is at last accepted and even repeated by those writers who most affect to despise our ideas (e.g. Political Science Senator Gaetano Mosca).
We will limit ourselves to inviting our young friends to use greater precision of language, in the conviction that once the phrases are dissected they themselves will see how vacuous they are.
‘Government of the people’ no, because this presupposes what could never happen – complete unanimity of will of all the individuals that make up the people.
It would be closer to the truth to say, ‘government of the majority of the people.’ This implies a minority that must either rebel or submit to the will of others.
But it is never the case that the representatives of the majority of people are all of the same mind on all questions; it is therefore necessary to have recourse again to the majority system and thus we will get closer still to the truth with ‘government of the majority of the elected by the majority of the electors.’
Which is already beginning to bear a strong resemblance to minority government.
And if one then takes into account the way in which elections are held, how the political parties and parliamentary groupings are formed and how laws are drawn up and voted and applied, it is easy to understand what has already been proved by universal historical experience: even in the most democratic of democracies it is always a small minority that rules and imposes its will and interests by force.
Therefore, those who really want ‘government of the people’ in the sense that each can assert his or her own will, ideas and needs, must ensure that no-one, majority or minority, can rule over others; in other words, they must abolish government, meaning any coercive organisation, and replace it with the free organisation of those with common interests and aims.
This would be very simple if every group and individual could live in isolation and on their own, in their own way, supporting themselves independently of the rest, supplying their own material and moral needs.
But this is not possible, and if it were, it would not be desirable because it would mean the decline of humanity into barbarism and savagery.
If they are determined to defend their own autonomy, their own liberty, every individual or group must therefore understand the ties of solidarity that bind them to the rest of humanity, and possess a fairly developed sense of sympathy and love for their fellows, so as to know how voluntarily to make those sacrifices essential to life in a society that brings the greatest possible benefits on every given occasion.
But above all it must be made impossible for some to impose themselves on, and sponge off, the vast majority by material force.
Let us abolish the gendarme, the man armed in the service of the despot, and in one way or another we shall reach free agreement, because without such agreement, free or forced, it is not possible to live.
But even free agreement will always benefit most those who are intellectually and technically prepared. We therefore recommend to our friends and those who truly wish the good of all, to study the most urgent problems, those that will require a practical solution the very day that the people shake off the yoke that oppresses them.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1924/03/democracy.htm

[Thirsty Crow]

So this is why I am 'authoritarian socialist', because it means seeing through the false dichotomy and understanding the need for both liberty and authority.I don't find this explanation satisfying, in that it is completely ahistorical.
The dichotomy liberty vs. authority comes down to real material conditions of productive and social life, that is the issue of the form or institution(s) of governance (in both matters pertaining to the wider social issues and issues of production).
In this sense, I view authoritarian socialists as comrades who might be advocating a sort of a partocracy - a model of governance in which dispproportionate power is given to institutions/bodies which are disconnected from the basic nuclei of social and economic life (workplace councils and neighbourhood councils for instance). And I think that most of the authoritarians would advocate such a model as the only one that is realistic and feasible, i.e. true communism.

I may be creating a straw man here, I suppose, and if I am please correct me.

[mikelepore]

The whole authoritarian/libertarian thing is a false dichotomy and shows you're not looking at it from a class perspective. We need freedom for the workers obviously, which means we must use authority against the reactionary forces.

You're right, of course. But I would add this. Even after the revolution is completed and we have a classless society, I expect a continued role for an "authoritarian" aspect that can never go away. Many social decisions are either/or. Suppose 40 percent of the people say "I don't want to see a bridge there - let people cross the river on a ferry boat", and 60 percent of the people say "I don't want to see a ferry boat there - let people cross the river on a bridge." There can only be one solution. It is necessary for some people to have the solution forced on them. The phrase "voluntary association" that was used in the first post cannot suggest a solution.

[AK]

Well, I certainly agree with you being against all that. But it's not right to call that 'authoritarianism', as authority itself is not the problem.
But authority being given to a few (such as politicians, capitalists and bureaucrats) is a problem.

[NGNM85]

Any project for social change that creates a more equitable economic system, or grants the people control over the means of production, at the expense of their rights to express their ideas or participate in the political process, isn't worth having. That's just replacing one form of oppression for another. I think the whole idea of a benign dictatorship is a total fantasy, and a dangerous one, to the extent people subscribe to it.

[GPDP]

Any project for social change that creates a more equitable economic system, or grants the people control over the means of production, at the expense of their rights to express their ideas or participate in the political process, isn't worth having. That's just replacing one form of oppression for another. I think the whole idea of a benign dictatorship is a total fantasy, and a dangerous one, to the extent people subscribe to it.

Obviously I can agree with that, but again, in all seriousness, find me a non-joke "socialist" who actually advocates such a system.

My biggest problem with the whole "libertarian vs. authoritarian" dichotomy is that in many cases, there really is no argument to be had. No self-respecting socialist I know of worships authority or calls for a benevolent "dictator over the proletariat" or anything like that. That accusation comes from those to the left of them who believe the implications of their "authoritarian" revolution would lead to another Stalin, turning the population into well-cared-of prisoners with a guaranteed job but no right to complain. And yes, you are well-entitled to make such an argument.

What I think is unfair is when the accusation is not only levied toward tankies who fetishize the USSR, but toward all Leninists and even Marxists in general like the Anarchist FAQ does, many of who, when not taking the piss about their "authoritarianism," would go on to agree with what you just said up there, most likely with the caveat that the working class, now the new ruling class, would likely not extend such privileges to reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. If the caveat makes them too "authoritarian" for your liking, then that's fine. Such may be one of the things that genuinely distinguishes an anarchist from a non-tankie ML. But it's frankly ridiculous to slap the "authoritarian socialist" label upon them afterward, which implicitly conveys the message that those so-called "authoritarians" are really Stalinists in disguise.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You're right, of course. But I would add this. Even after the revolution is completed and we have a classless society, I expect a continued role for an "authoritarian" aspect that can never go away. Many social decisions are either/or. Suppose 40 percent of the people say "I don't want to see a bridge there - let people cross the river on a ferry boat", and 60 percent of the people say "I don't want to see a ferry boat there - let people cross the river on a bridge." There can only be one solution. It is necessary for some people to have the solution forced on them. The phrase "voluntary association" that was used in the first post cannot suggest a solution.

What if sixty percent of the population wants to keep an economic system with competition and currency in place? Or what if sixty percent of a population wants to send the Jews to camps?

Democracy has severe limitations, although it is often the least-bad way to make decisions.

[Qayin]

What if sixty percent of the population wants to keep an economic system with competition and currency in place? Or what if sixty percent of a population wants to send the Jews to camps?

Democracy has severe limitations, although it is often the least-bad way to make decisions. You should read the links I posted bud. I think your sorta getting where im going

[Qayin]

Any project for social change that creates a more equitable economic system, or grants the people control over the means of production, at the expense of their rights to express their ideas or participate in the political process, isn't worth having. That's just replacing one form of oppression for another. I think the whole idea of a benign dictatorship is a total fantasy, and a dangerous one, to the extent people subscribe to it.
Ok lets go further then that, what are rights?

When I say your concept is fucked, your going to allow counter-revs of all kinds to express ideas and participate? Even the Spanish Anarchists during the Revolution knew that is bullshit.

Nobody on this forum that level headed wants a total autocrat

[RadioRaheem84]

Ok lets go further then that, what are rights?

When I say your concept is fucked, your going to allow counter-revs of all kinds to express ideas and participate? Even the Spanish Anarchists during the Revolution knew that is bullshit.

Nobody on this forum that level headed wants a total autocrat Agreed. I don't get how doesn't get this.

[libertarian socialist 55]

I would encourage you to cling to the libertarian over the authoritarian....means are as important as ends...oppression with good intentions is not really helpful....defend whatis valuable but live and let live. Just my opinion....:)

[libertarian socialist 55]

My advice, for what it is worth is to eschew the authoritarian and cling to the libertarian....as Jefferson said (no, I'm not necessarily defending Jefferson): "If one says men are incapable of ruling themselves, then by what logic are others more capable of ruling over them?" Oppression with good intentions is still oppression. Genuine socialism is genuinely democratic and as far as possible anarchic. But then you could figure I'd say all this from my nick, right? :)

[libertarian socialist 55]

sorry for the double post:(

[GPDP]

My advice, for what it is worth is to eschew the authoritarian and cling to the libertarian....as Jefferson said (no, I'm not necessarily defending Jefferson): "If one says men are incapable of ruling themselves, then by what logic are others more capable of ruling over them?" Oppression with good intentions is still oppression. Genuine socialism is genuinely democratic and as far as possible anarchic. But then you could figure I'd say all this from my nick, right? :)

Again, I agree with all this, but my question is the following: who are you talking to? Who here, in all seriousness, calls for such measures? Who here wants to rule and dominate the working class "with good intentions?" If you're referring to the Leninists, I'm sure they will all tell you such accusations are unfounded.

[libertarian socialist 55]

Actually not addressing anyone in particular. Just added my trite 2 cents in favor of libertarian approach. But I'm not sure the Leninists are correct in their denials. :)

[libertarian socialist 55]

authoritarianism is rarely explicitly defended, just so damn easy to fall into

[libertarian socialist 55]

"Q: What's the difference between fascism and libertarianism?
A: Under fascism, you are starved of your freedom. Under libertarianism, you are free to starve."

Under the I don't give a damn about anyone else attitude called "libertarianism" only in the US maybe the second part of that answer is true, but I am using the more traditional, European meaning of "libertarian"

[9]

Obviously I can agree with that, but again, in all seriousness, find me a non-joke "socialist" who actually advocates such a system.

My biggest problem with the whole "libertarian vs. authoritarian" dichotomy is that in many cases, there really is no argument to be had. No self-respecting socialist I know of worships authority or calls for a benevolent "dictator over the proletariat" or anything like that. That accusation comes from those to the left of them who believe the implications of their "authoritarian" revolution would lead to another Stalin, turning the population into well-cared-of prisoners with a guaranteed job but no right to complain. And yes, you are well-entitled to make such an argument.

What I think is unfair is when the accusation is not only levied toward tankies who fetishize the USSR, but toward all Leninists and even Marxists in general like the Anarchist FAQ does, many of who, when not taking the piss about their "authoritarianism," would go on to agree with what you just said up there, most likely with the caveat that the working class, now the new ruling class, would likely not extend such privileges to reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. If the caveat makes them too "authoritarian" for your liking, then that's fine. Such may be one of the things that genuinely distinguishes an anarchist from a non-tankie ML. But it's frankly ridiculous to slap the "authoritarian socialist" label upon them afterward, which implicitly conveys the message that those so-called "authoritarians" are really Stalinists in disguise.

I think the point is that "authoritarianism" is a meaningless word. Which class has the authority - that is the question. If we are talking about working class "authoritarianism" - that is, the working class forcibly expropriating thebourgeoisie and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat (necessarily a profoundly "authoritarian" act) - it is entirely different in nature from capitalist "authoritarianism", whatever that really means, presumably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (but perhaps not in its democratic form).

[9]

also some other people made similar points. didn't actually read more than the last page before I posted.

[ContrarianLemming]

No self-respecting socialist I know of worships authority or calls for a benevolent "dictator over the proletariat" or anything like that.you haven't met enough of them.


but toward all Leninists and even Marxists in general like the Anarchist FAQ does

The FAQ makes a point of generally only critciizing Leninism, I don't recall any critcism of left communism or luxembougism, which they seemed positive about.

[Qayin]

you haven't met enough of them.
Or you haven't it seems, revleft is a melting pot of different tendencies and parties.


The FAQ makes a point of generally only critciizing Leninism, I don't recall any critcism of left communism or luxembougism, which they seemed positive about.
They shouldn't

[Thirsty Crow]

I think the point is that "authoritarianism" is a meaningless word. Which class has the authority - that is the question. If we are talking about working class "authoritarianism" - that is, the working class forcibly expropriating thebourgeoisie and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat (necessarily a profoundly "authoritarian" act) - it is entirely different in nature from capitalist "authoritarianism", whatever that really means, presumably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (but perhaps not in its democratic form).
It is also a question of formal mechanisms of the decision making process that necessarily divide the working class, i.e. the new ruling class during the period of transition, into those who have little influence in it (the decision making) and those that have enormous influence. And with this come the patterns of the reproduction of the two subgroups of the same class.

But I would add this. Even after the revolution is completed and we have a classless society, I expect a continued role for an "authoritarian" aspect that can never go away. Many social decisions are either/or. Suppose 40 percent of the people say "I don't want to see a bridge there - let people cross the river on a ferry boat", and 60 percent of the people say "I don't want to see a ferry boat there - let people cross the river on a bridge." There can only be one solution. It is necessary for some people to have the solution forced on them. The phrase "voluntary association" that was used in the first post cannot suggest a solution.
Uuummm, why should there be only one solution, supposing that economic conditions are favourable for instituting both options?

But that's even beyond my point. The authoritarianism does not necessarily have to do with forcing solutions on those who disagree. It has to do with the forms and institutions of participation in the decision making process.

[mikelepore]

What if sixty percent of the population wants to keep an economic system with competition and currency in place? Or what if sixty percent of a population wants to send the Jews to camps?

Democracy has severe limitations, although it is often the least-bad way to make decisions.

"What if" isn't a very specific question. What about it?

I didn't say that the majority is always right. Your question seems to imply that you thought I said so.

What I said was:

Even in the classless society of the future, there will be some occasions when the majority has to force a decision on a minority. Therefore, when supporters of a classless society describe the principle as "voluntary association", that is misleading.

A classless society can have "voluntary association" only until we come to a binary disagreement, where either yes or no has to be selected, and people can't go their separate ways. Beyond that point it's necessary to have winners and losers; it's automatically about force. In the most perfected classless society a thousand years after the revolution, this will remain true, because it arises from "X and not-X are mutually exclusive."

[NGNM85]

Obviously I can agree with that, but again, in all seriousness, find me a non-joke "socialist" who actually advocates such a system.

My biggest problem with the whole "libertarian vs. authoritarian" dichotomy is that in many cases, there really is no argument to be had. No self-respecting socialist I know of worships authority or calls for a benevolent "dictator over the proletariat" or anything like that. That accusation comes from those to the left of them who believe the implications of their "authoritarian" revolution would lead to another Stalin, turning the population into well-cared-of prisoners with a guaranteed job but no right to complain. And yes, you are well-entitled to make such an argument.

What I think is unfair is when the accusation is not only levied toward tankies who fetishize the USSR, but toward all Leninists and even Marxists in general like the Anarchist FAQ does, many of who, when not taking the piss about their "authoritarianism," would go on to agree with what you just said up there,..

While I appreciate the way you conduct yourself, and I would like to believe that's true, experience tells me otherwise. I think even an extremely casual perusal of this website would reveal this is not the case.


..most likely with the caveat that the working class, now the new ruling class, would likely not extend such privileges to reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. If the caveat makes them too "authoritarian" for your liking, then that's fine. Such may be one of the things that genuinely distinguishes an anarchist from a non-tankie ML.

Completely agreed. Yes, that's completely unacceptable to me. You are also correct in observing that this is a very clear ideological divide.


But it's frankly ridiculous to slap the "authoritarian socialist" label upon them afterward, which implicitly conveys the message that those so-called "authoritarians" are really Stalinists in disguise.

I don't see much reason to differentiate. There is no absolute, monolithic concentration of power that is good. This is bad by it’s very nature. Those who would insist it as only a ‘temporary’ measure are simply naïve at best.

[RadioRaheem84]

While I appreciate the way you conduct yourself, and I would like to believe that's true, experience tells me otherwise. I think even an extremely casual perusal of this website would reveal this is not the case.Sorry this website doesn't square with you liberal sentiments. :rolleyes:



I don't see much reason to differentiate. There is no absolute, monolithic concentration of power that is good. This is bad by it’s very nature. Those who would insist it as only a ‘temporary’ measure are simply naïve at best.Bad by it's very nature? You do not even attempt to couch your terms in a materialist fashion. You just sound like a dumb idealist.
First off you clearly have no understanding of Leninism, much less the history of the past regimes which you snidely refer to as "absolute, monolithic concentrations of power". Many of these nations were not afforded the luxury of being bastion of "libertarian socialism" because of imperial and fascist onslaught that characterized their whole history. Regardless of all that they endured they still managed to keep their populations fed, housed and employed. So if we want to praise them for doing so, while still criticizing some of their their deficiencies in democracy, then that is better than writing them off as 'totalitarian'. OR snobbishly insinuating that any of us in here are closet "Stalinists", which is again is another slur to make us look like kins of the extreme right.

Please, mods, how much more are we going to have to endure from NGN? All he does is attempt to smear anyone in here who doesn't agree with him as a degenerate extremist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"What if" isn't a very specific question. What about it?

I didn't say that the majority is always right. Your question seems to imply that you thought I said so.

How do you invision the rights of individuals being protected when the majority is wrong?

[Aesop]

What is an authoritarian socialist?

Is that not a bit of a oxymoron, because at the moment it seems that authoritarian socialist is used as a buzzword by some in the anarchist circles who just dislike the bolsheviks.

[Kuppo Shakur]

What is an authoritarian socialist?

Is that not a bit of a oxymoron, because at the moment it seems that authoritarian socialist is used as a buzzword by some in the anarchist circles who just dislike the bolsheviks.
True.
"Authority" will need to be used for communism to ever have a chance of realization. On the other hand, libertarian ideas need to be impressed upon those who use this authority, as much as possible. The best way to ensure that a centralized state does not get out of hand is to be constantly questioning its actions.

The worst thing that could ever happen post-revolution is for the workers to be lulled into a false sense of security.

[NGNM85]

What is an authoritarian socialist?

Is that not a bit of a oxymoron, because at the moment it seems that authoritarian socialist is used as a buzzword by some in the anarchist circles who just dislike the bolsheviks.

You could argue that authoritarianism is contrary to the fundamental spirit of socialism, I think there may be a valid point there, however, that's not universally held. Authoritarian socialism would include Marxist-Leninists, and several other tendencies. This is to distinguish from Libertarian Socialism, or Anarchism. There is a clear ideological devide.

[AK]

What is an authoritarian socialist?

Is that not a bit of a oxymoron, because at the moment it seems that authoritarian socialist is used as a buzzword by some in the anarchist circles who just dislike the bolsheviks.
To be honest, I'd never heard the term "authoritarian socialist" in my life before Revleft. Moreover, the term itself is a contradiction. If a material analysis of the class nature of an "authoritarian socialist" (in this sense, ["state"] capitalist) society was conducted, you would find that the word 'socialist' does not even belong in there - it would be capitalist to the bone.* You are either a socialist or you are a [closet] capitalist. Everyone whose ideology will preserve the capitalist mode of production (with one class having control over the means of production and the flow of capital - although they might not be legal property-holders) is a capitalist. Everyone whose ideology ends up completely abolishing any form of capitalist production (with the use of workers' self-management and self-government) is a socialist. Libertarian socialist and authoritarian socialist are essentially meaningless terms (although I can see why the distinction was originally made in its historical context).

If you are an actual socialist (support of genuine and full self-management and self-government - both necessitating the demolition of the capitalist system, so don't some of you come at me with stupid strawmen in relation to this like some have in the past) then you are a libertarian.** If you are a capitalist, you are an authoritarian.

* This does not include all so-called "authoritarian socialists" by default. It is just an example. If you are a Leninist of some sort of your ideology manages to create workers' self-management and self-government in the future, bravo. But I am of the opinion that no Leninist ideologies have achieved this yet. Of course you will beg to differ. But now is not the time nor place for this.
** In the sense that we do not want yet another ruling class ruling over the working class. It is obvious that all socialists are authoritarians in the sense that we seek to forcibly overthrow the capitalist classes.

[RadioRaheem84]

You could argue that authoritarianism is contrary to the fundamental spirit of socialism, I think there may be a valid point there, however, that's not universally held. Authoritarian socialism would include Marxist-Leninists, and several other tendencies. This is to distinguish from Libertarian Socialism, or Anarchism. There is a clear ideological devide.

NGN, then why are you on this site if you think that Anarchists and Marxist Leninists are so radically different as if to equate us with the far right? Anarchists work with MLs and vice versa, there isn't that much of an ideological gap that the two cannot work together. I am an ML but I love reading Durruti, Emma Goldman, Ricardo Flores Magon Chomsky, etc. I support the EZLN movement. I've volunteered at the local Anarchist co-op.

What is your problem? ML is not the other side of an "authoritarian" coin along with Fascism.

Get a grip.

[mikelepore]

How do you invision the rights of individuals being protected when the majority is wrong?

Bad policy cannot be prevented. The majority must always have the power to do something stupid, say, to vote themselves into a dictatorship, to blow themselves up, etc. If a strict written constitution precludes it, they could first amend the constitution to remove that article, and then proceed. There is no way to stop them. This is analogous to an individual having freedom. As a free individual, there is the hope that you will always choose you to live wisely, but in order to have freedom there must also be the possibility that you will choose to drink poison. It cannot be prevented in advance.

The best we can do is make it less likely that a bad choice will be made. With both the individual and the society, a lot of education makes a bad choice less likely.

In the case of society there is an additional factor that doesn't arise in the case of individual freedom, and that is the need to minimize the number who are left disappointed because their choice is not materilized.

Those who are outvoted, and therefore disappointed, are repressed by reality, even in the best of circumstances. Their feelings are frustrated. Now a quantitative difference is converted into a qualitative difference. If 70 percent of the people overpower 30 percent of the people, it may be that the minority are disappointed merely. It may be the case that they are not repressed forcibly. However, if 30 percent of the people overpower 70 percent of the people, those who didn't get their own way are repressed, not only in fact by reality, but also repressed forcibly.

I summarize that set of relationships in this way. With majority rule, bad policies are incidental, or perhaps coincidental. Bad policies occasionally occur. However, with minority rule, bad policies are systematic, they must usually occur. This is because, superimposed on everything else, the majority of the people must be forcibly repressed.

When writers dwell on the imperfection of majority rule, for example, Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill both used term "tyranny of the majority", in order to be more complete they should have pointed out the following fact. A system of decision making has to be adopted long before we know what the question will be. It's not fair to compare something like "majority rule + bad decision" to "minority rule + good decision", as though the policy were known in advance. No, the truth is more like this: when a question will come up fifty or a hundred years in the future, knowing nothing about what that question will be, decide right now what decision making method should be used at that time. How can we answer that? There in only one logical choice. We have to choose the method that results in bad decisions incidentally and not systematically. Here is where my generality is needed. With minority rule, bad decisions will appear in a systematic way, therefore more frequently. With majority rule, bad decisions will merely occur incidentally,and therefore less frequently. In addition to having an educated population, that's the best we can do. There can be no absolute prevension of bad decisions.

In this way, I support majority rule as a general system, while not defending the very stupid decisions that majorities may later come to make.