Role of Authoritarianism in Communism.

[Dahut]

Right, this may be a completely stupid question so sorry if it is.

Basically I'm wondering why many socialist (that's another argument) states were authoritarian. Why did they censor/restrict the media, crush political opposition, restrict/regulate freedom of speech and expression and use personality cultism? I thought the aim of communism was for the state to 'wither away' allowing for 'self realisation', surely this is to maximise liberty and minimise opression not the opposite. So why did quite a few 'socialist' states do the opposite?

I understand the party has to consolidate the gains and momentum of the revolution and make sure the bourgeois/reactionaries don't retake power and the means of production. So why did the state have to be so authoritarian? Can someone clarify the role of the state leading to the 'withering away' of the state. Could you have a consolidation of the gains of the revolution and a communist state that was libertarian and democratic?

[The Man]

They acted as a Vanguard for other revolutions. Socialism is not a tea party, It's the stage of revolution..

[thesadmafioso]

Look into the democratic history of the Russian Empire and tell me how that worked out for left leaning movements. Historical context and geopolitical reality demand different strategies for different circumstances.

[Commissar Rykov]

Revolution can not be made with silk gloves.

Seriously if you are going to secure a Socialist/Communist Revolution one must use all methods to stop counter-revolutions and bourgeois dissidents.

[Psy]

They lost revolutionary momentum and reactionary elements took hold. When the proletariat is mobilized in class war there is no need to restrict speech.

[Pretty Flaco]

The revolutions failed and produced something awful.

[The Man]

The revolutions failed and produced something awful.

So your saying that the revolution in 1917 Russia to the USSR was failed?

It's just that reactionaries came in to power eventually, and dismantled the whole system.

[Pretty Flaco]

So your saying that the revolution in 1917 Russia to the USSR was failed?

It's just that reactionaries came in to power eventually, and dismantled the whole system.

Sorry, I meant that they failed in establishing socialism.

[Psy]

Sorry, I meant that they failed in establishing socialism.

Or like I said the revolution lost momentum before it could it establish socialism.

[The Man]

Sorry, I meant that they failed in establishing socialism.

Oh, don't apologize.. I'm not attacking you :laugh:

In my opinion, I think they did successfully establish Socialism, and then when Marxist Revisionism came into place, it ruined it.

[Ostrinski]

There's going to be that sort of thing wherever there's a vanguard (just look at the First Continental Congress and what they created). And like others said above, socialism was never developed in the USSR, or anywhere for that matter, but that's debatable.

[Ostrinski]

Oh, don't apologize.. I'm not attacking you :laugh:

In my opinion, I think they did successfully establish Socialism, and then when Marxist Revisionism came into place, it ruined it.What of Lenin's NEP? And the fact that the worker's didn't collectively own the means of production, or control their own industrial fate?

[The Man]

What of Lenin's NEP? And the fact that the worker's didn't collectively own the means of production, or control their own industrial fate?

Again, this is Socialism. The revolutionary transitional stage of Dictatorship of the Proletariat... Not an end-stage Communist society.

[Gorilla]

It's not a stupid question, but you will get stupid answers.

[Rafiq]

So your saying that the revolution in 1917 Russia to the USSR was failed?

It's just that reactionaries came in to power eventually, and dismantled the whole system.


The Bolshevik revolution met it's demise and failure when the German revolution of 1919 failed.

The Revolution was contained, and thus destroyed.

[RedSunRising]

The Bolshevik revolution met it's demise and failure when the German revolution of 1919 failed.

The Revolution was contained, and thus destroyed.

So you are saying that revolution is impossible if its global?

Pretty defeatist attitude.

[Rafiq]

Again, this is Socialism. The revolutionary transitional stage of Dictatorship of the Proletariat... Not an end-stage Communist society.

So?

First off, Marx used socialism and communism interchangably, (He didn't say there was a difference).

Secondly. even Lenin agrees that 'socialism' can only exist when the workers are owning the means of production.

The NEP allowed for the capitalist mode of production to continue.

Thirdly, there was no Dictatorship of the Proletarian, there was a Dictatorship of the party, however, and even Trotsky acknowledged this.

[Ostrinski]

revolution is impossible unless its global


fixed.

[RedSunRising]

fixed.

Equals its wrong to rebel.

[28350]

because class struggle doesn't end immediately after a revolution

[Ostrinski]

Equals its wrong to rebel.If by rebel you mean throwing and destroying shit, alienating the proletariat from the socialist cause and counteracting class consciousness, then yes. If by rebel you mean raising class consciousness, showing the proletariat that their plight is part of the capitalist order, manifesting camaraderie and furthering the revolutioniziation of the working class, then no.

[$lim_$weezy]

Many of these so-called socialist states were so "pragmatic" as to cast aside all human rights and decency. They sought economic liberation (supposedly) at the expense of personal and political liberation of the people. Really, it was a combination of this and leaders who didn't seem to care about individual freedom.

So, why were they authoritarian? They thought it was worth it or didn't see authoritarianism as a bad thing to begin with.

[Apoi_Viitor]

It's just that reactionaries came in to power eventually, and dismantled the whole system.

I've never understand why abolishing capitalism requires a worker's revolution, but dismantling/abolishing socialism simply requires a change in the general secretary....

[red cat]

If by rebel you mean throwing and destroying shit, alienating the proletariat from the socialist cause and counteracting class consciousness, then yes. If by rebel you mean raising class consciousness, showing the proletariat that their plight is part of the capitalist order, manifesting camaraderie and furthering the revolutioniziation of the working class, then no.

Not necessarily. For example it is always right to participate in a rebellion that gets rid of starvation.

The conditions you list are used by self-described communists from imperialist countries to denounce anti-imperialist or historical socialist movements. The class-position of its proponents is very clear. :lol:

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Many of these so-called socialist states were so "pragmatic" as to cast aside all human rights and decency. They sought economic liberation (supposedly) at the expense of personal and political liberation of the people. Really, it was a combination of this and leaders who didn't seem to care about individual freedom.

You can't throw away something that doesn't exist, like "human rights". Individual freedom must be curtailed at the benefit of the collective.

[Dahut]

So do you think socialism should be like the council communism from 1917-1918/19??? Why did that stop anyway?

[EvilRedGuy]

You can't throw away something that doesn't exist, like "human rights". Individual freedom must be curtailed at the benefit of the collective.


Wow. :rolleyes:

[Dahut]

Do you think I tend towards council communism or anarcho-communism?

[$lim_$weezy]

Takayuki: They "don't exist" in that they are abstract concepts. Adoption of these concepts leads to something that I believe to be best for people.

Marxist theory "does not exist", as you put it, but the objective conditions that come from its application very much do, you will have to admit. The same with human rights and freedoms. Whether the conditions be "material" such as food supply or psychological such as having freedom and happiness, they are all important.

Economic liberation is not the only liberation one can experience, and I hope no one forgets that.

[Rafiq]

So you are saying that revolution is impossible if its not global?

Pretty defeatist attitude.

Of course not, seeing the October revolution proves that Revolution is in fact possible.

But if the Revolution doesn't spread, it will degenerate.

[Zav]

Do you think I tend towards council communism or anarcho-communism?
Yes.

[Kiev Communard]

Of course not, seeing the October revolution proves that Revolution is in fact possible.

But if the Revolution doesn't spread, it will degenerate.

In addition I would note that the revolution should be libertarian, not statist in its economic and political organization from the very beginning, as the successful spread of revolutionary movement in global scale is ultimately predicated on creation of viable post-revolutionary model, which, while not perfect, would be some sort of guideline for the revolutionary socialist movements in other countries. Without this internal societal transformation, any talk of world revolution will remain hollow, as the example of futile attempts of Bolsheviks in the 1920s to spread their socio-political model to European revolutionary movements, while undermining autonomous activities of Russian working class and subordinating to the Party-State, ultimately showed. That is why I say that I would go for the beginning of building of (libertarian) "socialism in one country" first, and then spreading it (not by force, but through example of a new society and relevant agitation) to other nations/regions.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

Authoritarianism is more of a crutch in the bridge crossing from socialism to communism

[Le Socialiste]

Right, this may be a completely stupid question so sorry if it is.
There’s no such thing as a stupid question. If you have an honest, actual question, ask away without reservation. You’re among comrades.



Basically I'm wondering why many socialist (that's another argument) states were authoritarian. Why did they censor/restrict the media, crush political opposition, restrict/regulate freedom of speech and expression and use personality cultism? I thought the aim of communism was for the state to 'wither away' allowing for 'self realisation', surely this is to maximise liberty and minimise opression not the opposite. So why did quite a few 'socialist' states do the opposite?


Well, one could certainly argue that by retaining the old methods of the previous possessing class, the intent of creating a revolutionary state founded on socialistic principles is/was doomed from the very start. The state cannot deconstruct itself; the state is incapable of abolishing its very existence. The question, then, presents itself: can the workers entrust the activities and policies of the revolution in the hands of the state? The answer ultimately comes down to where you stand on the political divide between statism and anarchism (or, at the very least, libertarian socialism). By its very nature, the state (no matter its stated political ends) is a means by which the old existing structures of class, privilege, and possession is maintained. Keep in mind that the state rarely acts in the people’s interests, only doing so when its own existence is threatened. It is also the upholder of class distinctions and disharmony between laborer and laborer, be he/she in a local setting or an international one. The idea that state socialism can bring the workers out of their suffering through its own self-dismantlement is misleading—for who is to decide when it is time for the state to “wither away”? Certainly not those benefitting from its existence! Be it a capitalist party or a socialist/communist one, no possessor of the means of governance will willingly see their power stripped and parceled out amongst the oppressed themselves. Russia’s revolution initially saw the rise and organization of the workers into self-governing, interconnected revolutionary councils and committees. These organs of the people were deemed unnecessary by the Bolsheviks, and were ultimately remade into little more than localized mouthpieces of the state. The class hierarchy was allowed to remain firmly in place, with a new class of Party bureaucrats and personalities. These “great minds” orchestrated the “revolution” from a position of privilege, and were thus blind (or all too aware) of the people’s continued suffering. Attempts to reestablish the workers’ soviets (councils) under their original slogans of freedom and liberty were crushed, condemned as counterrevolutionary. The answer to your questions here is the oppressive nature of the state apparatus. It can take varying forms, but it is essentially the same: a system of coercion and exploitation. The people do not benefit under statism. Authoritarianism, restricted media/speech, personality cultism—these are the byproducts of state power, and can only be done away with if the state is.


I understand the party has to consolidate the gains and momentum of the revolution and make sure the bourgeois/reactionaries don't retake power and the means of production. So why did the state have to be so authoritarian? Can someone clarify the role of the state leading to the 'withering away' of the state. Could you have a consolidation of the gains of the revolution and a communist state that was libertarian and democratic?
Ah, but the party (no matter its platform or program) is by its very nature a product of capitalistic bourgeois parliamentarianism/republicanism! For socialists, communists (even anarchists!) to tempt the idea of party organization is to resign oneself to the realities put forth by the state. The party cannot play the game of bourgeois politics without shedding its revolutionary advocacies; it ultimately becomes a part of the politics and state it rails against. As such, one cannot expect a socialistic state, after assuming control, to legislate itself into nonexistence. The workers, the people—they have no need of parties or states. However, awareness of this fact will not spread so long as the state and those who benefit from its oppression (no matter their affiliation/tendency) retain the support of the masses. Should the masses cease to recognize the need for the state and all its ills, the state cannot exist. It can only rely on forcible means of coercion or fold on itself. The workers can organize themselves and look after their needs on a coordinated scale of local, regional, state and national proportions. True revolutionary democracy comes after we abolish the state, its parties, and resign its system to history (where it belongs).

[Le Socialiste]

So do you think socialism should be like the council communism from 1917-1918/19??? Why did that stop anyway?

Short answer?

Lenin.

[Kiev Communard]

There’s no such thing as a stupid question. If you have an honest, actual question, ask away without reservation. You’re among comrades.



Well, one could certainly argue that by retaining the old methods of the previous possessing class, the intent of creating a revolutionary state founded on socialistic principles is/was doomed from the very start. The state cannot deconstruct itself; the state is incapable of abolishing its very existence. The question, then, presents itself: can the workers entrust the activities and policies of the revolution in the hands of the state? The answer ultimately comes down to where you stand on the political divide between statism and anarchism (or, at the very least, libertarian socialism). By its very nature, the state (no matter its stated political ends) is a means by which the old existing structures of class, privilege, and possession is maintained. Keep in mind that the state rarely acts in the people’s interests, only doing so when its own existence is threatened. It is also the upholder of class distinctions and disharmony between laborer and laborer, be he/she in a local setting or an international one. The idea that state socialism can bring the workers out of their suffering through its own self-dismantlement is misleading—for who is to decide when it is time for the state to “wither away”? Certainly not those benefitting from its existence! Be it a capitalist party or a socialist/communist one, no possessor of the means of governance will willingly see their power stripped and parceled out amongst the oppressed themselves. Russia’s revolution initially saw the rise and organization of the workers into self-governing, interconnected revolutionary councils and committees. These organs of the people were deemed unnecessary by the Bolsheviks, and were ultimately remade into little more than localized mouthpieces of the state. The class hierarchy was allowed to remain firmly in place, with a new class of Party bureaucrats and personalities. These “great minds” orchestrated the “revolution” from a position of privilege, and were thus blind (or all too aware) of the people’s continued suffering. Attempts to reestablish the workers’ soviets (councils) under their original slogans of freedom and liberty were crushed, condemned as counterrevolutionary. The answer to your questions here is the oppressive nature of the state apparatus. It can take varying forms, but it is essentially the same: a system of coercion and exploitation. The people do not benefit under statism. Authoritarianism, restricted media/speech, personality cultism—these are the byproducts of state power, and can only be done away with if the state is.




In addition, I would say that it is strange to hear 'anti-Revisionists' arguing against Khruschev and Co. for retaining commodity-money relations, while forgetting that modern bureaucratic State is just as bourgeois in its structural features as commodity-money relations are. So it was rather predictable that 'Soviet' bureaucracy would bourgeoisify themselves in a short term after they gained mastery of the 'new' State which was, despite formal retention of Soviets and (temporary) abolition of military ranks (which were for all purposes restored in the 1920s, even if officially absent until 1935) structurally similar to previously existing bureaucratic-parliamentary structures of Russian Empire and Provisional Government's 'Russian Republic'. In fact, it is telling that the majority of old bureaucratic cadres and officer corps was retained by Bolsheviks, and these cadres played rather important part in establishment of state-capitalist NEP policies and ultimate entrenchment of Stalin. So in fact commodity-money relations and bureaucratic State are equally bourgeois, and it is strange to argue for one against another.

[Commissar Rykov]

Of course not, seeing the October revolution proves that Revolution is in fact possible.

But if the Revolution doesn't spread, it will degenerate.

I wouldn't say degenerate so much as turn into an armed camp. With the inability to spread the revolution after the victory of the October Revolution it quickly became apparent with outside pressures by Capitalist States that in order to protect the revolution one must insulate it thus in effect killing it. While this is not what the Bolsheviks intended to do it is exactly what happened unfortunately.