Authoritarian Communist Texts

[Battlecat]

Comrades,

I was wondering if some of you could recommend some texts, essays, books, etc. that explain the core ideas of Stalinism, Hoxahism, Titoism, Maoism and Juche.


I've read Mao's little red book, which, apart from giving a couple of quotable one liners, doesn't really explain much about his ideology. So I was just wondering of some of our more authoritarian comrades out there could name the books that best explain their chosen ideology.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why would you want to be authoritarian? What is its virtue? We fight for the liberation of the workers, not to replace the authoritarian capitalist system with authoritarian "socialism".

[Spawn of Stalin]

Socialism is inherently authoritarian. It is one class imposing its will on another. As the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" implies, socialism is authoritarianism of the majority.

@Battlecat. There are a hundred texts you could read to give you a basic introduction to Marxist-Leninist thought. I would probably recommend Stalin's Foundations of Leninism as a good one for absolute beginners. But of course, if you haven't already read Lenin, you might want to start there instead, however Stalin can teach you the basics

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm

[Rooster]

Socialism is inherently authoritarian. It is one class imposing its will on another. As the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" implies, socialism is authoritarianism of the majority.

That's contentious. The act of revolution is authortarian through the DotP (one class dominating another) but socialism is supposed to be the lower phase of communism where there are no longer any class antagonisms. So the act of having an authorative state makes less sense. This transition period needs to be discussed more and the confusing of the DotP with socialism has to be addressed.

[Spawn of Stalin]

And as for Maoism, you will want to start with the man himself.

It is first necessary to understand the class makeup of China during the revolutionary period
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm

On Practice
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm

On Contradiction
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

On New Democracy
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm

You'll want to read up on protracted war also, for this I would recommend seeking out a copy of Mao's Selected Military writings, it's all on marxists.org, but the book does a much better job of helping to understand

[Spawn of Stalin]

That's contentious. The act of revolution is authortarian through the DotP (one class dominating another) but socialism is supposed to be the lower phase of communism where there are no longer any class antagonisms. So the act of having an authorative state makes less sense. This transition period needs to be discussed more and the confusing of the DotP with socialism has to be addressed.
Class war intensifies under the dictatorship of the proletariat, this happened following the October Revolution. If you disagree with this then it is because we are in different schools of thought and therefore are not going to agree, so there is no point getting into silly arguments. What the OP requested was a learning experience on "authoritarian socialism", I am giving the OP the views of an authoritarian socialist.

[Battlecat]

Why would you want to be authoritarian? What is its virtue? We fight for the liberation of the workers, not to replace the authoritarian capitalist system with authoritarian "socialism".

I don't really want to be authoritarian, I'm a devout Anti-statist. I'm also a devout anti-sectarian, and am interested in all sides of an ideology. I don't want to be the close minded guy who screams half truths about the oposing side. I want to study it, and learn both the good and bad qualities of an ideology.

[Battlecat]

But of course, if you haven't already read Lenin, you might want to start there instead, however Stalin can teach you the basics
I have read the basics of lenin, What is to be done? was the first piece of communist literature I ever read, actualy. I'm just looking into the more authoritarian ofshoots of Leninism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Socialism is inherently authoritarian. It is one class imposing its will on another. As the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" implies, socialism is authoritarianism of the majority.


That's nonsense, overthrowing an authoritarian system is not authoritarian in itself--the opposite indeed.

[Thirsty Crow]

Class war intensifies under the dictatorship of the proletariat, this happened following the October Revolution.
Still recycling the same old and empty phraseology, eh?
I suppose that class war intensifies also under "socialism" in which there are no antagonistic classes, and moreover, that stateless communism can only be reached by means of an intensification in the action of the state which is to guide the before mentioned class war under socialism?
:laugh:

Do yourself a favour, and read Lenin's State and Revolution.

[-marx-]

Mao's Selected Works (all 5 volumes) In PDF to download:CLICK (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/Index.html)

Juche related texts also in PDF to D/L:CLICK (http://www.korea-dpr.com/lib/)

I don't take Juche seriously as a philosophy but it's still an interesting read.

[Battlecat]

I don't take Juche seriously as a philosophy but it's still an interesting read.

I don't think anyone takes it seriously, not even North Korea by the looks of things. But, yeah, I find it interesting to read up on everything. How can we critique and ideology without first understanding it?

Thanks for the links, too

[Die Rote Fahne]

I believe the authoritarianism we are referring to is the restriction of "personal freedoms" such as outlawing homosexuality, outlawing free speech, outlawing marijuana, outlawing the right to peaceful assembly, etc etc.

This whole "socialism is inherently authoritarian" shit is old. You KNOW the OP isn't referring to that.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Do yourself a favour, and read Lenin's State and Revolution.
Way ahead of you. Don't think that you know what I have or haven't read based on my personal opinions. And certainly don't assume that because my opinion is different to yours that I have not done enough reading. I've done plenty of it.

I believe the authoritarianism we are referring to is the restriction of "personal freedoms" such as outlawing homosexuality, outlawing free speech, outlawing marijuana, outlawing the right to peaceful assembly, etc etc.
I don't know ANY MLs who want any of these things outlawed except marijuana so what the hell are you talking about. Cut the off topic bullshit or leave. The op is clearly looking to learn, if you can't handle it that people actually want to know more about "authoritarian socialism" then that's not their problem, and it certainly isn't mine.

[Khalid]

On Authority (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm) by Friedrich Engels.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I don't know ANY MLs who want any of these things outlawed except marijuana so what the hell are you talking about. Cut the off topic bullshit or leave. The op is clearly looking to learn, if you can't handle it that people actually want to know more about "authoritarian socialism" then that's not their problem, and it certainly isn't mine.

:rolleyes: you're so reasonable.

Lenin had restricted speech and press. Stalin outlawed homosexuality, further limited speech and press, limited and outlawed other rights, etc. That's my point.

Where did I complain that he wanted to learn about "authoritarian socialism"? I didn't, I was making the point that what he refers to as authoritarianism, isn't the Engels analysis of the inherent authoritarian nature of a class imposing it's will on another class, but the idea of restricting freedoms and focusing on authority. Such as Stalin's Russia, Hitler's German, Mussolini's Italy, Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Goober.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

What a load of crap from the Stalinist. If you want to call a revolution authoritarian because it rightfully takes the means of productions out of a parasitic class of capitalsits and puts them into the hands of their rightful owners, then go ahead, but be very careful as you're allowing yourself to be an apologist for the repression of workers that came about in the USSR in the name of 'authoritarian socialism'.

That is what we mean by authoritarian socialism: a system of so-called 'socialism' with a top down method of organization that holds authority over the class it is meant to be liberating, the term authoritarian does not apply to the class war inherent in the revolution, as that fundamental quality is actually a liberatory quality that is actually self-defence against the authority capitalism had over the proletariat. The only authority we have seen is that of a class of bureaucrats over the people the revolution was meant to liberate, which led to all kinds of repression, hence 'authoritarian'.

[Spawn of Stalin]

:rolleyes: you're so reasonable.
Is being reasonable really a problem? Honestly all I am trying to do is keep this thread on topic because I am an advocate of learning. If you or anyone else wants to give me shit about anything else you can PM me, post a visitor message or start a thread about it, any of those three is ok with me.

Lenin had restricted speech and press. Stalin outlawed homosexuality, further limited speech and press, limited and outlawed other rights, etc. That's my point.
We could argue all day long about that stuff and we wouldn't get anywhere. But just know that you are referring to things that happened nearly 100 years ago. It's not like MLs call for their respective countries to be transformed into 1930s Russia.

Where did I complain that he wanted to learn about "authoritarian socialism"? I didn't, I was making the point that what he refers to as authoritarianism, isn't the Engels analysis of the inherent authoritarian nature of a class imposing it's will on another class, but the idea of restricting freedoms and focusing on authority. Such as Stalin's Russia, Hitler's German, Mussolini's Italy, Pol Pot's Cambodia.
Yeah, just like you said in your previous post which I chose not to reply to, if you want to tell me I misunderstood something then that's ok. But there is making a point and there is being rude, and right now almost everyone is being rude by interrupting the thread to call me out on one little thing I said.

Goober.
Get the fuck out of here

Mahmoud, you are just repeating what about six people have already said

[Die Rote Fahne]

Is being reasonable really a problem? Honestly all I am trying to do is keep this thread on topic because I am an advocate of learning. If you or anyone else wants to give me shit about anything else you can PM me, post a visitor message or start a thread about it, any of those three is ok with me.

I'm not giving you shit, nor was it my intention. I am merely stating an obvious point which was being ignored.


We could argue all day long about that stuff and we wouldn't get anywhere. But just know that you are referring to things that happened nearly 100 years ago. It's not like MLs call for their respective countries to be transformed into 1930s Russia.Well, it occurred, whether you want to argue about it or not. I haven't said that any ML's supported these measures. It is clear to me, from other threads I have read, that many ML's WOULD restrict freedoms such as speech, press, assembly, etc. I am trying to clarify for you, and others, that the OP was referring to this type of authoritarianism. Not Engels' analysis of revolution as authoritarian (which I would argue--due to the fact that it is an oppressed group, which is also a majority, ending oppression by a minority. More or less ending an already authoritarian rule by the bourgeoisie. As well, it's point is to progress toward a classless society, therefor ending any authoritarian notion in that society).


Yeah, just like you said in your previous post which I chose not to reply to, if you want to tell me I misunderstood something then that's ok. But there is making a point and there is being rude, and right now almost everyone is being rude by interrupting the thread to call me out on one little thing I said.Ok?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Battlecat if you want any questions answering without all the ~revleft drama~ feel free to contact me directly

[Book O'Dead]

Socialism is inherently authoritarian. It is one class imposing its will on another. As the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" implies, socialism is authoritarianism of the majority.



Bullshit.

Socialism is the free association of the producers, in complete control of the means of production and democratically assembled for the purpose of managing their common economic activity.

Please go peddle that skewered and uninformed line about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" somewhere else.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Read the fucking thread you dim fool

[Book O'Dead]

Read the fucking thread you dim fool

I would if I could only get past chuckle-head phrases such as this:
"authoritarianism of the majority".

You guys kill me!