Authoritarian Socialism

[TrotskyTheGreat]

I have yet to see it work. Could someone explain to me how Authoritarian Socialism would work if all it brings is Authority, and creates even more powerful classes.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

For a start, what do you mean by authoritarian socialism, and what do you mean by "brings is authority"; and why would it create "more powerful classes"? If it would seek to create more powerful classes, it wouldn't be Socialism, would it?

[TrotskyTheGreat]

For a start, what do you mean by authoritarian socialism, and what do you mean by "brings is authority"; and why would it create "more powerful classes"? If it would seek to create more powerful classes, it wouldn't be Socialism, would it?


I mean Socialism that has leaders. Leaders have more power then others. And when there are leaders there is authority that people must follow. And leaders are not equal to the people. So how do we achieve Pure Communism and Anarchy when the state as Karl Marx said, is "The institution used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."?

[The Teacher]

Government, if it is to be tolerated at all, must give a minimum of power to the leaders and have a maximum of accountability from the people. Otherwise the result is tyranny and exploitation, period. To many dictators have told people that it was okay for them to have absolute authority because it furthers "The Cause." People with power never give it up voluntarily and this is a lesson not learned by people who believe in a dictatorship of the prolitariate. I could never support a dictatorship of anything, regardless of how it was aranged.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I mean Socialism that has leaders. Leaders have more power then others. And when there are leaders there is authority that people must follow. And leaders are not equal to the people. So how do we achieve Pure Communism and Anarchy when the state as Karl Marx said, is "The institution used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."?

Why is your name Trotsky-something, yet you sound like an anarchist?

Leaders are not a class, and can under circumstance be replaced, recalled. This all depends on the overall structure of society, not whether or not there are leaders. The workers must be informed, educated; if spontaneous an uprising against injustices in daily life might get nowhere, or to some measly cul-de-sac of reform; it is the duty of the party, as the representative and educator, the shaper of the future, to guide and thrust this momentum onwards. A personality cult is a trouble because it inhibits the collective leadership of the vanguard I'd definately say; it is important that the leadership is not dependent on the individuals therein, but the greater goal and difficult work thereto assigned.

Stalin and many other socialist "leaders" (surely the kind of which you are thinking) made the mistake of being far too populist, too "democratic"; they bent to temporary populist winds again and again, choosing to ignore any attempts to understand the material reality of those public reactions and rather satisfying the fleeting whims of old reactionary thought still persisting and surfacing then and now like the back of an ancient hideous whale.

The people? The workers, the proletariat; for to use the term "the people" is far too general; revolution is not for the good of the bourgeoisie, of the land-owners and investors, it is not for the good of those who benefit from the capitalist system; it is for the good for the toiling masses, the essential machinery-

Authority can take many forms. It is not necessarily in the form of direct dictates; do this, do that, society is shaped, the human mind is shaped by many a thing. It is essential to understand it, and to shape it, to light the fire with which the capitalist structure is to be burned down, it will not come about merely as a result of discontent, discontent can be quelled by the ingenious tricks of the capitalists, or channelled if they so wish, and we must not put ourselves above using the same tricks against them.

The leadership is not necessarily authoritarian. There are goals, the goals of socialism, and those best fit to lead that struggle will have to be the ones to lead it, whoever they may be, and they must be resolute and stead-fast in their urge, never wavering for some fleeting populist pull from the right, always certain, should they falter, they must be replaced.

[TrotskyTheGreat]

Why is your name Trotsky-something, yet you sound like an anarchist?

I am a former Trotskyist. I am a Anarcho-Communist now.


The people? The workers, the proletariat; for to use the term "the people" is far too general; revolution is not for the good of the bourgeoisie, of the land-owners and investors, it is not for the good of those who benefit from the capitalist system; it is for the good for the toiling masses, the essential machinery-


If believe in Equality for ALL (No militant fascists). And if the Capitalists are willing to lay down there arms and join us then I see no problem in allowing them a 2nd chance.

[Luís Henrique]

I mean Socialism that has leaders.

And since when is this the definition of "Authoritarian Socialism"?


Leaders have more power then others.

That's not necessarily true.


And when there are leaders there is authority that people must follow.

Leadership are not authority, and authority is not leadership.


And leaders are not equal to the people.

No two people are equal.

Leaders are just people who, by word or example, lead others in struggle. It does not imply they have any kind of privilege.


So how do we achieve Pure Communism and Anarchy

Let's keep ourselves far away from anything "pure", for it is usually an instrument of torture against human beings.


when the state as Karl Marx said, is "The institution used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."?

The State as it has been until now, the bourgeois State, not the State in abstract.

You can't destroy the old rule without fighting against it, and the fight requires instruments that are certainly not compatible with a new order. Killing the bourgeois isn't a communist thing, though doing it might be necessary to achieve communism.

The twin ideas that the State is an evil in itself, and therefore cannot be used to put an end to oppression, or that the State is a neutral instrument, that can be used to any end indifferently, fall short of the actual task, which is to use the State to put an end to bourgeois rule, and then put an end to the State itself.

Luís Henrique

[The Teacher]

The State, above all else, seeks to maintain its existence as an organization, because every individual that benefits from the State directly or indirectly is inncentivised to maintain it. The State has sufficient means to create and recreate itself in response to attempts at its destruction.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The State, above all else, seeks to maintain its existence as an organization, because every individual that benefits from the State directly or indirectly is inncentivised to maintain it. The State has sufficient means to create and recreate itself in response to attempts at its destruction.

The current bourgeoisie state structure is not the only "state", it is a pretty wide word that could mean any public management/coöperation structure, hierarchical or not.

Though, why is a social democrat opposing the state, I wonder...

[Old Mole]

I have yet to see it work. Could someone explain to me how Authoritarian Socialism would work if all it brings is Authority, and creates even more powerful classes.
A revolution is a very authoritarian thing, the huge majority of the people forces the minority to submit. And, as a Communist, I am all for workers' power, I want the working class to be powerful, to establish a DotP.

[TrotskyTheGreat]

A revolution is a very authoritarian thing, the huge majority of the people forces the minority to submit. And, as a Communist, I am all for workers' power, I want the working class to be powerful, to establish a DotP.


Political Revolution is Authoritarian. Social Revolution is not. There is more to Revolution then you think.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Political Revolution is Authoritarian. Social Revolution is not. There is more to Revolution then you think.

How do I have social revolution without political revolution? Does not make sense.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Political Revolution is Authoritarian. Social Revolution is not. There is more to Revolution then you think.
Socialism entails a political and a social revolution. Seizing any lasting power means seizing political power and revolutionising it

[Old Mole]

Political Revolution is Authoritarian. Social Revolution is not. There is more to Revolution then you think.
I have the same position in this issue as this guy:

"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"
/Engels, On Authority http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

[Agent Ducky]

I'm confused. Could someone help me out here? What's the definition of Authoritarian Socialism?

[TrotskyTheGreat]

You all should read Anarchist Morality By Peter Kropotkin

[TrotskyTheGreat]

Socialism entails a political and a social revolution. Seizing any lasting power means seizing political power and revolutionising it


I understand that, but that is why i am not a Socialist.

[Agent Ducky]

I understand that, but that is why i am not a Socialist.

Wait, you're an anarcho-communist but you're not a socialist?

Doesn't being any type of communist entail also being a socialist? :confused:

[TrotskyTheGreat]

Wait, you're an anarcho-communist but you're not a socialist?

Doesn't being any type of communist entail also being a socialist? :confused:


In Anarcho-Communist theory, you go Capitalism>Communism.

In Marxism you go Capitalism>Socialism>Communism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

In Anarcho-Communist theory, you go Capitalism>Communism.

In Marxism you go Capitalism>Socialism>Communism.

This is largely a semantic thing where "socialism" is used as a term for a transitory stage in the immediately post-revolutionary period rather than, as is also frequent among Marxists as well, being a synonym of end-communism.

[Agent Ducky]

In Anarcho-Communist theory, you go Capitalism>Communism.

In Marxism you go Capitalism>Socialism>Communism.

That's only if you define "socialism" as the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. It can also be defined as
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
Which is generally what people are saying they support when they call themselves "socialist." One who calls themself socialist does not necessarily need to support the Marxist "socialism" stage.

[TrotskyTheGreat]

That's only if you define "socialism" as the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. It can also be defined as
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
Which is generally what people are saying they support when they call themselves "socialist." One who calls themself socialist does not necessarily need to support the Marxist "socialism" stage.


Is socialism Anti-State?

[Lyev]

I dunno for sure, but I do not think that this is a consistent or fair weigh-up between anarchism and so-called "authoritarian socialism" (which seems to be a garbled understanding of Marxism, on your part [sorry, no offence!]). I do not think that Marxism looks at social relations in terms of some leaders 'having more power' than other people. Communism does not have any kind of 'morality' that I know of--you even mentioned Kropotkin's book, "Anarchist Morality".


I mean Socialism that has leaders. Leaders have more power then others. And when there are leaders there is authority that people must follow. And leaders are not equal to the people. So how do we achieve Pure Communism and Anarchy when the state as Karl Marx said, is "The institution used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."?Also, on the role of the state in the period of transition, the state, as such, loses its bourgeois character once the proletariat have raised themselves to the position of ruling class. Marx refers to the state as, firstly, a reactionary social form that reinforces or upholds class relations. Secondly he says when the working class has "organised itself as a class", for itself and independently; "conquered state power"; organised itself as the ruling class that this is the state. This is that famous passage in The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Therefore socialism as a separate mode of production, as a "lower stage" before fully-fledged communism in the Leninist sense, as a vanguard party in charge of the state through nationalised industry is not indeed equal to socialism, because the state still exists as it did under capitalism. There is sometimes some confusion over this. Am I clear or did this come out a bit fuzzy?

[TrotskyTheGreat]

Communism does not have any kind of 'morality' that I know of--you even mentioned Kropotkin's book, "Anarchist Morality".


Don't judge a book by its cover. You have the wrong idea about Anarchist Morality.

[Agent Ducky]

Is socialism Anti-State?

some schools of socialism are anti-state. One of those schools is *ahem* anarcho-communism. Which you claim to follow.

[Lyev]

Don't judge a book by its cover. You have the wrong idea about Anarchist Morality.I did not judge a book by its cover because I know very little else about this book apart from the title. I was not denying that anarchism has a morality; indeed, I am sure that it does: much of anarchist theory is firmly based in 'anti-authoritarianism', opposition to hierarchy etc. Also, if I have the wrong ideas about "Anarchist Morality", why don't you elucidate your ideas on the matter a little more, rather than just asserting something without any basis or further explanation.

[TrotskyTheGreat]

I did not judge a book by its cover because I know very little else about this book apart from the title. I was not denying that anarchism has a morality; indeed, I am sure that it does: much of anarchist theory is firmly based in 'anti-authoritarianism', opposition to hierarchy etc. Also, if I have the wrong ideas about "Anarchist Morality", why don't you elucidate your ideas on the matter a little more, rather than just asserting something without any basis or further explanation.

Lol, I meant read it.

[Thirsty Crow]

In Anarcho-Communist theory, you go Capitalism>Communism.

In Marxism you go Capitalism>Socialism>Communism.
That's not true, in fact.

What happened with Marxism is that this specific body of theory has undergone significant changes, mostly coming from the Soviet Union. One of these (revisions) includes the idea of an intermediary historical period and a specific mode of production, separate from both communism and capitalism, called "socialism". This has nothing to do with Marx's writings and "Marxism" as it had been developing from the creation of the First International. Marx used the term interchangably, and these signified a classless society in which capital as a social relation is abolished, as well as money as a universal commodity equivalent.

Another of these ideas, which ties in with the one briefly described above, is the idea of socialism in one country, where "socialism" is taken to mean a society in which there are no antagonistic classes left. Though, as an ex trot you probably know something about that little gem of flawless theory (producing flawless practice)

[TrotskyTheGreat]

That's not true, in fact.

What happened with Marxism is that this specific body of theory has undergone significant changes, mostly coming from the Soviet Union. One of these (revisions) includes the idea of an intermediary historical period and a specific mode of production, separate from both communism and capitalism, called "socialism". This has nothing to do with Marx's writings and "Marxism" as it had been developing from the creation of the First International. Marx used the term interchangeably, and these signified a classless society in which capital as a social relation is abolished, as well as money as a universal commodity equivalent.

Another of these ideas, which ties in with the one briefly described above, is the idea of socialism in one country, where "socialism" is taken to mean a society in which there are no antagonistic classes left. Though, as an ex trot you probably know something about that little gem of flawless theory (producing flawless practice)

I did not say it was flawless. I don't believe anything will work all theory is pointless. Although I love to dream and talk about it. But no matter what happens it will return to the old regime.

[Thirsty Crow]

I did not say it was flawless. I don't believe anything will work all theory is pointless. Although I love to dream and talk about it. But no matter what happens it will return to the old regime.
This does not have anything to do with the simplified schematics ou proposed for distinguishing between anarchism and marxism.
The formula, "capitalism-socialism-communism" is wrong, and there are variants of Marxism which do not uphold it, as I've said. You're wrong if you think that all Marxists hold such a view.

And why so pessimistic?

[TrotskyTheGreat]

This does not have anything to do with the simplified schematics ou proposed for distinguishing between anarchism and marxism.
The formula, "capitalism-socialism-communism" is wrong, and there are variants of Marxism which do not uphold it, as I've said. You're wrong if you think that all Marxists hold such a view.

And why so pessimistic?


EINS. i did not say all marxist think that formula.

ZWEI. Did you ever read George Orwell's book Animal Farm?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Personally I use words interchangeably when addressing other leftists because as long as the context is clear they are going to know what exactly I am talking about.

Regardless, I still think anarchists, even if they do claim that they are not socialists (despite being Communists?) are in favour of political revolution, and that a political revolution that is carried out and upheld by the majority is going to have some authoritarian tendencies. At least that is the case with any anarchists I know

Also, lol @ TrotskyTheGreat's location...."Socialist World Republik".

[TrotskyTheGreat]

Also, lol @ TrotskyTheGreat's location...."Socialist World Republik".


its from a song. i never use my real location

[Spawn of Stalin]

ZWEI. Did you ever read George Orwell's book Animal Farm?
I did, and I really think that regardless of what you think of certain authoritarian regimes past and present that it is ridiculous that people still treat these books like prophecies to the point where they say things like "no matter what happens it will return to the old regime".

George Orwell =/= God

[Thirsty Crow]

EINS. i did not say all marxist think that formula.
You did, in fact:


In Anarcho-Communist theory, you go Capitalism>Communism.

In Marxism you go Capitalism>Socialism>Communism.

See, here you distinguish between Marxism and anarcho-communism according to the criterion of the transitional society, a separate mode of production, "socialism".


ZWEI. Did you ever read George Orwell's book Animal Farm?Unfortunately, I have. Orwell is a rather poor storyteller.
And yes, this dystopian fable has been modelled on the historical experience of counter-revolution in Russia. Why do you think that it represents eternal truths?

[TrotskyTheGreat]

Why do you think that it represents eternal truths?

It seems to me like every nation has some type of change and then some time later it returns to the previous state in its history.

[Thirsty Crow]

It seems to me like every nation has some type of change and then some time later it returns to the previous state in its history.
Did Germany "recreate" the material conditions necessary for the sustained rule of the junker class? Did France reintroduce the monarchy? Was feudalism reinstated anywhere once it was surpassed by the capitalist mode of production?

[TrotskyTheGreat]

Did Germany "recreate" the material conditions necessary for the sustained rule of the junker class? Did France reintroduce the monarchy? Was feudalism reinstated anywhere once it was surpassed by the capitalist mode of production?


Not exactly what i meant. I mean there is a change that happens the rids the nation of something and in some way some how it returns. Ex: Russia, they rid the Czar and Lenin comes in and uses the same tactics to stay in control. Argo it returns to a previous state in there history. Oppression returns, when they just got rid of it.

[Spawn of Stalin]

:) you Stalinists are all the same.
You might have an argument if you could back up your religious outlook on revolution and counter-revolution

It seems to me like every nation has some type of change and then some time later it returns to the previous state in its history.
This is simply false, and even if it were true why would an anti-authoritarian position prevent the same thing happening?

[Impulse97]

How do I have social revolution without political revolution? Does not make sense.

Think of the Counter Culture in the sixties. Social changes where widespread, but poltical one's where scarcer. In short, you can have social revolution, you simply cannot have a social revolution without a corresponding political one in the Marxist sense.


:) you Stalinists are all the same.

Hooray for generalizations and faslehoods.


I don't want to play this game no more. I think teh answer for me is suicide.

Only, because you have yet to provide a decent argument or rebuttal.

[Wanted Man]

Trashed spam posts. Please try to maintain some semblance of a discussion.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm confused. Could someone help me out here? What's the definition of Authoritarian Socialism?

An "authoritarian socialist" is something no one claims to be. In other words, this is a mere label to stick into those you disagree with.

Luís Henrique

[chegitz guevara]

Stalin and many other socialist "leaders" (surely the kind of which you are thinking) made the mistake of being far too populist, too "democratic"; they bent to temporary populist winds again and again, choosing to ignore any attempts to understand the material reality of those public reactions and rather satisfying the fleeting whims of old reactionary thought still persisting and surfacing then and now like the back of an ancient hideous whale.

I pray to a non-existent God that people like you do not win the revolution.

[Thirsty Crow]

I pray to a non-existent God that people like you do not win the revolution.
That's were purges kick in. The only kind I'd support (plus throwing out recently "discovered" social democrats).

[Lyev]

Lol, I meant read it.The attitude of "LOL read it" is not particularly conducive to a rewarding discussion or debate. Rather than telling me to simply read a book, why don't you give us a brief overview of the arguments found in said text, or explain a bit more as regards why you believe socialism should have any kind of morality. I am not sure, but I think you are putting too much emphasis on "revolutionary subjectivity". From my view, the working class does not make the decision to take control of production through any kind of moral objection to hierarchy or capitalism's economy, but because the class is compelled to; through a selfish desire to reassert its species-being. Even a simply cursory study of the history of workers' movements in the past two centuries will vindicate this view, I think. There are no morals that enter into that; your view seems to border on utopianism. Although, maybe I am misinterpreting your position or inferring too much from too little. If so, I apologise--maybe you could clarify? Am I challenging a position that is not yours?


Think of the Counter Culture in the sixties. Social changes where widespread, but poltical one's where scarcer. In short, you can have social revolution, you simply cannot have a social revolution without a corresponding political one in the Marxist sense.This has nothing to with "revolution" in the sense that Marx meant. It is talked about as a 'revolution of love' or some other hippy kind of phrase; but a social revolution constitutes overhauling the antecedent mode of production and doing away with capitalism and, from its ashes, building a new truly human society (communism). The "counter culture of the sixties" was nothing of the sort. It was not a social or political "revolution" in the slightest. Social revolution is where one class is overthrown by another; it is not getting stoned and putting your flowers in your hair. I think it is accurate to say that "the counter culture" of the '60s was a widespread social movement, but it certainly did not attempt to transcend capital through working class self-activity.

[Mr. Natural]

Socialism/communism/anarchism must be organized from the bottom up, as is life. Leaders of such systems will be rooted in popular levels.

In life, lower elements of a system self-organize in a manner that creates an overarching global organization. The organization of a living system thus goes round and round, but this organization originates in its grassroots.

Mr. Natural says, Let's get natural!

[Impulse97]

This has nothing to with "revolution" in the sense that Marx meant. It is talked about as a 'revolution of love' or some other hippy kind of phrase; but a social revolution constitutes overhauling the antecedent mode of production and doing away with capitalism and, from its ashes, building a new truly human society (communism). The "counter culture of the sixties" was nothing of the sort. It was not a social or political "revolution" in the slightest. Social revolution is where one class is overthrown by another; it is not getting stoned and putting your flowers in your hair. I think it is accurate to say that "the counter culture" of the '60s was a widespread social movement, but it certainly did not attempt to transcend capital through working class self-activity.


You misunderstand. I didn't try to say that the counterculture was a Marxist revolution or even one that could have change class structures. What I meant was that is was a social revolution in that it radically changed our social outlook and life. To have a Marxist revolution you need a social revolution combined with a political revolution. Obviously, a Marxist social revolution would not look like the hippes of the 60's. But, it is possible to have a social revolution without a political one to coincide, but not a Marxist social revolution.

[Lyev]

You misunderstand. I didn't try to say that the counterculture was a Marxist revolution or even one that could have change class structures. What I meant was that is was a social revolution in that it radically changed our social outlook and life. To have a Marxist revolution you need a social revolution combined with a political revolution. Obviously, a Marxist social revolution would not look like the hippes of the 60's. But, it is possible to have a social revolution without a political one to coincide, but not a Marxist social revolution.It is no wonder that a "Libertarian Socialist" applying for the APL has a confused understanding of socialism and revolution. People talk about the social movement of the sixties as a kind of 'revolution' but this is in the same sense that Jamie Oliver has a food revolution TV programme (http://www.jamieoliver.com/foundation/jamies-food-revolution/), or in the same way that the Co-op asks consumers to "join the revolution" (http://www.co-operative.coop/join-the-revolution/). In a word, it is meaningless, and not a particularly helpful use of the word either, for Marxists.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I pray to a non-existent God that people like you do not win the revolution.

So when the Stalin administration, to satisfy the desires of some reactionary elements in society, chose to bring back laws against homosexuality, it was a good thing?

[Impulse97]

It is no wonder that a "Libertarian Socialist" applying for the APL has a confused understanding of socialism and revolution. People talk about the social movement of the sixties as a kind of 'revolution' but this is in the same sense that Jamie Oliver has a food revolution TV programme (http://www.jamieoliver.com/foundation/jamies-food-revolution/), or in the same way that the Co-op asks consumers to "join the revolution" (http://www.co-operative.coop/join-the-revolution/). In a word, it is meaningless, and not a particularly helpful use of the word either, for Marxists.

Okay, so I don't update my profile info all that often. Glad you where able to get a red herring out of it.

A revolution isn't specific to Marxism, so why should it's meaning be? A 'revolution' or something that is 'revolutionary' does not always have to overthrow capitalism. Hell, a blender could be called 'revolutionary' because it blends in a way that is radically different from past blenders.

Not sure why your on a mission to rid us of non marxist definitions to the word revolution, but each to his own I guess.

To be honest I'm bored with this tangent of the discussion. Anyone care to post on topic?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

A revolution isn't specific to Marxism, so why should it's meaning be? A 'revolution' or something that is 'revolutionary' does not always have to overthrow capitalism. Hell, a blender could be called 'revolutionary' because it blends in a way that is radically different from past blenders.

A word can have several meanings, but I think it is assumed that when we say "political revolution" or "social revolution", we don't mean it's just because hippies put flowers in their hair and preach about peace on earth, man.

Not to mention, I don't think Lyev meant to suggest that only overthrowing capitalism is revolution, after all, the French revolution was certainly nothing of the sort, yet, it is regarded as a revolution, so on so forth.

[Klaatu]

Authority and leadership is kind of like your boss at your job. He/she may have authority over you, and (should) provide leadership, but even he/she, in turn, has a boss. In a democracy, that ultimate "boss" is the people.

[Impulse97]

'Ole Engels to the rescue.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Read this and thought it did a pretty good job on authority, which I think lays the groundwork for the two sides (Authoritarian and anti Auth.).

[miltonwasfried...man]

I do not believe authoritarian socialism is in the best interest of the proletariat or much better than our current capitalist system. It would merely be exchanging one master for another, when the idea should be to achieve freedom. Equality without liberty is a hollow shell.

[chegitz guevara]

So when the Stalin administration, to satisfy the desires of some reactionary elements in society, chose to bring back laws against homosexuality, it was a good thing?

I deny it has anything to do with democracy or being too democratic.

[Leftsolidarity]

I know this is from the first page but this really bothered me.


People with power never give it up voluntarily and this is a lesson not learned by people who believe in a dictatorship of the prolitariate. I could never support a dictatorship of anything, regardless of how it was aranged.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is MUCH different than the dictatorship of say one person. We have the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie right now. It is the dictatorship of a class not individuals. It is the working class deciding how things are to be run democratically. That is why some refer to it as a democratic dictatorship.

[Lyev]

Okay, so I don't update my profile info all that often. Glad you where able to get a red herring out of it.

A revolution isn't specific to Marxism, so why should it's meaning be? A 'revolution' or something that is 'revolutionary' does not always have to overthrow capitalism. Hell, a blender could be called 'revolutionary' because it blends in a way that is radically different from past blenders.

Not sure why your on a mission to rid us of non marxist definitions to the word revolution, but each to his own I guess.

To be honest I'm bored with this tangent of the discussion. Anyone care to post on topic?Well I would expect, since this is a website for Marxists and anarchists, that we would endeavor to avoid referring to blenders as "revolutionary" because it completely abstracts the concept from its originally radical meaning. It has been well and truly recuperated when it is used in advertising and mass media like that. We should question why these words are used in this way; why they are taken out of a subversive context, and why they are culturally appropiated for use in bourgeois ideology. Perhaps your request for us to get back "on topic" shows that even you know that what you said was kinda stupid (no offence), and now you've argued yourself into a corner.

[Struggle]

I have yet to see it work. Could someone explain to me how Authoritarian Socialism would work if all it brings is Authority, and creates even more powerful classes.

Before I respond specifically to your question - which you seem to be trying to prove a point rather than genuinely searching for the answer.

Trotsky was radically in favour of Authoritarianism, as was Lenin, Stalin and every other leader that saw the realisation of any revolution. I hope you have not fallen for the opportunist tactics pursued by some Trotskyist movements – that is; trying to portray Trotsky as the democratic alternative to the ‘authoritarian bureaucratic movements of the past’.

With that said, authoritarianism is a necessary stage to achieving Socialism. Without leadership, a revolution will not be achieved nor a contending military force defeated. Imperialists love the anarchistic styled revolutionaries growing from within the left; because they themselves, as military tacticians, know these tactical methods cannot be a threat to the status quo. Ironically, Trotsky saw this and was the main force for implementing authoritarianism more thoroughly within the military during the Russian Civil War. In 1917, he also began to uphold the Vanguard theory along with Lenin; another form of Authoritarianism.

“In order to assist the uprising of workmen in Poland, Germany, and all Europe, we must establish definitely and irrefutably the Soviet authority over the whole extent of Russia.” – Trotsky; http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/04/army.htm

“No wonder the war was called an examination to the people. Of course, war itself is a great barbarity, and all Socialists are bent upon its extermination. But it must be overcome; that is, circumstances must be changed so that war will become not only needless but impossible. The people cannot leap over war instantly, surrounded by the jackals of imperialism, until the mad teeth are jerked out of the mouths of these jackals. And if the people are forced to wage war, then in its capability of defense, battle and attack all the resources of the people are shown: its economic power, its strength of organization, the spiritual average of its masses, the amount of material for leadership” – Trotsky: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/xx/redarmy.htm

“Universal and compulsory military training of the entire population of Russia. Every worker and peasant must devote a certain nurnber of hours every day to military study. We must invite to serve as instructors experienced old soldiers, non commissioned officers and members of the old commanding apparatus.” – Trotsky: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch09.htm

There is much more to show of Trotsky’s authoritarianism at http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/index.htm.

I want to note; I am not against Authoritarianism or to a large extent, Trotsky. What I am against are many of the followers of Trotsky, who do Trotsky a disservice via their arguments, approaches and their deceptive tactics on trying to trick people into upholding Trotsky as opposed to theories from other revolutionaries.

[TrotskyTheGreat]

Before I respond specifically to your question - which you seem to be trying to prove a point rather than genuinely searching for the answer.

Trotsky was radically in favour of Authoritarianism, as was Lenin, Stalin and every other leader that saw the realisation of any revolution. I hope you have not fallen for the opportunist tactics pursued by some Trotskyist movements – that is; trying to portray Trotsky as the democratic alternative to the ‘authoritarian bureaucratic movements of the past’.

With that said, authoritarianism is a necessary stage to achieving Socialism. Without leadership, a revolution will not be achieved nor a contending military force defeated. Imperialists love the anarchistic styled revolutionaries growing from within the left; because they themselves, as military tacticians, know these tactical methods cannot be a threat to the status quo. Ironically, Trotsky saw this and was the main force for implementing authoritarianism more thoroughly within the military during the Russian Civil War. In 1917, he also began to uphold the Vanguard theory along with Lenin; another form of Authoritarianism.

“In order to assist the uprising of workmen in Poland, Germany, and all Europe, we must establish definitely and irrefutably the Soviet authority over the whole extent of Russia.” – Trotsky; http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/04/army.htm

“No wonder the war was called an examination to the people. Of course, war itself is a great barbarity, and all Socialists are bent upon its extermination. But it must be overcome; that is, circumstances must be changed so that war will become not only needless but impossible. The people cannot leap over war instantly, surrounded by the jackals of imperialism, until the mad teeth are jerked out of the mouths of these jackals. And if the people are forced to wage war, then in its capability of defense, battle and attack all the resources of the people are shown: its economic power, its strength of organization, the spiritual average of its masses, the amount of material for leadership” – Trotsky: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/xx/redarmy.htm

“Universal and compulsory military training of the entire population of Russia. Every worker and peasant must devote a certain nurnber of hours every day to military study. We must invite to serve as instructors experienced old soldiers, non commissioned officers and members of the old commanding apparatus.” – Trotsky: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch09.htm

There is much more to show of Trotsky’s authoritarianism at http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/index.htm.

I want to note; I am not against Authoritarianism or to a large extent, Trotsky. What I am against are many of the followers of Trotsky, who do Trotsky a disservice via their arguments, approaches and their deceptive tactics on trying to trick people into upholding Trotsky as opposed to theories from other revolutionaries.

I am not a Trotskyist.

[Agent Equality]

Authoritarian socialism will never work. Period. Unless the leader is the Son of God and loves and cares for all, it will not work.

[Impulse97]

Perhaps your request for us to get back "on topic" shows that even you know that what you said was kinda stupid (no offence), and now you've argued yourself into a corner.

Well, so much for being discreet... :blushing: :lol:

[Klaatu]

Authoritarian socialism will never work. Period. Unless the leader is the Son of God and loves and cares for all, it will not work.

I am wondering if some sort of mild or weak form of authority should be there, you know, just to keep things organized. Kind of like having a supervisor at work, to coordinate everything and make sure things run smoothly. Of course, these managers are elected, and are subject to the will of the people, and do not hold any sort of dictatorial powers at all. And there could be no danger of such an individual seizing power or something like that. There would be checks and balances, and private money would be forbidden (the kind of "private money" that is doing a fine job of corrupting the present American system right to the core.)

I was speaking today with my neighbor, who had immigrated here from Yugoslavia several years ago. He complained about the bribery and corruption (in our American Capitalist system) He said: "I left the old country to get away from corruption, and now look, corruption is right here in the country where "the streets are supposed to be paved with gold..." (the average man is screwed because the wealthy own the place)

[W1N5T0N]

The more power you give, the less power you have.
The more power many people give, the more power a few people have.
Therefore, with the centralisation of power, the people lose it's power, and henceforth all grip on development, choices and life.