Marxism: Authoritarian or Libertarian?

[Nikolay]

Would you define Marxism as a authoritarian ideology or a libertarian one? If Marxism was the governing ideology of the workers' state. I am just curious because Marxism-Leninism seemed quite authoritarian in the Soviet Union, and you'd assume Marxism would be the same, but I have my doubts..

[Rooster]

It's an ideology of liberation. I have no idea why you would assume that Marx would agree with what went on in the USSR. I doubt he'd be at all happy with them using his name in such a way. Pretty sure Marx would have an issue with the forced labour and the strict labour discipline, the forced division of labour, the great immiseration of the populace, and what not.

[Psy]

Would you define Marxism as a authoritarian ideology or a libertarian one? If Marxism was the governing ideology of the workers' state. I am just curious because Marxism-Leninism seemed quite authoritarian in the Soviet Union, and you'd assume Marxism would be the same, but I have my doubts..
Well the state is suppose to wither away as worker run society changes the material reasons for the state.

[Iron Felix]

Depends on the current of Marxism you're talking about. The Statist currents, like Bolshevism and Trotskyism, can be easily described as Authoritarian. But the anti-Statist currents, like Luxemburg's variant, also Pannekoek's Council Communism. All of the 4 variants of Marxism are indeed Marcism but 2 are "Authoritarian" and the other 2 are "Libertarian".

[Void]

Real liberty via proletarian dictatorship = kind of authority...

[Nikolay]

Depends on the current of Marxism you're talking about. The Statist currents, like Bolshevism and Trotskyism, can be easily described as Authoritarian. But the anti-Statist currents, like Luxemburg's variant, also Pannekoek's Council Communism. All of the 4 variants of Marxism are indeed Marcism but 2 are "Authoritarian" and the other 2 are "Libertarian".

I'm talking about classical Marxism, the original Marxism that Marx created.

[runequester]

It'll be libertarian in the end. It may be authoritarian during a revolution.

[The Man]

it'll be libertarian in the end. It may be authoritarian during a revolution.

ding ding ding ding ding!

[Rooster]

There's a difference between removing classes by dissolving classes through the actions of the concious proletariat, quite another by enforcing it through class rule a la the state. To say that the way Marxist-Leninists offer is the correct way and that the path made by the Stalinst mode is socialist is complete and utter bollocks. Because I'm sure Marxism means the prosecution of women who miss work because they have a sick breast-fed baby at home, women who's baby-minders run off leaving them with no option, giving people three months imprisonment for being absent, after producing a medical certificate proving an attack of malaria, and so on and so forth, all for the sake of increasing workers discipline and for the accumulation of an already slackening of capital after the peasants had been ransacked.

[Aurora]

Neither, i wouldn't describe anything as authoritarian or libertarian as they're bullshit terms which don't mean anything.

edit: Marxists don't have some abstract view of 'liberty' or 'authority' the only way these terms mean anything is if we ground them with an analysis of class and the struggle between classes, without this they're just words liberals throw at things they like/dislike.

[runequester]

There's a difference between removing classes by dissolving classes through the actions of the concious proletariat, quite another by enforcing it through class rule a la the state. To say that the way Marxist-Leninists offer is the correct way and that the path made by the Stalinst mode is socialist is complete and utter bollocks. Because I'm sure Marxism means the prosecution of women who miss work because they have a sick breast-fed baby at home, women who's baby-minders run off leaving them with no option, giving people three months imprisonment for being absent, after producing a medical certificate proving an attack of malaria, and so on and so forth, all for the sake of increasing workers discipline and for the accumulation of an already slackening of capital after the peasants had been ransacked.

Every time a communist whines about Stalin, a kitten dies.

[Kadir Ateş]

I don't understand the connection between authoritarianism and Marxism. So I would say no, it is not "authoritarian" in the slightest.

[Rooster]

Every time a communist whines about Stalin, a kitten dies.

You could contribute or keep your mouth shut.

[Le Socialiste]

It'll be libertarian in the end. It may be authoritarian during a revolution.

How is that even possible? While certain measures are certainly needed during a revolutionary period, authoritarianism still serves to stifle dissent and subvert popular discourse in favor of a ruling authority. A transitional period under such circumstances is unlikely, to say the very least.


Neither, i wouldn't describe anything as authoritarian or libertarian as they're bullshit terms which don't mean anything.

edit: Marxists don't have some abstract view of 'liberty' or 'authority' the only way these terms mean anything is if we ground them with an analysis of class and the struggle between classes, without this they're just words liberals throw at things they like/dislike.

These terms do have meaning, as they denote the relationship between classes and leadership. Of course, their full meaning springs from an analysis of the class system and the struggle between its opposing interests, but to say these words don't carry much weight (i.e. liberal insults) isn't entirely accurate.

[Aurora]

These terms do have meaning, as they denote the relationship between classes and leadership. Of course, their full meaning springs from an analysis of the class system and the struggle between its opposing interests, but to say these words don't carry much weight (i.e. liberal insults) isn't entirely accurate.
So to go back to the OP's question, is Marxism authoritarian or libertarian?

[promethean]

Would you define Marxism as a authoritarian ideology or a libertarian one? If Marxism was the governing ideology of the workers' state. I am just curious because Marxism-Leninism seemed quite authoritarian in the Soviet Union, and you'd assume Marxism would be the same, but I have my doubts..
Marxism-Leninism is just another term for the official mythology of some bourgeois states. It has nothing to do with Marxism or socialism.

Also, libertarian is just another term for anarchist. So, if you are asking if Marxism is anarchism then, no. It is Marxism. Marxism cannot be described either as authoritarian or libertarian.

But, Luxemburg cannot be called a libertarian in the slightest. During the Zimmerwald Conference in 1915, organised by those who wanted to break with social democracy following the betrayal of the SPD, she was part of the centrist current who wanted to reconquer the SPD while Lenin and the bolsheviks formed part of the left-wing. Later, when she joined the USPD along with the other Spartakists including Liebknecht and Jogisches, her main concern was to reconquer the SPD for the masses. Finally, after leaving the USPD and forming the KPD in 1918, her desire was to once again reconquer the USPD and purge it of social democratic elements. Luxemburg and the Spartakists were for the most part opposed to the ideas of Pannekoek and Gorter, who did not want to have anything to do social democracy or reconquer the bureaucratic "mass" parties.

Neither Gorter nor Pannekoek can be accurately described as libertarian. Gorter, in forming the KAPD in 1920, formed as a split after the attempted Bolshevisation of the KPD, advocated a party that acted as a "nucleus, hard as steel and pure as crystal". Pannekoek also held a similar view till the 1930s. The KAPD, for most of its short existence, functioned as a party that advocated the forming of worker councils.

If we were to look for an anti-party current originating in the KAPD, it would be the AAUD-E that formed around Otto Ruhle.

[black magick hustla]

authoritarianism and libertarianism are terms imported by anarchism. they dont exist in marxist conceptual framework. for example "libertarian marxists" is just a term for marxists anarchos like. most "libertarian marxists" were really critical about anarchism and would never self identify like that.

[Agent Equality]

Well it really has to do with hierarchy and its role in the tendency. Obviously hierarchy and power is very critical to currents such as M-Lism, Trotskyism, and various other authoritarian tendencies. This hierarchy usually plays out in the form of a "vanguard" party or just a "vanguard". This vanguard, whether or not they deny it, is a form of hierarchy and certainly creates hierarchical social relations. Thus when someone is above the other in the hierarchy, they have more power over theme, They want to keep this power so they form organizations and institutions to consolidate and keep this power (i.e. bureaucracies, states, corporations,) etc. etc. = authoritarianism.

I wouldn't necessarily say classical Marxism is authoritarian (at least not that much) seeing as how it subscribes to the idea of an ending of hierarchy as anarchism and other tendencies do. Although I could be completely mistaken on my view of classical Marxism. The Party apparatus is also (usually) absent from classical Marxism, so that takes away a form of hierarchy.

But I suppose it really depends on the Marxists themselves. If they want to establish a reversed hierarchical society in which the majority of people are above a small minority (the former bourgeois), then yes, they are authoritarian, and in my opinion completely working against what communism is supposed to be. It is understandable that the bourgeois are not to be liked. But the goal should be the end to all oppressive, exploitative, hierarchical relations. The authoritarians here do not understand the concept of hierarchy and power and how it pertains to human relations. Those at the top of the hierarchy will always want to stay there. We know this much just from Capitalism. The re-institution of hierarchy will never get rid of the problem. There can never be equality, fairness, freedom, solidarity if there is hierarchy and hierarchical relations.

This is a good video on hierarchy and power and how its affected humanity from the get go. NWUKhNzmXsU

[black magick hustla]

Well it really has to do with hierarchy and its role in the tendency. Obviously hierarchy and power is very critical to currents such as M-Lism, Trotskyism, and various other authoritarian tendencies. This hierarchy usually plays out in the form of a "vanguard" party or just a "vanguard". This vanguard, whether or not they deny it, is a form of hierarchy and certainly creates hierarchical social relations. Thus when someone is above the other in the hierarchy, they have more power over theme, They want to keep this power so they form organizations and institutions to consolidate and keep this power (i.e. bureaucracies, states, corporations,) etc. etc. = authoritarianism.

but this is the same with "anarchism" really. i dont think one can avoid stratification by sheer voluntarism. the anarchists had their own, large bureacratic organizations, and today anarchists that are organized have federalism and "unity of action, unity of theory" thing going on too. the informal anarchist groups are instead dominated by charismatic personalities, where non formalism makes all sort of nasty things like gender stratification and race stratification filter in because there is no sort of accountability.


i think a lot of anarchists have a lot of deadweight from liberalism where the mantra is that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" or whatever, while it has always been a question of class and not of conscious decision. for example, a lot of anarchists see the defeat of the russian revolutionas a matter of leninist ideology or whatever, i think the issue is more complex than people holding "authoritarian ideas". its like when deranged secular humanists argue the world is bad because of religion.

[thefinalmarch]

Communist revolution involves the exertion of the authority of the entire working class on all the other classes in society.

Make what you will of that.

[thefinalmarch]

This is a good video on hierarchy and power and how its affected humanity from the get go. NWUKhNzmXsU
I read the title and decided not to bother with this moralistic crap.

[Agent Equality]

but this is the same with "anarchism" really. i dont think one can avoid stratification by sheer voluntarism. the anarchists had their own, large bureacratic organizations, and today anarchists that are organized have federalism and "unity of action, unity of theory" thing going on too. the informal anarchist groups are instead dominated by charismatic personalities, where non formalism makes all sort of nasty things like gender stratification and race stratification filter in because there is no sort of accountability.


i think a lot of anarchists have a lot of deadweight from liberalism where the mantra is that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" or whatever, while it has always been a question of class and not of conscious decision. for example, a lot of anarchists see the defeat of the russian revolutionas a matter of leninist ideology or whatever, i think the issue is more complex than people holding "authoritarian ideas". its like when deranged secular humanists argue the world is bad because of religion.

Well it really derives from where people see each other. If you view everyone else with the same amount of respect and equality, then obviously you'll have a better society than one where say, you have to address party bureaucrats as your superiors. Even if someone is charismatic, its all about how people view other people. If the charismatic fuckers don't let anyone else talk then to hell with them. They aren't better than anyone else. But usually they just help organize and educate. Organization is not the same as power. Anarchists have at times used a "vanguard", but not in the way, and not for the same reason, that authoritarians/ML's have used.

Both sides have different connotations of the word vanguard. The libertarian form simply means organization and education. The authoritarian form means that they make decisions for the people and lead them (more or less so)

I've seen countless exclamations by numerous stalin/Hoxha/Mao/insertrandomdemigodofsocialismhere- kiddies claim that the workers had democratic control under the leadership of the glorious vanguard of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And then they'll throw around some more "revolutionary terms" to make it sound as if it was actually something akin to socialism.

when really what they meant was :

"The party controlled virtually every aspect of the workers lives and they had almost no autonomy whatsoever, but this would be bad to say so we'll use some traditional marxist rhetoric to make is sound appealing!"

Anarchism and libertarian socialism(and its tendencies) want to end authority and the concentration and abuse of power and hierarchy. That doesn't mean its chaos or that we want chaos at all.


I read the title and decided not to bother with this moralistic crap.

I know I saw it too and was skeptical, but it does offer a detailed analysis on power and hierarch.

[thefinalmarch]

(i.e. bureaucracies, states, corporations,) etc. etc. = authoritarianism.
Actually this is one of the main things I have against anarchism and anarchists. They often lack significant class analysis, instead lumping all class dictatorships together as merely "authoritarian" systems. I've known many anarchists, and yes I'm using an anecdote here, to see literally no difference between the dictatorship of the feudal aristocracy, and that of the bourgeoisie other than that feudal aristocracies were generally absolute monarchies. Anarchists often miss the material and economic basis of power (class struggle, and so and and so forth), instead basing their philosophy around "power" and "authority" as if it manifested itself from thin air.

[DeBon]

It's silly and contracting to address Marxism as some authoritarian idea, seeing as Marx wasn't a fan of the police, soldiers, or the state. When you mix authoritarian ideas with Marxist ideas you get nothing more than a new regime with an agenda to strip you of your rights.

inb4 I'm a kitten killer

[Agent Equality]

Actually this is one of the main things I have against anarchism and anarchists. They often lack significant class analysis, instead lumping all class dictatorships together as merely "authoritarian" systems. I've known many anarchists, and yes I'm using an anecdote here, to see literally no difference between the dictatorship of the feudal aristocracy, and that of the bourgeoisie other than that feudal aristocracies were generally absolute monarchies. Anarchists often miss the material and economic basis of power (class struggle, and so and and so forth), instead basing their philosophy around "power" and "authority" as if it manifested itself from thin air.

Well I'm simply addressing the issue that there are some on this forum who would wish that a dictatorship of the proletariat always stay a dictatorship of the proletariat (literally speaking) and pretty much never seem to want to move on to actual communism. They become so complacent as to forget that what they actually want is communism.

Sorry though, I may have overstepped my boundaries there a bit. :D I wasn't trying to base my argument around power and authority so much as I was trying to base hierarchy's affect on it and how it has so often influenced, and ruined, what could have been good attempts at socialism. I was just trying to state hierarchy's role, not trying to completely ignore the material conditions that also influence power and authority.

[postanarchism]

The more important question would be: after reading Marx, what do you think? I would say reading Marx with a libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy in mind is a pointless endeavor. Marx did not conceptualize, at least not extensively, the power of states and classes in these terms. When Marx writes about power he's more interested in describing the 'how is' not 'how should'.

I think Marx realized that power does not act as it should but as it must to reproduce itself. Therefore, he never wrote about how proletarian power should act. He does not conceive of post-capitalist political power as 'libertarian' or 'authoritarian' because he thinks the working class will figure out the use of power for itself through practical experience--not theoretical constructs.

Now, there's all kinds of difficulties with conceiving power this way but that is the subject of different discussion.

[Pretty Flaco]

I think it'd be useful for this topic if "authoritarian" and "libertarian" were defined by the OP

[Rocky Rococo]

I'm talking about classical Marxism, the original Marxism that Marx created.

IIRC, when questioned about it, Marx said something to the effect of "If this is Marxism, I am certainly no Marxist."

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You've got the context wrong, though.

[Rocky Rococo]

^^^ You've got the context wrong, though.

No doubt, but as somebody else once pointed out, if I can't dance I don't want to be part of the revolution. :)

[Thirsty Crow]

Well the state is suppose to wither away as worker run society changes the material reasons for the state.
The state, in its function of economic administration, will not wither away until the social division of labour is transcended, and with it a plethora of its effects that are also manifest in specific institutions (such as the educational system).
Of course, this depends on the very practice of state apparatuses funtioning as parts of economic administration.

[Nikolay]

I think it'd be useful for this topic if "authoritarian" and "libertarian" were defined by the OP

What I mean is when the socialist state is created (after the revolution), would the new Marxist government govern in a more authoritarian way, or a more libertarian way.

So if it was authoritarian would it govern like the Soviets (but it seems like most of you agree that this isn't the case), or what have you. Or would it govern with having the people with the most power in decision making.

[runequester]

You could contribute or keep your mouth shut.

It always amazes me how willing internet communists are to be hung up on Stalin as the be all and end all of real world communism, despite him being involved in barely a third of the history of the USSR.

Instead, they choose to define themselves purely in terms of what they were told by their capitalist overlords.

Wishing for fairytales will achieve nothing comrades.

[promethean]

What I mean is when the socialist state is created (after the revolution), would the new Marxist government govern in a more authoritarian way, or a more libertarian way. Firstly, there is no such thing as a socialist state. In the writings of Karl Marx, there is no state in socialism, neither is there a difference between socialism and communism.


So if it was authoritarian would it govern like the Soviets (but it seems like most of you agree that this isn't the case), or what have you. Or would it govern with having the people with the most power in decision making.It looks like by Soviets, you mean the Soviet state. The term "soviet" means council in Russian. The 1917 revolution was carried out by the working class exercising their rule over the whole society through these soviets. These soviets were organised on the basis of Factory Committees, which accomplished workers control over the means of production. During the degeneration of the revolution, these soviets were stripped of their power by the bureaucratic regime and hence workers control was lost. However, the bureaucrats, after stripping the soviets of all power, managed to steal their name and named the Russian state as the Soviet Union. Any future revolution worth its name will have to be organised on the basis of workers councils.


It always amazes me how willing internet communists are to be hung up on Stalin as the be all and end all of real world communism, despite him being involved in barely a third of the history of the USSR. It would seem by "internet communists who are hung up on Stalin as the be all and end all of real world communism, despite him being involved in barely a third of the history of the USSR", you actually mean the teenage internet Stalinists who tend to frequent this forum. Is this who you are referring to?

[Die Neue Zeit]

These soviets were organised on the basis of Factory Committees, which accomplished workers control over the means of production.

The two points you made there are mere myths. "Workers control" wasn't achieved effectively, and the soviets were (thankfully) not organized on the basis of factory committees.

[promethean]

The two points you made there are mere myths. "Workers control" wasn't achieved effectively, and the soviets were (thankfully) not organized on the basis of factory committees.
You are right about the factory committees not forming the basis for soviets. On the other hand, you have demonstrated your opposition to the working class in many of your troll posts. Why do you have to keep trolling every thread with your nonsense?

[Parvati]

I think that this division is not based on anything real. As it has been said before, it's a division generally used by anarchists (in real life, this is the only kind of situation when I faced it), but it's generally also used to discredit Marxists (or in my case Maoists) with all the entire history of communists revolutions and attemps of, and the cool-hipsters-anarchists. I don't reclaim any of my political views to any kind of authority, like an oppression on somebody else. As I think that discipline and rigor are good communist values, I also think that human creativity in political situations is deeply essential.

For the fun, around May68 in France, Maoists were considered antiauthoritarians by the Revisionnist PCF and its clerks.

[Geiseric]

The state only functions as a result of class conflict, calling for the states destruction while the class struggle is going on is rediculous. The only way to be stateless is to surrender completely to the bourgeois before the revolution even occurs. Didn't CNT-FAI have a militia? If it did, then it is using state power. Authoritarianism as a reaction to authoritarianism is justified, for the first few years post russian revolution, most counter revolutionaries were caught and let go, the chekist red terror phase was the only way to deal with an intensified attempt at counter revolution by the bourgeoisie.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Authoritarian, next question.

[kashkin]

I would say it is a mixture. It is authoritarian in the sense one class is imposing its will on another, almost certainly violently, but socialism is supposed to lead to liberation, so I would hope that any socialist state or society would be libertarian.

[Mr. Natural]

Marceau, In the sense in which Marx conceived of communism and in which I believe you understand the term, Marxism is "liberationist." Marx and Engels were passionate, revolutionary human liberationists whose socialism/communism was to provide the democratic basis for human freedom and realization. "We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Manifesto)

But revolutions always occur in difficult circumstances, and after revolution comes counterrevolution. The old ruling class still has energy and power, hence the transitional period of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (probably an unfortunate term).

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" isn't mentioned in the Manifesto, although the transitional period it represents is described: "The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy." The revolution was expected to take place in the few advanced capitalist countries of that era where the working class constituted a good majority of the people.

[thefinalmarch]

I would say it is a mixture. It is authoritarian in the sense one class is imposing its will on another, almost certainly violently, but socialism is supposed to lead to liberation, so I would hope that any socialist state or society would be libertarian.
Pretty much, yes. It's impossible to consider Marxism -- or any ideology, doctrine, or what-have-you -- as being universally libertarian or authoritarian. Ideologies are always geared towards the interests of a particular class, and so it is always a particular class which benefits from particular theories-in-action by the gaining of liberties, and the delegation of authority to the said class.

[Rooster]

But revolutions always occur in difficult circumstances, and after revolution comes counterrevolution. The old ruling class still has energy and power, hence the transitional period of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (probably an unfortunate term).

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" isn't mentioned in the Manifesto, although the transitional period it represents is described: "The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy." The revolution was expected to take place in the few advanced capitalist countries of that era where the working class constituted a good majority of the people.

That IS the revolution. That's still the revolutionary process. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end point of a revolution. The old ruling class should have no power or energy after the revolution at all. Their only power was through the state and violence to force people to be wage slaves. Once you remove the ability to do that (ie, through mass participatory democracy and common ownership of the means of production) then that power vanishes. Capitalists make up a very small percent of the world. How can a capitalist be a capitalist when he can't employ wage earners?

[thefinalmarch]

The revolution was expected to take place in the few advanced capitalist countries of that era where the working class constituted a good majority of the people.
Actually, in preface to the 1882 Russian manifesto, Marx and Engels believed that "Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe."

At the time of the October Revolution, there were 3 million workers out of population of approx. 100 million. You can expect the number of workers to have been much lower in 1882.

[postanarchism]

Actually, in preface to the 1882 Russian manifesto, Marx and Engels believed that "Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe."

At the time of the October Revolution, there were 3 million workers out of population of approx. 100 million. You can expect the number of workers to have been much lower in 1882.
What kind of line of thinking is this? Marx and Engels remarked that in 1882(!) that Russia was a vanguard of revolutionary action--not revolution. The observation that Russia possessed an opportunity for later revolution is a separate train of thought. And note, their prediction about Russia becoming a forefront of the communist proved false. The 'primeval' form of communal ownership reorganized with modern production techniques and technologies did not come about, and instead Russian agriculture was reorganized by the central state apparatus(more or less).

And you're arguing, that because Russia had more workers in 1917, Marx's idea of Russian as the forefront of revolutionary action in 1882, that they're somehow Marx's chosen children? Marx was not a prophet and prophetic readings of Marx trap his theories in the obsolete communism of the past century.

[thefinalmarch]

What kind of line of thinking is this? Marx and Engels remarked that in 1882(!) that Russia was a vanguard of revolutionary action--not revolution. The observation that Russia possessed an opportunity for later revolution is a separate train of thought.
To be honest that just sounds like semantics. 'Revolution' vs. 'actions of or relating to revolution'.


And note, their prediction about Russia becoming a forefront of the communist proved false. The 'primeval' form of communal ownership reorganized with modern production techniques and technologies did not come about, and instead Russian agriculture was reorganized by the central state apparatus(more or less).
Where did I deny that their predictions were false? I was simply providing some evidence for Marx and Engels' views on the subject in 1882.


And you're arguing, that because Russia had more workers in 1917, Marx's idea of Russian as the forefront of revolutionary action in 1882, that they're somehow Marx's chosen children? Marx was not a prophet and prophetic readings of Marx trap his theories in the obsolete communism of the past century.
See above. The quote was chosen specifically because it contrasted with the idea of a majority working class acting in a revolutionary way -- e.g. less than three million workers out of a larger total population could still definitely act in a revolutionary way.