Come at me authoritarians

[the Leftâ„¢]

I would be very grateful if an adherent to a more authoritarian tendency could articulate to me why they are not a libertarian( anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-communist, council- communist etc) and identify with authoritarian currents. Just curious, it is learning after all..

[Ocean Seal]

I would be very grateful if an adherent to a more authoritarian tendency could articulate to me why they are not a libertarian( anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-communist, council- communist etc) and identify with authoritarian currents. Just curious, it is learning after all..
Because we can haz revolutions?
Ultimately, I would say that I'm not entirely authoritarian in the Leninist sense, and that I do believe that Leninism is flawed, but that I don't dismiss the influence of Leninism and I certainly wouldn't do it on grounds that it was authoritarian. Leninism created an authority of workers for the first time in history and gave advances that humanity had never see before. Yes, it devolved and socialism eventually collapsed in the SU but this was because it was under siege by capitalism. My biggest problem with Leninism is that I think it leaves itself prey to opportunist bureaucrats and capitalist roaders. The solution isn't to implement more bureaucracy but rather to implement more workers control, so that they can stop state-capitalism before it springs up and devolves into just capitalism.

So I consider myself a Leninist-Revisionist.

[Marxaveli]

^^That is more or less how I feel about Marxist-Leninists. Lenin was a brilliant man, no question about it, and those who follow him should have as much input in how the revolution should be carried out as any other Marxist. However, I fundamentally reject any sort of centralized leadership to lead the revolution for obvious reasons, and I wouldn't consider myself a Leninist revisionist, since I believe in complete individual autonomy. This is where I part from them, though aside from this, their views deserve just as much merit.

[Book O'Dead]

I would be very grateful if an adherent to a more authoritarian tendency could articulate to me why they are not a libertarian( anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-communist, council- communist etc) and identify with authoritarian currents. Just curious, it is learning after all..

Pretty lame trolling there, buddy. For one thing, no one who is truly "authoritarian" sees themself as such.

You, for example, probably think you're 99-100% correct in your presumably anti-authoritarian views, and yet you'd probably support authoritarian methods if you felt the revolution was in danger of being overthrown by reaction.

It's all very simple, chum: when the shit hits the fan everyone will forget their little nostrums and either act according to the demands of circumstance or follow the "leader" like a dumb, driven lamb. It is written. In history, that is...

[Belleraphone]

you'd probably support authoritarian methods if you felt the revolution was in danger of being overthrown by reaction.

Authoritarianism is reaction.

[DarkPast]

Authoritarianism is reaction.

A revolution is an authoritarian act. It must be, because it occurs when one class overthrows another by force, taking away its power and privilege and imposing its own authority over it.

The difference is that it represents the authority of the majority, who are against exploitation, while capitalist authority represents the interests of a tiny minority who guards its power through organized violence.

[Manic Impressive]

something I've noticed about the mindset of some of the less theoretically developed M-L's is this notion that their revolutions worked and everyone else's failed. So as M-L has been used in pretty much every successful revolution of the 20th century it must be correct.

Obviously none of the revolutions succeeded in transferring the MoP to the proletariat, none abolished wage slavery, etc, etc.

[Tim Cornelis]

A revolution is an authoritarian act. It must be, because it occurs when one class overthrows another by force, taking away its power and privilege and imposing its own authority over it.

The difference is that it represents the authority of the majority, who are against exploitation, while capitalist authority represents the interests of a tiny minority who guards its power through organized violence.

Y'all Marxists definition of "authoritarianism" is wrong.

You define authoritarianism as "the use of physical force to apply a state to others contrary to their wishes", whilst this is the definition of violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence), not authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism is "characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom".

Also, expropriation does not limit the personal autonomy of the capitalist and hence you do not assert authority of them as an individual.

[Tim Cornelis]

I would also like to point out that the whole "libertarian/authoritarian" dichotomy is irrelevant.

The actual relevant dichotomy is socialism from below or socialism from above.

Socialism from below can (but not necessarily) include anarchists, Leninists, Marxists, left-wing communists, and Trotskyists, and socialism from above includes Marxism-Leninism, Bolshevism, and Blanquism.

[the Leftâ„¢]

Pretty lame trolling there, buddy. For one thing, no one who is truly "authoritarian" sees themself as such.

You, for example, probably think you're 99-100% correct in your presumably anti-authoritarian views, and yet you'd probably support authoritarian methods if you felt the revolution was in danger of being overthrown by reaction.

It's all very simple, chum: when the shit hits the fan everyone will forget their little nostrums and either act according to the demands of circumstance or follow the "leader" like a dumb, driven lamb. It is written. In history, that is...

Not being a troll though, im posting a question in learning...

[Susurrus]

I would also like to point out that the whole "libertarian/authoritarian" dichotomy is irrelevant.

The actual relevant dichotomy is socialism from below or socialism from above.

Socialism from below can (but not necessarily) include anarchists, Leninists, Marxists, left-wing communists, and Trotskyists, and socialism from above includes Marxism-Leninism, Bolshevism, and Blanquism.

Not really, since socialism cannot be installed from above. Instead, it is socialism vs state capitalism/oligarchical collectivism/etc.

[Imposter Marxist]

'Libertarian' socialism is really just based on bad arguments and buzzwords. Revolution is authoritarian. The working class is authoritarian. This is good. :cool:

[Искра]

When you say that you have libertarian and authoritarian socialism you are saying that "socialism in one country" is socialist, but authoritarian, which is not true. Also, it's funny how libertarian socialists (CNT in 1936) and authoritarian socialists (Bolsheviks in 1918) did exactly the same thing. It's good that anarchists lost in Spain, because if they won we would have "anarchism in one country" tradition.

So, libertarian vs. authoritarian socialist is non-Marxists moralist bollocks.

[Rafiq]

I would be very grateful if an adherent to a more authoritarian tendency could articulate to me why they are not a libertarian( anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-communist, council- communist etc) and identify with authoritarian currents. Just curious, it is learning after all..

I for one identify as an Authoritarian solely on the basis that Authoritarianism is the best method in which the proletariat will exert it's class dominance over the rest of society. And even in a post revolutionary society, Authority is going to be absolutely necessary.

The Proletariat should not be bound to the ethical shackles of Anti-Authoritarianism or Libertarianism, as such would get int he way of that particular class exerting it's class interests.

[Marxaveli]

You cannot have both authoritarianism and socialism, it is one or the other, period. End of story. I'm not even going to debate this because the history of this is self-evident, and continues to be in so-called authoritarian socialist states (which is an oxymoron in itself). Authoritarianism and socialism are not compatible, just like capitalism and economic (and political for that matter) democracy are not compatible. Nor can you have a "socialist state".

[Apoi_Viitor]

The distinction between libertarian and authoritarian socialists isn't best described by either of those terms. A revolution is authoritarian in the traditional sense of the word. Libertarian socialists either accept this, or argue that they are not authoritarian because they have their own meaningless definition of authoritarian that is completely abstracted from the common meaning of the word. Most debates over authoritarianism vs. libertarian socialism occur and revolve around the latter.

But the real distinction between self-described authoritarian and libertarian socialists is that one group believes that the proletariat should take power, while the other believes that a caste of bureacrats should take power.

[Misanthrope]

Ultimately, I would say that I'm not entirely authoritarian in the Leninist sense, and that I do believe that Leninism is flawed, but that I don't dismiss the influence of Leninism

What's authoritarianism in the Lenninist sense? I don't deny any influence or Lenin either, it is clearly evident.




Leninism created an authority of workers for the first time in history and gave advances that humanity had never see before.

What advances? Other then creating a state that claimed to uphold socialism. Arguing that Lenin has made drastic contributions to human advancement is preposterous. What's more is pseudo-worship of Lenin, Stalin or Mao is ridiculous . They made barely any (valid) contributions to Marxist theory. I'm not denying the accomplishments they have achieved as leaders nor am I playing into red scare hysteria. It's just silly to be hung up on the Soviet Union.



My biggest problem with Leninism is that I think it leaves itself prey to opportunist bureaucrats and capitalist roaders.

exactly.



The solution isn't to implement more bureaucracy but rather to implement more workers control, so that they can stop state-capitalism before it springs up and devolves into just capitalism.


Exactly! DECENTRALIZATION NOT CONSOLIDATED CONTROL

[Misanthrope]

When you say that you have libertarian and authoritarian socialism you are saying that "socialism in one country" is socialist, but authoritarian, which is not true. Also, it's funny how libertarian socialists (CNT in 1936) and authoritarian socialists (Bolsheviks in 1918) did exactly the same thing. It's good that anarchists lost in Spain, because if they won we would have "anarchism in one country" tradition.

So, libertarian vs. authoritarian socialist is non-Marxists moralist bollocks.

Actually the distinction lies on the issue of a vanguard in a revolution. I don't identify by any historical time period, place or event like M-Ls.

[Marxaveli]

The distinction between libertarian and authoritarian socialists isn't best described by either of those terms. A revolution is authoritarian in the traditional sense of the word. Libertarian socialists either accept this, or argue that they are not authoritarian because they have their own meaningless definition of authoritarian that is completely abstracted from the common meaning of the word. Most debates over authoritarianism vs. libertarian socialism occur and revolve around the latter.

But the real distinction between self-described authoritarian and libertarian socialists is that one group believes that the proletariat should take power, while the other believes that a caste of bureacrats should take power.

And Marx said, several times even in the Manifesto, that is was the proletariat. Libertarians win. Good game, thanks for playing, better luck next time (except there is no next time). :)

[Apoi_Viitor]

Y'all Marxists definition of "authoritarianism" is wrong.

I would estimate that at least half of the arguments between anarchists and marxists are because both sides use differing definitions for the same terms.

[ZeroNowhere]

Eh, the libertarian/authoritarian verbiage is mainly an anarchist thing, you won't find many people who self-identify as 'authoritarian socialists'. Well, unless they're doing it in reaction to that, and are hence probably closet Bordigists.

Me? I am for a revolutionary and totalitarian apparatus of force and power. Thanks for asking.

[Belleraphone]

A revolution is an authoritarian act. It must be, because it occurs when one class overthrows another by force, taking away its power and privilege and imposing its own authority over it.

The difference is that it represents the authority of the majority, who are against exploitation, while capitalist authority represents the interests of a tiny minority who guards its power through organized violence.
I dont' see how the destruction of authority is an authoritarian act.

[The Man]

The reason I don't side with Anarchists/Libertarians?

Because I am more for practicality then for this type of "Ideal planning" or "All-embracing projects" that are divorced from reality (As Stalin put it.)

[thefinalmarch]

Well, unless they're doing it in reaction to that, and are hence probably closet Bordigists.
perfect user title material, thanks

[Geiseric]

I would also like to point out that the whole "libertarian/authoritarian" dichotomy is irrelevant.

The actual relevant dichotomy is socialism from below or socialism from above.

Socialism from below can (but not necessarily) include anarchists, Leninists, Marxists, left-wing communists, and Trotskyists, and socialism from above includes Marxism-Leninism, Bolshevism, and Blanquism.

What's the difference between Bolshevism and Leninism? Is Bolshevism the actions the Bolshevik workers state as a result of counter revolution? I actually don't know.



The reason I don't side with Anarchists/Libertarians?

Because I am more for practicality then for this type of "Ideal planning" or "All-embracing projects" that are divorced from reality (As Stalin put it.)

Marxism-Leninism isn't practicality though, unless you see "practical" as allying with nationalist elements during an actual revolution in order to have better international relations with the Capitalists, and to maybe have some seats in the new parliament.

[Geiseric]

And Marx said, several times even in the Manifesto, that is was the proletariat. Libertarians win. Good game, thanks for playing, better luck next time (except there is no next time). :)

The proletariat USE FUCKING AUTHORITY to take the BOURGEOISIE out of power. There is nobody else to use "authority" over. By being a communist who spreads the word around about how much capitalism sucks, you're part of the vanguard party as well. Congratulations.

[Marxaveli]

The reason I don't side with Anarchists/Libertarians?

Because I am more for practicality then for this type of "Ideal planning" or "All-embracing projects" that are divorced from reality (As Stalin put it.)

Yea, we saw how practical Stalinism was alright, rofl. Pwnzored! :lol: Yall had your chance, you failed. Miserably. Next time, if we get a second chance, we will do it our way.

The problem with authoritarians is they underestimate people's ability to work together collectively, thus the cure becomes as bad or even worse sometimes than the original disease.

[Geiseric]

Holy shit. Everybody on this forum by advocating revolution is an authoritarian.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The reason I don't side with Anarchists/Libertarians?

Because I am more for practicality then for this type of "Ideal planning" or "All-embracing projects" that are divorced from reality (As Stalin put it.)
If you think Lenninist revolutions were succesful in empowering working people, establishing common ownership of the means of production, or moving society towards communism then it's you who is divorced from reality.

[Geiseric]

Untill the counter revolution, Leninist revolution was succeeding in building the foundations for socialism.

[Le Socialiste]

'Libertarian' socialism is really just based on bad arguments and buzzwords. Revolution is authoritarian. The working class is authoritarian. This is good. :cool:

Please elaborate.

[Yuppie Grinder]

'Libertarian' socialism is really just based on bad arguments and buzzwords. Revolution is authoritarian. The working class is authoritarian. This is good. :cool:
This is silly. Tell some dude living in somalia or some place working night and day to feed his starving family with subsistance wages that he's an authoritarian he wouldn't know what you were talking about because he probabaly doesn't speak english but if he did he'd be like "fuck off".

[Tim Cornelis]

What's the difference between Bolshevism and Leninism? Is Bolshevism the actions the Bolshevik workers state as a result of counter revolution? I actually don't know.

Leninist theory as laid out in State and Revolution emphasizes socialism from bellow, whilst Lenin as a leader did not follow his own doctrine and instead implemented socialism from above, which we call Bolshevism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Untill the counter revolution, Leninist revolution was succeeding in building the foundations for socialism.

Until the counter revolution, the workers' revolution was succeeding in building the foundations for socialism.

The counter-revolution was of course initiated by the Whites and Bolsheviks as they both dismantled the foundations of socialism (soviets).

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would be very grateful if an adherent to a more authoritarian tendency could articulate to me why they are not a libertarian( anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-communist, council- communist etc) and identify with authoritarian currents. Just curious, it is learning after all..

What constitutes authoritarian, just not one of the traditions you name above? I don't think, in that case, there'd necessarily be much argeement among so-called authoritarians.

I'm a socialist in the sense of believing that the best way for workers to reshape society around their interests is if they create a new state run through some form of proletarian democracy. This so-called state should not be top-down but bottom up and through workplace and community councils so that all workers can coordinate and solve structural issues left-over from capitalist society and protect themselves from internal or external counter-revolution.

I do believe some centralized coordination may be needed for some specific things and so the best way I think to prevent these positions from becoming entrenched or separated from the rest of the class is to have accountable and re-callable representatives with specific mandates.

[Smyg]

Eh, the libertarian/authoritarian verbiage is mainly an anarchist thing, you won't find many people who self-identify as 'authoritarian socialists'. Well, unless they're doing it in reaction to that, and are hence probably closet Bordigists.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=287

[Apoi_Viitor]

The proletariat USE FUCKING AUTHORITY to take the BOURGEOISIE out of power.

You NEED to CALM down.

[thefinalmarch]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=287
Take a look at the group discussions:

Comrade_Stalin (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=27204)
Is Authoritarian Socialist only for the dictatorship of the proletariat ?

Red Pill (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=13175) It just a jab @ la libertarian tendencies.



Har Har

Red Pill (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=13175) we like to rule! Authoritarian Rocks!

Nolan (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=26503)


Iron fist!

Uppercut (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=22799)






We'll punch the anarchists' balls off fuck yeah!!!!!1111

Marxist-Leftist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=28927)






Gulags anyone?

Barry Lyndon (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=28160)






I eat left communist babies for breakfast!

Uppercut (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=22799)






@Barry: the other other other other white meat.

People's War (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29570)






Haha. Trots and anarchists just suck.


Tenka (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=30149)





Trots can be authoritarian, too. They primarily seem to agree with anarchists in their utter contempt for Comrade Stalin.


Barry Lyndon (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=28160)





However, I do still think Stalin was a prick.


Red Pill (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=13175)





cuz he was too authoritarian for you, eh?


Syd Barrett (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=25912)





He was authoritarian for the beuuracracy, trotsky was authoritarian for socialism


Red Pill (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=13175)





Cool story, bro


Dzerzhinsky's Ghost (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=44270)





I'm authoritarian for my loins and wear a spiked chastity belt.

Commissar Rykov (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=37331)






I'm not wearing pants. That is all.



Ex-Authoritarian Group

Hebrew Hammer (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=38296) I think this groups is absolutely hilarious, sounds like a bunch of ex-boozers. They even have a "what was your drink of choice," thread. I was Hoxhaists but then I got better. I was so piss wasted on Trotskyism I was barely even conscious but then I saw the light. I was a hopeless Stalinist but then I finally made a commitment to change. Slightly ridiculous, if not outright.

Comrade_Stalin (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=27204)


It mostly a counter group the the other three anti-stalin, and therefore Mao groups out there.


It's basically a joke group.

[Fawkes]

Also, it's funny how libertarian socialists (CNT in 1936) and authoritarian socialists (Bolsheviks in 1918) did exactly the same thing.


Except they didn't.


It's good that anarchists lost in Spain
To quote Jay Z:

Can I get a fuck you

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This is really a false dichotomy. The problem isn't authority, it's the accumulation of authority in a single person or small clique which is the problem. And the problem isn't liberty, it's when liberty includes the right to exploit the working class. Perhaps revolutionaries should not be so quick to adopt the silly dichotomies of capitalist culture.

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't consider myself an anarcho-communist because I don't believe the state and classes can both be torn down at exactly the same time. I feel the working class needs to use the state to tear down classes first.
I do tend towards more anarchist tendencies though because by "state" I mean stuff like the Paris Commune. I don't believe in freedom of speech for fascists, I believe in the right of the working class to overthrow and oppress the bourgeoisie, I believe in violence, etc. Those are some of the reasons I would be considered more "authoritarian". I really hate that word though and I really hate when people embrace it.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't consider myself an anarcho-communist because I don't believe the state and classes can both be torn down at exactly the same time. I feel the working class needs to use the state to tear down classes first.

How would that "state" be governed, and by whom?


I do tend towards more anarchist tendencies though because by "state" I mean stuff like the Paris Commune. I don't believe in freedom of speech for fascists, I believe in the right of the working class to overthrow and oppress the bourgeoisie, I believe in violence, etc. Those are some of the reasons I would be considered more "authoritarian". I really hate that word though and I really hate when people embrace it.

Sounds terrific, oppress those damn café-owners!

[Leftsolidarity]

How would that "state" be governed, and by whom?


A state formed by the working class. Are you familiar with the Paris Commune?


Sounds terrific, oppress those damn café-owners!

1) That would be the petite-bourgeoisie

2) Oppress is an overarching term.

[Smyg]

It's basically a joke group.

Hehe. :rolleyes:

[Sam Varriano]

You can't free both the slave and the slave master. Freedom isn't always a good thing. Take away his tools used to enslave you, whether it be private property, freedom of speech, or relgious freedom, and then you are no longer a slave. The worker's freedom comes at the expense of the freedom of his oppressors (which is gained by removing his tools of oppression)

[Zealot]

What a fucking troll.

Yes, we'll exert our authority over the bourgeoisie and if you're not on board, get the hell off.

[OHumanista]

As a trotskyist I feel far closer to the other leftist tendencies than to MLs and their breakaway groups (Maoists, Hoxhaist, and especially Juche). Now if I have one serious criticism of "libertarian" socialists is their refusal to use all (reasonable) means availiable to eliminate the burgeoisie. Plus I am extremely skeptical of the more recent ideologies that think a peaceful revolution can be achieved and some others that think apathy is somehow a wonderful and revolutionary trait...

In any case I mostly don't care, just as long as one's "allegiance" lies with the working class and not with a rigid and never changing dogma I am fine.;)
In the end what matters is being on the revolutionary side of the barricades, and shooting the enemy (not ourselves).

[Iron Felix]

A state formed by the working class. Are you familiar with the Paris Commune?



1) That would be the petite-bourgeoisie

2) Oppress is an overarching term.
The Paris Commune that lived for 2 months and was practically state-less?


The State, as a power-structure, will only seek to self-perpetuate itself. You cannot use the State to create a State-less society. We have observed this in the 20th century. It's like, fucking, they say, for virginity. The State by definition serves only a tiny fraction of the people, the ruling classes. It represents their interests. It protects the few from the many. Replace the bourgeoise of old with a Stalinist bureaucracy, the State is going to represent the bureaucracy, not the working class.

Now, for the working class to take back what is theirs is no more authoritarian than a mother taking back her child from a kidnapper.

[ZeroNowhere]

Actually, they say that going to war for peace is like fucking for virginity. Funnily enough, that's also something that we support the proletariat doing.

[individualist communist]

This is really a false dichotomy. The problem isn't authority, it's the accumulation of authority in a single person or small clique which is the problem.
No, the concept of authority in itself is the problem, not whatever or not it is exercised by a minority or a majority. To quote Bakunin "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"

[Leftsolidarity]

The Paris Commune that lived for 2 months and was practically state-less?


The State, as a power-structure, will only seek to self-perpetuate itself. You cannot use the State to create a State-less society. We have observed this in the 20th century. It's like, fucking, they say, for virginity. The State by definition serves only a tiny fraction of the people, the ruling classes. It represents their interests. It protects the few from the many. Replace the bourgeoise of old with a Stalinist bureaucracy, the State is going to represent the bureaucracy, not the working class.

Now, for the working class to take back what is theirs is no more authoritarian than a mother taking back her child from a kidnapper.

Great buzzwords.

The Paris Commune was accepted by Marxists as a worker's state. Some anarchists just seem to view the state as the capitalist state. It can manifest itself in different ways.

By definition? Please show me that definition. Yes, it serves the ruling class but that doesn't mean that the ruling class is the minority. If the working class is the ruling class then it is a state for the majority against the ex-oppressors.

"It protects the few from the many. Replace the bourgeoise of old with a Stalinist bureaucracy, the State is going to represent the bureaucracy, not the working class." :rolleyes:

And is that not authoritarian? Authoritarian =/= always bad. It depends on the situation.

[Revolution starts with U]

=/= != != (Equal divided by equal does not equal "does not equal") Just thought I'd throw this in there....

But ya; if you're talking about authoritarian as in the proles expressing dominance... I have no problem with that.
If you're defining it as respecting leadership, regardless of their actions, I have huge problems with that. It's those "we will fucking murder all disagree'ers" that are the problem. We're better served without them.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

I believe that it is too difficult to manage a society without a government. I also believe that socialism in one country is the only way a revolution is possible. Out of all the communist revolutions that had long-lasting effects in the world, which ones were done without SIOC? The world-wide Occupy movement is ineffective, and I am already seeing it decline. As for social governance, I'm not for a completely totalitarian dictatorship, I just think that some authority is reasonable. Authority that is easily accessible to anyone, unlike in capitalist-imperialism where 99.9% of the time you have to be born rich to have power in your society.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

The State by definition serves only a tiny fraction of the people, the ruling classes.

That's really the definition of the state?:confused:

[Искра]

That's really the definition of the state?:confused:

The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state.

You have a plenty of these jolly quotes here (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm).

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

I just don't see the problem with having a state. How could society work without one? Where has this been successful?

[Manic Impressive]

I just don't see the problem with having a state. How could society work without one? Where has this been successful?
I know it may be difficult to comprehend but for most of human history there has been no state. Early states formed due to growing populations needing to compete for resources. If we no longer compete for resources but organize their distribution so that everyone gets what they need, what need do we have for a state?
Abolishing the state does not mean there would be no organization, it removes an obstacle to better organization and cooperation.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

I know it may be difficult to comprehend but for most of human history there has been no state. Early states formed due to growing populations needing to compete for resources. If we no longer compete for resources but organize their distribution so that everyone gets what they need, what need do we have for a state?
Abolishing the state does not mean there would be no organization, it removes an obstacle to better organization and cooperation.

I'd like that to happen too, but what if some people don't want to share? Wouldn't there need to be some authority to make sure everyone shares fairly?

[Manic Impressive]

It's not really sharing at least I don't see it as such. Sharing is if I own something and then I give you part of it I've shared it with you, but if everybody jointly owns everything then it's not sharing. Take a look at a company in it's present form say Coca-Cola. They grow or make the ingredients for the drink and they also make their own bottles and labels and a different section for marketing and so on. Now they're not sharing amongst themselves are they? no they own the different sections of the company and transfer the separate components to the final factory where the end product is finished and then sold. If all the different sections of industry and distribution are owned not by shareholders but by every person in the world. It's not sharing it's still creating commodities which are then distributed according to what the person needs. What would be the self interest for a community to withhold the produce of their labour? It can't be financial because there's no need for money, it can't be to get a greater share of the products as people are taking what they need. If a dispute arose then it could be mediated by a council made up of different representatives from different workplaces.

[thefinalmarch]

The State, as a power-structure, will only seek to self-perpetuate itself.
The state seeks primarily to perpetuate the conditions of the rule of the ruling class. Although it does perpetuate itself (as a means to achieve the aforementioned end), it does not do it on the abstract basis of the preservation of the vague notions of "power structures" and "oppression" and so on and so forth, which anarchists love to speak of.


The State by definition serves only a tiny fraction of the people, the ruling classes. It represents their interests. It protects the few from the many. Replace the bourgeoise of old with a Stalinist bureaucracy, the State is going to represent the bureaucracy, not the working class.
The state is any institution of organised violence which seeks to defend the conditions of the rule of the ruling class. The dictatorship of the proletariat, then, constitutes a state -- although it is unlikely to be a "formal" state. It would bear little resemblance to any of the states we have observed throughout history, not least because of the organic manner in which this state is established, but also because the very concept of a state which serves the interests of a majority class necessarily presupposes several huge differences between it and any of the slave-society, feudal, capitalist, etc. states in all their historic forms, which all served the interests of minority classes. Marx himself noted this in the manifesto:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.
I have no clue why you have such misconceptions concerning the state, when in all likelihood you, as a Leninist of some variety, would consider the early USSR (which was ruled by the Bolshevik party -- a minority) to have been socialism in action.

[thefinalmarch]

No, the concept of authority in itself is the problem, not whatever or not it is exercised by a minority or a majority. To quote Bakunin "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"
Bakunin, like pretty much every anarchist I've ever come across, was basically unable to even consider the notion that the working class could ever hold authority and exert in on anyone.

As such, this quote is probably part of the strawman argument laid out by Bakunin that Marx supported the dictatorship of another class over the workers, which is frankly dumb.

[thefinalmarch]

Hehe. :rolleyes:
I never said it was a good joke :lol:

[Book O'Dead]

Authoritarianism is reaction.

Fine bit of reductionism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Bakunin, like pretty much every anarchist I've ever come across, was basically unable to even consider the notion that the working class could ever hold authority and exert in on anyone.

As such, this quote is probably part of the strawman argument laid out by Bakunin that Marx supported the dictatorship of another class over the workers, which is frankly dumb.
In a classless society what sector of society would there be to exert authority over other than the productive sector?

[individualist communist]

Bakunin, like pretty much every anarchist I've ever come across, was basically unable to even consider the notion that the working class could ever hold authority and exert in on anyone.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, who would the working class exert authority over? Themselves?

[Renegade Saint]

Until people agree on the definition of the word "authoritarian" this discussion is pointless.

That's why in policy debate the first thing the affirmative team does is present the definitions they'll be using for the debate and the first thing the negative team does is either accept those definitions or propose their own.

So anti-authoritarians, what is your definition of authoritarian? The onus is on you to define the word you use to negatively define yourself.

[thefinalmarch]

In a classless society what sector of society would there be to exert authority over other than the productive sector?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, who would the working class exert authority over? Themselves?
I'm of the view that revolution, the wide-scale forcible overthrow and expropriation of the bourgeoisie by the immense majority of society, the working class, is a temporary display of the workers' authority, and thus it is an authoritarian act.

[A Marxist Historian]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, who would the working class exert authority over? Themselves?

The capitalist class and the petty bourgeoisie.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

In a classless society what sector of society would there be to exert authority over other than the productive sector?

Indeed. In a classless society, obviously there would be no working class, and no need for an authoritative body to make sure things don't go haywire.

But *creating* a worldwide classless society, in which everything is collectivized right down to every mom and pop grocery store, and people in Upper Volta, Yemen and Afghanistan have the same access to the good things in life as people in the USA, will take a long time after the Revolution, maybe generations.

Trying to do it too fast gets very very problematic. Stalin woke up one morning and decided that all agriculture was going to be collectivized in the Soviet Union Right Away, as of course all peasants were for that except for tiny bands of evil kulaks.

We all know how that went.

-M.H.-

[Yuppie Grinder]

You can't free both the slave and the slave master. Freedom isn't always a good thing. Take away his tools used to enslave you, whether it be private property, freedom of speech, or relgious freedom, and then you are no longer a slave. The worker's freedom comes at the expense of the freedom of his oppressors (which is gained by removing his tools of oppression)
You fail to understand that power and liberty are not interchangable words. You fail to understand equal liberty.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC25mkb_Zow[YOUTUBE]

[A Marxist Historian]

Not really, since socialism cannot be installed from above. Instead, it is socialism vs state capitalism/oligarchical collectivism/etc.

It is true that socialism cannot be imposed from above. Why do we know this? Because it has been tried (e.g. Soviet tanks marching into Poland), and it didn't work too well. Fell apart. Workers ended up revolting against the imposers.

Somehow or other the conclusion from this obvious fact gets drawn that said imposers are really capitalists. This does not necessarily follow, unless you accept the anarchist notion being discussed here that authority is *in and of itself* reactionary or capitalist or what have you in all situations.

In short, a logical position for those on the anarchist side of this debate, but not a logical position for those who are not.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

You fail to understand that power and liberty are not interchangable words. You fail to understand equal liberty.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC25mkb_Zow[YOUTUBE]

He can't understand it as no such thing exists. There is no equality in class society between the oppressors and the oppressed. "Equal liberty" is a myth. Either the workers are free or the capitalists. Zero sum. Right now it's the capitalists, revolutionaries want it to be the other way.

In reality, yes, power and liberty are the same thing. If you have no power you are not free. If you have power you can do what you want, you have liberty. End of story.

-M.H.-

[Yuppie Grinder]

He can't understand it as no such thing exists. There is no equality in class society between the oppressors and the oppressed. "Equal liberty" is a myth. Either the workers are free or the capitalists. Zero sum. Right now it's the capitalists, revolutionaries want it to be the other way.

In reality, yes, power and liberty are the same thing. If you have no power you are not free. If you have power you can do what you want, you have liberty. End of story.

-M.H.-
You didn't even watch the video if you think I'm talking about equal liberty in capitalist society, of course such a thing does not exist. The video is writing from Bakunin, an anarcho-communist. Do you really think that in a communist society people would not be equally free?

[Kadir Ateş]

I would like to preface that I am first not an "authoritarian", but am generally part of the left communist milieu. I think it's pretty easy to demonstrate how Stalinists/Maoists and their perverse offspring are in fact not communists but left-wing capitalists. I also think it's not too difficult to point out Trotsky's handling of Kronstadt or the Black Army in Ukraine as anything but comradely. And it is not beyond anyone's basic understanding of the wage-labor relation to know that nationalizing banks is not the best way to "build" socialism...But I digress. These people are capitalists, not socialists and there is no need to address them as comrades.

I would rather like to pose the following to the so-called anarchists and other members of my milieu: what would you do, if during revolutionary warfare with the capitalist class, we as part of a communist military needed to build a bridge in order to transport supplies and needed to do it following strict orders. Would you, the ultra-leftist, decide that that was an infringement on your proletarian subjectivity and "not what you really wanted to be doing" and decide to round up the black block boys/girls and go blow it up in the middle of the night--as part of your defiance and distaste to "authoritarianism"? Would you be a complete asshole and decide that you didn't want to work today, because you read in some zine somewhere that "work is violence"? What would you do, if you had to work tirelessly in a factory because social need was overwhelming, that so many men and women were lost that day in combat, that they needed you to work more than eight hours?

I'm curious and want to hear your answers.

[Marxaveli]

A great question Kadir.

I think there is a distinction between your question and an authoritarian society as the end result. During a revolution, if such a case as the one you described is critical for the success of the revolution, then it should be done. Things like this during the revolution will have to be done regardless of whether we like it or not, but as Machiavelli once said, the ends justifies the means. Destroying the bridge would be counter-revolutionary, would it not? You would be betraying the revolution, as well as yourself and the principles you uphold. Doing work for the revolution to emancipate ourselves is entirely different from doing work for some capitalist scumbag because your survival depends on it. I still reject an authoritarian state as the end result, but a collective effort in the revolution for its cause will require that everyone be on the same page and do what must be done.

[Kadir Ateş]

Rosa's~Dream:

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I just wanted to get across that discipline is not synonymous with authoritarianism, and that any revolution will be long and protracted and require massive dedication from every socialist. I get the impression that with certain tendencies within left communism and anarchism, that such a world would mean immediate liberation from capital, when it fact it will have to be attacked root and branch for who knows how long.

[A Marxist Historian]

You didn't even watch the video if you think I'm talking about equal liberty in capitalist society, of course such a thing does not exist. The video is writing from Bakunin, an anarcho-communist. Do you really think that in a communist society people would not be equally free?

Why no. But that's irrelevant, as it's a long way from here to there. A true communist society, working according to the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," will take generations if not centuries to construct, and we in capitalist society are just too damn ignorant and blind to be able to even understand how to construct that, much less to pontificate about it.

Building a socialist society worldwide will be hard enough, and will take quite a while after the world revolution too.

-M.H.-

[individualist communist]

I'm of the view that revolution, the wide-scale forcible overthrow and expropriation of the bourgeoisie by the immense majority of society, the working class, is a temporary display of the workers' authority, and thus it is an authoritarian act.
I dont agree with that, destroying the authoritarian system of capitalism is libertarian, not authoritarian. The workers defending themselves from capitalism is not authoritarian, it is libertarian. Something like banning drugs (which i have seen some leftist advocate, even self proclaimed anarchists, even through you clearly cant be an anarchist and advocate banning drugs) would be authoritarian.