Omegle conversation sparks several questions

[Erratus]

I had a rather long conversation on Omegle about communism. One of the questions I grappled with was why every single "communist" (socialist/worker's state/state capitalism/whatever, but I let him/her refer to them as communist to avoid getting sidetracked) ended up fairly authoritarian. I heard several reasons for this (I only got to state one before he/she pushed the conversation forward), but I am not as confident about this as I would like.

The reasons that I know of what would push socialist revolutions into being authoritarian is 1. Them being in un-industrialized countries and the revolution leaders feeling the need to take charge and push them to industrialize. 2. Just the fact that revolutions always have the chance of military leaders not stepping down 3. Pressures from surrounding capitalist countries. Are any of these reasons blatantly wrong? They all struck me as legit reasons, but I am not as confident in them as I would like.

He/she also asked what is we are attacked? I explained a bit why wars will not be likely under communism, but I drew a parallel between attacks and natural disasters that might cause chaos without intervention. I said that there could be a reservoir of people who have agreed to provide aid in such a case, though this was just the first solution that came to me, and the question hadn't really occurred to me before.

The other point is how communism needs be industrial, and how communism needs to be global (or self-sustaining in that all involved countries need to be communist). But there are several non-industrial countries that traded with. Does communism require industrialization? Can communism trade with un-industrialized countries? Not sure about that.

Anyway, if people could provide some points of view of how these things will work that would be great. I'll provide a link to the log for anyone who wouldn't mind looking it over and giving an pointers. Also, if you find stupid things said, you'll probably find the ending kind of funny.

[Ostrinski]

Authoritarianism is necessary under isolated autarchic conditions to control the distribution of goods and resources as there is a shortage. Because of this shortage and without the buffer of foreign capital, conditions become chaotic and ripe for crisis, which is antagonistic toward democracy.

[Rooster]

The authoritarian aspect usually comes in with the vanguard party concept, or as I like to call it, a political coup. Socialism arises from the DotP which is the complete extension of democracy as far as it can go so that it removes the state and all the enforcing arms of the state, all of the police, the army and the law courts. For this to happen you generally need to have a large majority actually wanting it.

Communism does need to be industrial. It has to go beyond the productive capacities that capitalism allows. It's so that we don't have to toil in fields all day or in a factory all day using inefficient machines. So, it has to be able to generally create a society of plenty where there is no want. Also you shouldn't be able to trade with anyone because things are no longer produced for exchange, they are made to be used. Even if you could trade with non-industrial areas then there's no way that they could cope with the prices. Think of areas where there's already high rates of worker protection and then think of the places where industry is shipped to.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Brospierre

"Authoritarianism is necessary"

You are wrong authoritarianism is never necessary.
After the revolution the workers need to occupy the production centers, farms and distribution points (shops) and make an inventory of items, and control the production and consumption of items until the prodution hits a wield enough for everyone.

See, no authoritarianism what-so-ever.

[Rooster]

@Brospierre

"Authoritarianism is necessary"

You are wrong authoritarianism is never necessary.
After the revolution the workers need to occupy the production centers, farms and distribution points (shops) and make an inventory of items, and control the production and consumption of items until the prodution hits a wield enough for everyone.

See, no authoritarianism what-so-ever.

I'm pretty sure that is a form of authoritarianism.

[Caj]

@Brospierre

"Authoritarianism is necessary"

You are wrong authoritarianism is never necessary.
After the revolution the workers need to occupy the production centers, farms and distribution points (shops) and make an inventory of items, and control the production and consumption of items until the prodution hits a wield enough for everyone.

See, no authoritarianism what-so-ever.

Perhaps you should read the rest of the sentence and not take things out of context. . . .

Material conditions sometimes render authoritarianism inevitable, or do you deny this completely?

[revhiphop]

Authoritarianism is necessary under isolated autarchic conditions to control the distribution of goods and resources as there is a shortage. Because of this shortage and without the buffer of foreign capital, conditions become chaotic and ripe for crisis, which is antagonistic toward democracy.

This.

Also, OP, check your link to the log. It was removed for violating imageshack's ToS

[Ostrinski]

@Brospierre

"Authoritarianism is necessary"

You are wrong authoritarianism is never necessary.
After the revolution the workers need to occupy the production centers, farms and distribution points (shops) and make an inventory of items, and control the production and consumption of items until the prodution hits a wield enough for everyone.

See, no authoritarianism what-so-ever.This doesn't negate at all what I said. When I said authoritarianism was necessary under the specified conditions I was explaining why the revolutions degenerated.

[Franz Fanonipants]

capitalist lies

[Grenzer]

As others have said, authoritarianism is a complete necessity; this is true whether one is an anarchist or a statist. Pretty much any action undertaken by an individual or a group against another individual or group can be construed as "authoritarian"; so by definition seizing the means of production is an authoritarian act. It's not going to be happy for everyone; capitalists will have to be suppressed some way if revolution is going to succeed.

It's important to note, however, that there are those who would use this circumstance as justification for the most vile opportunism and brutal terrorism. So the question that you should really be asking is whether a given act is an arbitrary use of force or not. It gets a bit more nuanced than this, but it's treading a narrow path at times.

[Erratus]

I think that the definition of authoritarianism would really help out, if anyone is willing to give it.


It's important to note, however, that there are those who would use this circumstance as justification for the most vile opportunism and brutal terrorism. So the question that you should really be asking is whether a given act is an arbitrary use of force or not.

Very good defining point there, thanks.



Also, OP, check your link to the log. It was removed for violating imageshack's ToS

Thanks for telling me.

[Revolution starts with U]

As others have said, authoritarianism is a complete necessity; this is true whether one is an anarchist or a statist. Pretty much any action undertaken by an individual or a group against another individual or group can be construed as "authoritarian"; so by definition seizing the means of production is an authoritarian act. It's not going to be happy for everyone; capitalists will have to be suppressed some way if revolution is going to succeed.

It's important to note, however, that there are those who would use this circumstance as justification for the most vile opportunism and brutal terrorism. So the question that you should really be asking is whether a given act is an arbitrary use of force or not. It gets a bit more nuanced than this, but it's treading a narrow path at times.

This x9001!

The questions are who and how on authority, not if. Authority must exist in society on some level. The major difference between ls and as would be how much concentration authority is distributed, with ls on the more consensus side.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I think that the definition of authoritarianism would really help out, if anyone is willing to give it.

this is what i meant by capitalist lies.

defining authoritarianism is pretty arbitrary and ridiculous.

[Ostrinski]

Authoritarianism is one of those words that everyone likes to run around with their own definition of. This is what google define says:
au·thor·i·tar·i·an/əˌTHôriˈte(ə)rēən/

Adjective:Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

This is pretty much a characteristic of every class struggle turned war.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Brospierre

"Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom."

Then how is the system I described authoritarian.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

@Brospierre

"Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom."

Then how is the system I described authoritarian.
You are denying the bourgeoisie the freedom to exploit and subjugate the proletariat.

A revolution is a forced, frictional change in society. All revolution is authoritarian in that it's not a revolution unless it's resisted. You are exerting authority over the resisting groups. The only way to remove 'authoritarianism' from any tendency is to embrace passive lifestylism and 'drop out' of society in the hope that everyone will realize XYZ is 'right'.

[Lanky Wanker]

I was sort of having the same conversation today. "Communism will inevitably lead to a dictatorship." < I killed that one and got "well let's just agree to disagree" as an unsure response. :cool: One point for moi.

[Erratus]

So it seems like authoritarianism is just one of those loaded words I should avoid. Just for further clarification though, if an authoritarian act is an act in which one group (big or small) wields authority over another group and forces them to do something regardless of their will, wouldn't this be a regular part of parliament/congress? There is a small group of people passing laws and bills, regardless of the people's will (sure there is that "don't like that politician, don't vote for him" mentality, but I believe that most people here see through that). Would this be considered authoritarian? Or does passively accepting one's fate make it not authoritarian?

And side-stepping that whole authoritarian thing, the real question posed to me is why have so many of the socialist revolutions ended with one person or a small group of people controlling and abusing the proletariat?

[arilando]

You are denying the bourgeoisie the freedom to exploit and subjugate the proletariat.

A revolution is a forced, frictional change in society. All revolution is authoritarian in that it's not a revolution unless it's resisted. You are exerting authority over the resisting groups. The only way to remove 'authoritarianism' from any tendency is to embrace passive lifestylism and 'drop out' of society in the hope that everyone will realize XYZ is 'right'.
Being allowed to "exploit and subjugate the proletariat" is not a freedom, to the contrary it denies other people freedom, thus a socialist revolution is not inherently an authoritarian act at all, as no legitimate/real freedom is necessarily denied to the bourgeois, and i dont think any freedom should be.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

So it seems like authoritarianism is just one of those loaded words I should avoid. Just for further clarification though, if an authoritarian act is an act in which one group (big or small) wields authority over another group and forces them to do something regardless of their will, wouldn't this be a regular part of parliament/congress? There is a small group of people passing laws and bills, regardless of the people's will (sure there is that "don't like that politician, don't vote for him" mentality, but I believe that most people here see through that). Would this be considered authoritarian? Or does passively accepting one's fate make it not authoritarian?

And side-stepping that whole authoritarian thing, the real question posed to me is why have so many of the socialist revolutions ended with one person or a small group of people controlling and abusing the proletariat?
1. That's pretty much how I feel

2. Yep

3. Well, this is hotly contested. It's a combination of factors, including isolation and (arguably) dictatorship of the party vs dictatorship of the proletariat, but that's a whole different discussion that will likely involve all sides raging at eachother.

Being allowed to "exploit and subjugate the proletariat" is not a freedom, to the contrary it denies other people freedom, thus a socialist revolution is not inherently an authoritarian act at all, as no legitimate/real freedom is necessarily denied to the bourgeois, and i dont think any freedom should be.
I'm not trying to appeal to morals here; the notion of "legitimate" freedom is irrelevant. As of now, the bourgeoisie have the freedom to exploit you and I. A revolution will deny them this freedom ... obviously against their will. This is an authoritarian act.

[Marcus Clayman]

Our organizations foster uneven power distributions. But thinking critically, we should see that extreme power differentials, and percieved abuses are not inherant, but are the deviation from the majority of human interactions.

This is why we have to think more systemically about ALL THINGS, especially something like power, which is only meaningful within the context of a system it opperates in.

a general example of what im advocating for

Someone doesn't have power over someone else, but someone is in a certain position of power in a defined system, in relation to someone else in that system.

a more specific example might be

A particular man doesn't have power over a particular woman, but a particular man is in the position of "masculine" in a system of "gender roles," in relation to a particular woman in that system.

This forces us to not think of things as though, the man is inherantly corrupt or authoritative, but does occupy a certain position. His biological manhood doesn't need to be challenged to check any arbitrary power differential, but the relationships of the positions of power in the system of gender roles does need to be challenged, if people intend to change power differentials.

I only bring this up, to challenge people to think more critically about authority and power, to understand where it comes from, so we can really get down to the details and find out if it is necissary.

I think that is is necissary, until the day it is no longer necissary. And we cannot assume that day has since passed, even if it has, because to maintain a productive and meaningful powerless relationship is a process of mutual empowerment, and not this romaniticised state of ultimate autonomy(although to a degree, one's own autonomy can serve as an example, to empower others, in some cases).

At least that's my opinion.

Why does power tend to centralize? Because people who "do" the most active people, tend to know the most people, and be familiar with the group, the processes etc, and without comprehensive power sharing, orientation/outreach/training, transparency, and task rotation processes in place, an organization will centralize power in the hands of those who "deserve" it, due to their ability or seniority.