Non-authoritarian socialism: an impossible goal?

[barbelo]

I often catch myself analyzing the elections and voters of Europe, and I'm always amazed at the support the youth lends to socialists (at least in name) parties.
But like I said, these parties are leftists only in name, what someone would call "champagne socialists": they have a populist discourse appeasing to the workers and the low classes of the society, yet their actions and policies are very different.

What is most surprising tough, is the attraction this youth feels for the left, they never read any socialist author, they lack any real knowledge, they only leans comfortably to an anti-american position and have a vague desire towards an utopian and unrealistic libertarian socialism... Where everyone lives happy, the rich give up their wealth, there is no inequality, everything is shared with everywhere, etc.

This put me thinking: is it even possible to create a non-authoritarian socialist government? Are people trying to change the dictatorship of the proletariat to the democracy of the proletariat?

For me it's pretty obvious that this is impossible to realize.
Seizure of property and wealth- the first requisites to a planned economy- are already very dictatorial actions.
Mass deportations and re-allocation of populations in state apartments are also necessary for a communist urbanism.
All production and resource extraction is nationalized.
And many others examples, unless we are talking of an isolated community like a kibbutz.

What you think?

[Questionable]

A revolution is the most authoritative act possible. It is one class taking power from another and then restructuring society. Even capitalism was brought in by violent revolutions lead by the bourgeoisie.

[Paulappaul]

Even capitalism was brought in by violent revolutions lead by the bourgeoisie.

that authoritative act was splendid, lets do it again!

[Questionable]

that authoritative act was splendid, lets do it again!

Was this sarcasm? If by "splendid" you mean effective, well, we're living in capitalism so yes it was effective. I'm obviously not suggesting that we have another bourgeois revolution, if that was even possible.

[helot]

A revolution is the most authoritative act possible. It is one class taking power from another and then restructuring society. Even capitalism was brought in by violent revolutions lead by the bourgeoisie.

The concept of the oppressed abolishing their oppressors as an authoritarian act is playing with words.

[Questionable]

The concept of the oppressed abolishing their oppressors as an authoritarian act is playing with words.

I'm not condemning it, but objectively speaking it is authoritarian in the sense that the proletarian will use authority to assert their dominance. That is what the OP was asking.

[Paulappaul]

Seizure of property and wealth- the first requisites to a planned economy- are already very dictatorial actions.I don't think these are dictatorial actions unless you are looking at it from the perspective of the bourgeois. These are liberating actions for working class people. Communities taking over production and distribution is libertarian.


Mass deportations and re-allocation of populations in state apartments are also necessary for a communist urbanism.Is this necessary for anyone except the bourgeois? I mean if you are living in densely populated area and you would like to move out, I think Socialism would make that an easy process. I don't think it would have to be authoritative, I think it would mostly be voluntary.


All production and resource extraction is nationalized.With the elimination of nation states its hard to say who would jurisdiction over national resources, It'd imagine it'd be partly put under the control of those who partake in production (workers, specialists, etc.), the community effected by it and by some agency democratically elected.

[Paulappaul]

Was this sarcasm? If by "splendid" you mean effective, well, we're living in capitalism so yes it was effective. I'm obviously not suggesting that we have another bourgeois revolution, if that was even possible.

It was defiantly sarcasm. Means and Ends are one of the same, the fact that the dictatorship of bourgeois came about by authoritative means and continues to be the most tyrannical and oppressive system may say something about the methods we employ in the future. just sayin, you know.

[helot]

I'm not condemning it, but objectively speaking it is authoritarian in the sense that the proletarian will use authority to assert their dominance. That is what the OP was asking.

I'm not accusing you of condemning anything. The only way to claim the authoritarian nature of it is to ignore the condition of the working class under capitalism, it is to suppose (lingiustically of course) that both classes are somehow equal but one is exploiting the other and for the exploited class to end that exploitation it is inherently a liberatory act, not authoritarian.

[Questionable]

It was defiantly sarcasm. Means and Ends are one of the same, the fact that the dictatorship of bourgeois came about by authoritative means and continues to be the most tyrannical and oppressive system may say something about the methods we employ in the future. just sayin, you know.

The epoch of capitalism isn't simply violent because they used violence. Are you an idealist? It is violent because it is based on the subjugation of propertyless workers by those who own the means of production in the drive for personal profit. It is systematic, economic oppression.

But I could propose a similar question to you. I mean, how has that reformism been working out for you? Are the proletarian in charge yet?


I'm not accusing you of condemning anything. The only way to claim the authoritarian nature of it is to ignore the condition of the working class under capitalism, it is to suppose that both classes are somehow equal but of course one is exploiting the other and for the exploited class to end that exploitation it is inherently a liberatory act, not authoritarian.

It is authoritative in the sense that the proletarian will use authority as a tactic to secure its rule over the bourgeoisie. The OP was asking if we had to use authority as a means of the revolution as opposed to reform, and I answered him. Even Marx and Engels took this standpoint in "On Authority." I'm not condemning the proletariat if they have to be authoritative. This seems more like a semantics discussion we're having.

[Paulappaul]

The epoch of capitalism isn't simply violent because they used violence. It is violent because it is based on the subjugation of propertyless workers by those who own the means of production in the drive for personal profit. It is systematic, economic oppression.Defiantly the institutions of oppression used in the revolution to bring about the existing epoch were turned aganist the working class and even members of the bourgeois. There is a relationship defiantly in all revolutions that bring about some social change that what you begin with is what you end up with i.e. what you create in the shell of the old, becomes the foundations for what comes forth.


But I could propose a similar question to you. I mean, how has that reformism been working out for you? Are the proletarian in charge yet? I like how its either authoritative bullshit or reformist bullshit. I prefer no bullshit. Its a stupid dichotomy you are throwing up. :rolleyes:

[helot]

It is authoritative in the sense that the proletarian will use authority as a tactic to secure its rule over the bourgeoisie. The OP was asking if we had to use authority as a means of the revolution as opposed to reform, and I answered him. Even Marx and Engels took this standpoint in "On Authority." I'm not condemning the proletariat if they have to be authoritative. This seems more like a semantics discussion we're having.

It is a semantical discussion and one that has continuously popped up as a marxist dismissal of anarchism and libertarian communism in general.

[Questionable]

Defiantly the institutions of oppression used in the revolution to bring about the existing epoch were turned aganist the working class and even members of the bourgeois. There is a relationship defiantly in all revolutions that bring about some social change that what you begin with is what you end up with i.e. what you create in the shell of the old, becomes the foundations for what comes forth.

These institutions were not turned against the working class merely because they were authoritative. They were turned against it because the economic structure of capitalism is such that the bourgeoisie must repress the proletariat in their quest profit. You're simply assuming that because violence was used, society would be violent no matter what. It makes no sense, you're not providing any reasons for how this works, you're simply saying so. You're ignoring the real economic basis that causes violence to be utilized. This violence is based on class struggle. Who are the proletarian going to oppress using these institutions?


I like how its either authoritative bullshit or reformist bullshit. I prefer no bullshit. Its a stupid dichotomy you are throwing up. :rolleyes:If you're going to call me stupid, at least have the decency to explain your position instead of being arrogant. Not that there's much for you to be arrogant about. Your position is based on idealism and is an un-Marxist analysis.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Everywhere combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. But whoever mentions combined action speaks of organization; now, is it possible to have organization without authority?


Supposing a social revolution dethroned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production and circulation of wealth. Supposing, to adopt entirely the point of view of the anti-authoritarians, that the land and the instruments of labor had become the collective property of the workers who use them. Will authority have disappeared, or will it only have changed its form?

. . .

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

Engels doesn't get enough love, in my opinion.

[The Jay]

What is most surprising tough, is the attraction this youth feels for the left, they never read any socialist author, they lack any real knowledge, they only leans comfortably to an anti-american position . . .

I can't comment on this really since it's pure speculation, but I will venture into a guess: there needs to be more actual leftists putting in effort to reach out and build alternative institutions.


and have a vague desire towards an utopian and unrealistic libertarian socialism... Where everyone lives happy, the rich give up their wealth, there is no inequality, everything is shared with everywhere, etc.I have the feeling that you've never read anything to do with Libertarian Socialism. It is not about thinking that everyone will always do the right thing. It is about how to and if it should be enforced. This calls into question the justifications of using force and the mechanisms in which that force would be dealt with.


This put me thinking: is it even possible to create a non-authoritarian socialist government?Yes. Why would it not be?


Are people trying to change the dictatorship of the proletariat to the democracy of the proletariat?The dictatorship of the proletariat meant that the proletariat would be in charge of society and not the bourgeoisie: dictatorship of a class as opposed to class collaboration. It says nothing of how the organization of the proletariat should be set up. This means that a democratic style of organizing the proletariat is in no manner contrary to the idea of the dominance of the proletariat class over the whole of society.


For me it's pretty obvious that this is impossible to realize.Again, I doubt you've read much Libertarian Socialist theory.


Seizure of property and wealth- the first requisites to a planned economy- are already very dictatorial actions.Dictatorial by the proletariat against the class that owns the means of production, yes. This has absolutely nothing to do with how the proletarians are organized relative to other proletarians.



Mass deportations and re-allocation of populations in state apartments are also necessary for a communist urbanism.I would love to see the proof of this and the justification of telling another proletariat that they cannot live in the home that they grew up in even if they want to stay. I don't think that they will be so easy to convince that you know best.

[Камо́ Зэд]

If we're not talking about the suppression of capitalist restoration and reaction, then I'm all in favor of a libertarian approach to social issues. You can't possibly convince me that Engels wasn't toasted off his ass at least most of the time.

[The Jay]

If we're not talking about the suppression of capitalist restoration and reaction, then I'm all in favor of a libertarian approach to social issues. You can't possibly convince me that Engels wasn't toasted off his ass at least most of the time.

No I don't mean libertarian on social issues. I mean a libertarian sense of government - democracy, as direct as possible. I personally favor a nested council system for political issues and consumer councils and syndicalism for economic issues.

[helot]

Engels doesn't get enough love, in my opinion.

Except the boldened part is, as i've mentioned, playing with words. It ignores the condition of the working class and thus creates a strawman. Just because the oppressed must use violence against oppressors does not make it authoritarian. It has to be one of the most stupid criticisms you can come across.

[Камо́ Зэд]

No I don't mean libertarian on social issues. I mean a libertarian sense of government - democracy, as direct as possible. I personally favor a nested council system for political issues and consumer councils and syndicalism for economic issues.

My opinion is congruent with Engels's. The state will wither away when political administration becomes obsolete, and steps need to be taken in the direction of making such administration obsolete. I don't think that the mechanisms of state and administration can be wiped out in one fell stroke.

[Ocean Seal]

that authoritative act was splendid, lets do it again!
Oh it was indeed splendid so why do I detect a note of sarcasm from you? I somehow think that for all the murder and destruction caused by capitalism, it sure beats being a serf, and getting drafted into war at the whim of two feuding internal lords.

[helot]

Oh it was indeed splendid so why do I detect a note of sarcasm from you? I somehow think that for all the murder and destruction caused by capitalism, it sure beats being a serf, and getting drafted into war at the whim of two feuding internal lords.

If your criticism of feudalism is centred around the draft you're on flimsy ground. Of course, capitalism is preferable to serfdom but not because of being drafted into a war considering people get drafted into war within capitalism.

[The Jay]

Except the boldened part is, as i've mentioned, playing with words. It ignores the condition of the working class and thus creates a strawman. Just because the oppressed must use violence against oppressors does not make it authoritarian. It has to be one of the most stupid criticisms you can come across.


It is authoritarian - against the bourgeoisie - but I understand why you want to call it self-defense. I have no problem with giving capitalists no say in decisions.

[Paulappaul]

If you're going to call me stupid, at least have the decency to explain your position instead of being arrogant. Not that there's much for you to be arrogant about. Your position is based on idealism and is an un-Marxist analysis.

Because reformism is just as authoritative as Marxist - Leninism. Welding the existing state machinery to your own end and utilizing its coercive forces to institute the DOTP is just as unjust as a workers state doing the same. If we are going to talk about semantics, your difference between authoritarianism and reformism is bullshit.

Secondly Marxism obviously doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does for me. Marx was after all the most anti - authoritarian dude of his time. So don't call me un - marxian because you are equally "Arrogant" for half ass explaining your analysis.


These institutions were not turned against the working class merely because they were authoritative.

Let me run through it again, the authoritative institutions of the revolution were turned aganist their agents working class and not. How I love the ol' french revolution's tale of Robespierre and guillotine as a perfect analogy of this. The point is, you don't use authoritative means at all cause once you do you run the perfectly likely chance that they will be used against you by the paranoid, the power hungry, etc.

It's even more dangerous when you are Marxist - Leninist (I'm not sure your exact brand of Lenin lover, so the next part is pure speculation to your belief) but when you are dealing with single parties, bureaucratic agencies and what not that pray own our lust for power these authoritative agencies (like you know, the Cheka) run the dangerous route of creating worse tyrannies then Capitalism.



You're simply assuming that because violence was used, society would be violent no matter what.

Uh, when? I don't think violence = authority. Infact coercion happens often non - violently or just with the threat of violence and I think violence often means liberation, like when a worker sabotages his workplace, when a protestor smashes a window, I don't think these are coercive acts its the negation of coercion if anything.

Things change when authority and violence are institutionalized, when you have armed gangs instituting things and micro managing society. When there is a state that is, things change.


Who are the proletarian going to oppress using these institutions?

Themselves.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Except the boldened part is, as i've mentioned, playing with words. It ignores the condition of the working class and thus creates a strawman. Just because the oppressed must use violence against oppressors does not make it authoritarian. It has to be one of the most stupid criticisms you can come across.

Then, necessarily, the whole argument of authoritarianism versus libertarianism is a game of words. What "condition" of the working class does it ignore and how does ignoring it create a misrepresentation of the opposing position? Why does using violence to suppress the restoration of bourgeois oppression not count as authoritarian? And what gives you the right to call something "stupid" when you've yet to make a convincing argument of any kind?

[Questionable]

Except the boldened part is, as i've mentioned, playing with words. It ignores the condition of the working class and thus creates a strawman. Just because the oppressed must use violence against oppressors does not make it authoritarian. It has to be one of the most stupid criticisms you can come across.

I don't think you're interpreting Engels correctly. The working class isn't utilizing authority in the "evil dictator" sense, it merely means that the proletariat should use harsh methods in order to establish its supremacy. It's not a criticism, it was a tactic. We're speaking of authority in the tactical sense, not the moral sense.

[The Jay]

My opinion is congruent with Engels's. The state will wither away when political administration becomes obsolete, and steps need to be taken in the direction of making such administration obsolete. I don't think that the mechanisms of state and administration can be wiped out in one fell stroke.


If the organization of the proletariat is democratic from the start then what are you saying?

[Камо́ Зэд]

Let me run through it again, the authoritative institutions of the revolution were turned aganist their agents working class and not. How I love the ol' french revolution's tale of Robespierre and guillotine as a perfect analogy of this. The point is, you don't use authoritative means at all cause once you do you run the perfectly likely chance that they will be used against you by the paranoid, the power hungry, etc.

Then we shall reason with the bourgeoisie and persuade them to help us implement socialism~!

Okay, that's probably not what you're saying, but exactly how is a revolution not authoritarian? And if that's just a question of semantics, then what is anyone even disagreeing about?

[The Jay]

Then we shall reason with the bourgeoisie and persuade them to help us implement socialism~!

Okay, that's probably not what you're saying, but exactly how is a revolution not authoritarian? And if that's just a question of semantics, then what is anyone even disagreeing about?

He is talking about the organization of the proletariat, for the proletariat. If you answer my questions you will answer his at the same time. I'm just phrasing it differently.

[Камо́ Зэд]

If the organization of the proletariat is democratic from the start then what are you saying?

Because even a democratic state is inherently oppressive, as Marx, Engels, and Lenin all said. Eventually, the state has to go away, no matter how democratically it's organized.

[Камо́ Зэд]

He is talking about the organization of the proletariat, for the proletariat. If you answer my questions you will answer his at the same time. I'm just phrasing it differently.

I think we need to back up and define authoritarianism before we go any further. We may be using the word differently.

[Paulappaul]

Oh it was indeed splendid so why do I detect a note of sarcasm from you? I somehow think that for all the murder and destruction caused by capitalism, it sure beats being a serf, and getting drafted into war at the whim of two feuding internal lords. You don't detect sarcasm, I think you read it like two posts down. Really? I actually don't think so, and in case you haven't opened your eyes, drafts and wars with more causalities and war crimes happen all the time usually in some intercontinental battle. I'd honestly take having my head sliced by an axe to being raped then burned alive in a giant oven, or watch as napalm is dumped on my village and the surrounding area. Capitalism has just accentuated and hidden the injustices present under feudalism.

[helot]

Then, necessarily, the whole argument of authoritarianism versus libertarianism is a game of words. The entire argument around whether such a revolution is authoritarian is a game of words.



What "condition" of the working class does it ignore and how does ignoring it create a misrepresentation of the opposing position? Why does using violence to suppress the restoration of bourgeois oppression not count as authoritarian?

The misrepresentation it creates is evident in the Engels quote you posted.

How about the oppression of the working class as the condition being ignored? If you look at revolution in the abstract you can say anything about it.

Yes, the bourgeois revolution was authoritarian, it established the bourgeoisie as the dominant exploiter however this is fundamentally different to a proletarian revolution in which the abolition of exploitation is a necessity for its success.




I don't think you're interpreting Engels correctly. The working class isn't utilizing authority in the "evil dictator" sense, it merely means that the proletariat should use harsh methods in order to establish its supremacy. It's not a criticism, it was a tactic. We're speaking of authority in the tactical sense, not the moral sense.

I'm neither speaking in a tactical nor moral sense but a linguistic one.

[The Jay]

I think we need to back up and define authoritarianism before we go any further. We may be using the word differently.

I agree. I will start then.

Authoritarianism, how I am using it, is a style of governing in which individuals are forced to act in accordance with dictates that they have little or no control over.

In this case I am saying that if a revolution is authoritarian from the perspective of a capitalist, that is fine, but if it is authoritarian from the perspective of a proletarian that is not fine.

Does this make sense to you?

[Questionable]

Because reformism is just as authoritative as Marxist - Leninism. Welding the existing state machinery to your own end and utilizing its coercive forces to institute the DOTP is just as unjust as a workers state doing the same. If we are going to talk about semantics, your difference between authoritarianism and reformism is bullshit.

You do realize that bourgeois revolutions were about insuring bourgeois supremacy over the proletarian, while a proletarian revolution is about abolishing class antagonisms, the source of conflict in society? And I don't even know what your remark about semantics means.


Secondly Marxism obviously doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does for me. Marx was after all the most anti - authoritarian dude of his time. So don't call me un - marxian because you are equally "Arrogant" for half ass explaining your analysis.

Yeah, it means different things because I've read Marx whereas you apparently haven't. Did you not see "On Authority" posted here? Marx opposed bourgeois authority, not proletariat authority over the bourgeoisie in the act of revolution. Learn the difference.




Let me run through it again, the authoritative institutions of the revolution were turned aganist their agents working class and not. How I love the ol' french revolution's tale of Robespierre and guillotine as a perfect analogy of this. The point is, you don't use authoritative means at all cause once you do you run the perfectly likely chance that they will be used against you by the paranoid, the power hungry, etc.

Man, what are you even doing here? You sound like a liberal. Compared to the shitty conditions that everyone was living in under feudalism, the French Revolution was a breath of fresh air. Yes, it gave way to capitalist society, but that's not merely because of your idealistic approach about it being founded on the ideals of violence, it is because of the material conditions of class struggle having to be enforced through authoritarianism. But with the bourgeoisie gone, the proletariat have no one to oppress.


It's even more dangerous when you are Marxist - Leninist (I'm not sure your exact brand of Lenin lover, so the next part is pure speculation to your belief) but when you are dealing with single parties, bureaucratic agencies and what not that pray own our lust for power these authoritative agencies (like you know, the Cheka) run the dangerous route of creating worse tyrannies then Capitalism.

Your posts are so full of grammar and spelling errors that it's quite hard to understand what you're saying, but I will say that a materialist analysis of Russia (Not the reduction of history to caricatures as you're doing) would address many of these grievances. And quite frankly, I'm glad we had the Cheka. The Bolsheviks resisted destruction by invading imperialists using it.



Uh, when? I don't think violence = authority. Infact coercion happens often non - violently or just with the threat of violence and I think violence often means liberation, like when a worker sabotages his workplace, when a protestor smashes a window, I don't think these are coercive acts its the negation of coercion if anything.

I'm sorry, what are we talking about here? So now you're okay with violence?


Things change when authority and violence are institutionalized, when you have armed gangs instituting things and micro managing society. When there is a state that is, things change.



Themselves.

Authority and violence are institutionalized because of the material conditions of class struggle. All bourgeois institutions of authority exist because of the need to suppress the bourgeoisie. Who are the proletariat going to suppress when there are no classes?

[Камо́ Зэд]

The entire argument around whether such a revolution is authoritarian is a game of words.

That's what I said.


The misrepresentation it creates is evident in the Engels quote you posted.

How so, and what is this misrepresentation? Consider that I asked you to explain this already, because I actually wanted you to explain it.


How about the oppression of the working class as the condition being ignored? If you look at revolution in the abstract you can say anything about it.

What condition? Who's the one being abstract here?


Yes, the bourgeois revolution was authoritarian, it established the bourgeoisie as the dominant exploiter however this is fundamentally different to a proletarian revolution in which the abolition of exploitation is a necessity for its success.

But, in order to do that, the proletariat will necessarily need to exercise the authority to take bourgeois property away and suppress attempts at undermining the development of socialism.


I'm neither speaking in a tactical nor moral sense but a linguistic one.

Then you're wasting everyone's time.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I agree. I will start then.

Authoritarianism, how I am using it, is a style of governing in which individuals are forced to act in accordance with dictates that they have little or no control over.

I agree with some instances of authoritarianism, in that case. I mean that those who would deliberately undermine socialist development shouldn't have a say as a matter of practicality.


In this case I am saying that if a revolution is authoritarian from the perspective of a capitalist, that is fine, but if it is authoritarian from the perspective of a proletarian that is not fine.

Does this make sense to you?

I can dig it, comrade.

[Ocean Seal]

If your criticism of feudalism is centred around the draft you're on flimsy ground. Of course, capitalism is preferable to serfdom but not because of being drafted into a war considering people get drafted into war within capitalism.
Considering war sparked out over absolutely nothing quite frequently, and peasants were literally dragged to war without any training as cannon fodder, I would say that the bourgeois draft seems a slight bit more preferable, but yes that is merely one area where feudalism can be compared to capitalism. I'm well aware of rent extraction and feudal productive relations. Nothing about them was pleasant. Neither was being burned at the stake at the whim of your local inquisitor.

[The Jay]

I agree with some instances of authoritarianism, in that case. I mean that those who would deliberately undermine socialist development shouldn't have a say as a matter of practicality.

I can dig it, comrade.

Rockin.

Now we can have a conversation solely on the proletarian side of the organization, which was part of the sickly criticism that the OP tried to make. Do you oppose the use of nested councils or some similar system or do you support a bureaucracy? That may sound crude but I think that it is a legitimate question.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Rockin.

Now we can have a conversation solely on the proletarian side of the organization, which was part of the sickly criticism that the OP tried to make. Do you oppose the use of nested councils or some similar system or do you support a bureaucracy? That may sound crude but I think that it is a legitimate question.

I support a centralization of administration, at least to begin with, as the configuration of administration under capitalism is likewise centralized; it will be necessary to enter socialist development from the door capitalism's left for us. This isn't to say I support "bureaucracy," since that implies a system of non-elected agents, but, to some extent, this will be necessary; you can't elect absolutely everyone all the time as it is.

[Paulappaul]

Man, what are you even doing here? You sound like a liberal. Compared to the shitty conditions that everyone was living in under feudalism, the French Revolution was a breath of fresh air. Yes, it gave way to capitalist society, but that's not merely because of your idealistic approach about it being founded on the ideals of violence, it is because of the material conditions of class struggle having to be enforced through authoritarianism. But with the bourgeoisie gone, the proletariat have no one to oppress.

You sound like a Liberal to me ironically enough for saying that Capitalism was a progressive mode of production. It was a big step down from feudalism, not to say that wasn't a shit hole either. Ehh.. the material conditions of Feudalism utilized force in a coercive manner to put down peasant struggles too, so whats your point about Capitalism being the same way? So much for progressivism.

There's more to life then class yo.


You do realize that bourgeois revolutions were about insuring bourgeois supremacy over the proletarian, while a proletarian revolution is about abolishing class antagonisms, the source of conflict in society? And I don't even know what your remark about semantics means.

By imposing supremacy over the bourgeois, you begin to tear down class distinctions. My point on semantics is that there is no difference between reformism and marxist leninism.


Yeah, it means different things because I've read Marx whereas you apparently haven't. Did you not see "On Authority" posted here? Marx opposed bourgeois authority, not proletariat authority over the bourgeoisie in the act of revolution. Learn the difference.

For someone who has read Marx, I thought you'd know "On Authority" was written by Engels. Lol. Checkmate, GTFO.


I'm sorry, what are we talking about here? So now you're okay with violence?

Like two seconds ago I swear I wrote to you that I never had a problem with violence, would you like me to go back and collect these quotes? Or can you read? Oh wait obviously not, cause you'd probably have read that "On Authority" was by Engels.

[The Jay]

I support a centralization of administration, at least to begin with, as the configuration of administration under capitalism is likewise centralized; it will be necessary to enter socialist development from the door capitalism's left for us. This isn't to say I support "bureaucracy," since that implies a system of non-elected agents, but, to some extent, this will be necessary; you can't elect absolutely everyone all the time as it is.


Well then I take it that you've never heard of syndicalism (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/archive/display/40869/index.php). How about this awesome crap (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/index.htm)? I don't expect you to respond to this right away since it is a lot of stuff, but I'll keep checking anyway.

. . . comrade :D (I wish there was a "tip of the hat" emote) (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/archive/display/40869/index.php)

EDIT: I had another link to the wrong article so I removed it.
(http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/archive/display/40869/index.php)

[Questionable]

You sound like a Liberal to me ironically enough for saying that Capitalism was a progressive mode of production. It was a big step down from feudalism, not to say that wasn't a shit hole either. Ehh.. the material conditions of Feudalism utilized force in a coercive manner to put down peasant struggles too, so whats your point about Capitalism being the same way? So much for progressivism.

What the fuck? Capitalism wasn't a further development of the productive forces? You do realize Marx said capitalism was GOOD because it was a further development of the productive forces, making socialism possible? This doesn't mean capitalism is the best system ever, it's certainly not, but it was a step above feudalism.


There's more to life then class yo.Wow, the "that's life" argument? You really are a liberal. I thought your type was banned from Revleft?




By imposing supremacy over the bourgeois, you begin to tear down class distinctions. My point on semantics is that there is no difference between reformism and marxist leninism.That's because you misunderstand both of them. And the goal is to tear down class distinctions.




For someone who has read Marx, I thought you'd know "On Authority" was written by Engels. Lol. Checkmate, GTFO.Oh yes, because Marx and Engels had very dissimilar views and it is not at all reasonable to say that Marx probably felt the same way. But let me prove it to you.

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."

But you're right, this is THE fatal blow to my argument. Nevermind that I'm winning theoretically while you fall back on liberal idealism, the fact that I misattributed the work to Marx (Not that it matters because Marx most likely approved of what Engels thought since they associated so closely) is the killing blow. Goodbye, Revleft. I must leave forever.




Like two seconds ago I swear I wrote to you that I never had a problem with violence, would you like me to go back and collect these quotes? Or can you read? Oh wait obviously not, cause you'd probably have read that "On Authority" was by Engels.I was aware that Engels wrote it, but it's assumable that Marx felt the same way since they worked together in very close collaboration. But your preference for insulting me does not cover up your misunderstanding of Marxism. I'm noticing a direct correlation between your inability to prove your own arguments and the amount of insults you're throwing at me. If you could win this debate through rational means, you wouldn't be getting childishly angry at me.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Well then I take it that you've never heard of syndicalism (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/archive/display/40869/index.php). How about this awesome crap (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/index.htm)? I don't expect you to respond to this right away since it is a lot of stuff, but I'll keep checking anyway.

. . . comrade :D (I wish there was a "tip of the hat" emote)

EDIT: I had another link to the wrong article so I removed it.


Listen, you seem like a reasonable individual and I like that our discussion hasn't degenerated into the mindless babble typical of discussions involving someone with Stalin as his avatar, so I'm going to let you in on an embarrassing secret: I was actually fascinated by De Leon and syndicalism for some time. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on it, but I'm familiar.

[barbelo]

Oh god, so many posts to reply.


The concept of the oppressed abolishing their oppressors as an authoritarian act is playing with words.

I'm not referring only to the creation of the communist state, but it maintenance: The ideological persecution of workers who doesn't agree with the dictatorship of workers (yes, it's real), the existence of prisons and forced labor, the way the state will need to canalize the labor pool, sometimes against individual will...
Maybe people imagine a stateless and decentralized communist state, or even a world communist revolution, but such a situation seems unsustainable constant maintenance.

Also, not questioning your ethic, but you don't think that appropriating the money of people- no matter how rich and wrong they are- isn't an authoritarian act?


I would love to see the proof of this and the justification of telling another proletariat that they cannot live in the home that they grew up in even if they want to stay. I don't think that they will be so easy to convince that you know best.

Many slums are in the middle of ecological reserves, lack proper sewer, lack electricity and were built over hills. Many people that live in slums wouldn't live in another place even if the state pays them, because they're connected to their houses. And for their own health the state needs to use force to expel them from these illegal housings.
This is one example of many.

[Paulappaul]

If you could win this debate through rational means, you wouldn't be getting childishly angry at me. Except I'm not, Its more just mocking you. You are the one getting all frustrated, its why you are throwing this at me.


What the fuck? Capitalism wasn't a further development of the productive forces? You do realize Marx said capitalism was GOOD because it was a further development of the productive forces, making socialism possible? This doesn't mean capitalism is the best system ever, it's certainly not, but it was a step above feudalism.You are right, It was a progressive mode of production in that sense, not in a social sense however. There is more war, more exploitation, more war crimes then ever before.


Wow, the "that's life" argument? You really are a liberal. I thought your type was banned from Revleft?No it's just a reality, there is more then class. Race is a perfect example. Yes racism defends the existing class order, but there are legitimately racist people that regardless the mode of production they will want to hunt down someone else.


That's because you misunderstand both of them.
Except you didn't refute anything, you just said "I don't understand". I gave an example of how they are one of the same, now you are saying I misunderstand them without clarifying. Huh funny, sounds like you are doing the exact same thing you are claiming I am doing. You better get your tactics straight cause its starting to sound like you may be talking out of your ass.


And the goal is to tear down class distinctions.Yes, I just said there is a process to get there.


Oh yes, because Marx and Engels had very dissimilar views and it is not at all reasonable to say that Marx probably felt the same way.Yeah they actually did.


They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.I agree with this statement. I don't see it as authoritarian. The methods of achieving this forcible overthrow and maintaining it are where we depart.


Nevermind that I'm winning theoretically while you fall back on liberal idealismAt least I'm not resorting to name calling. Don't get all worked up.


the fact that I misattributed the work to Marx (Not that it matters because Marx most likely approved of what Engels thought since they associated so closely) is the killing blowIt was just funny to see you on your high horse claiming you are the fucking expert on Marx then misidentify "On Authority" as a work by him.


I was aware that Engels wrote it, but it's assumable that Marx felt the same way since they worked together in very close collaborationbah excuses! :D

[The Jay]

Many slums are in the middle of ecological reserves, lack proper sewer, lack electricity and were built over hills. Many people that live in slums wouldn't live in another place even if the state pays them, because they're connected to their houses. And for their own health the state needs to use force to expel them from these illegal housings.
This is one example of many.

Okay, say I live in a slum and don't want to go. What do you do?

[Questionable]

.I'm not referring only to the creation of the communist state, but it maintenance: The ideological persecution of workers who doesn't agree with the dictatorship of workers (yes, it's real), the existence of prisons and forced labor, the way the state will need to canalize the labor pool, sometimes against individual will...
Maybe people imagine a stateless and decentralized communist state, or even a world communist revolution, but such a situation seems unsustainable constant maintenance.

Personally, I'm more in favor of a kind of "re-education" for workers who don't go along. Naturally there will be some workers so indoctrinated with bourgeois propaganda that it will be hard for them to along, but firstly, the establishment of the DotP implies a high level of consciousness among the workers, so I doubt there will be very many of these at the time. Secondly, if socialism is operating correctly, there really wouldn't be much of a reason for a proletariat to work against it. But yes, those who attempt to sabotage the efforts of the proletarians should be dealt with accordingly.

But these institutions will be operated on the basis of class struggle. Once the bourgeoisie and their ideology are thoroughly suppressed, there will be no need for these institutions of authority, and the state will begin to exist merely for administrative tasks until it "withers away" as Engels put it.




Many slums are in the middle of ecological reserves, lack proper sewer, lack electricity and were built over hills. Many people that live in slums wouldn't live in another place even if the state pays them, because they're connected to their houses. And for their own health the state needs to use force to expel them from these illegal housings.
This is one example of many.

A lot of these problems are caused by capitalism, especially the lack of sewers and electricity. I'd like to think the workers could come up with a way to improve the situation of those living in these houses without profit to get in the way of things.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I don't mean to veer off topic, but what's got you confused about my knowledge of syndicalism, Comrade Goldstein?

[barbelo]

I think I should explain myself better.

I see many socialist and left leaning parties winning democratic elections in Europe.
Yet I don't see any change, not even proper socialist policies, with much effort a keynesian touch in the economy, like France.

Like someone said, maybe it's the fault of these socialists, but I don't think so.
I think the fault lie in the means; nothing will ever be accomplished by democratic means. And raising taxes is very retarded, implying all the rich ones didn't evaded illegally anyway.
There is phrase of Trotsky where he questions the sanctity of human rights and I agree with him: why these values are held so dear while people are unemployed and without any social mobility, as is the situation in many european countries?

Maybe I'm being infantile, but I can't stop feeling that what my generation calls socialism is more like a hippie utopia impossible to attain than a communist dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Maybe I'm being infantile, but I can't stop feeling that what my generation calls socialism is more like a hippie utopia impossible to attain than a communist dictatorship of the proletariat.

I really, really wish you were wrong.

[The Jay]

I think I should explain myself better.

I see many socialist and left leaning parties winning democratic elections in Europe.
Yet I don't see any change, not even proper socialist policies, with much effort a keynesian touch in the economy, like France.

Like someone said, maybe it's the fault of these socialists, but I don't think so.
I think the fault lie in the means; nothing will ever be accomplished by democratic means. And raising taxes is very retarded, implying all the rich ones didn't evaded illegally anyway.
There is phrase of Trotsky where he questions the sanctity of human rights and I agree with him: why these values are held so dear while people are unemployed and without any social mobility, as is the situation in many european countries?

Maybe I'm being infantile, but I can't stop feeling that what my generation calls socialism is more like a hippie utopia impossible to attain than a communist dictatorship of the proletariat.

That is not the same thing as your OP. Your OP talked about Libertarian Socialism being silly. Now, if you would please answer my previous question I would like to see your response.

[Questionable]

Except I'm not, Its more just mocking you. You are the one getting all frustrated, its why you are throwing this at me.

I feel pretty good about this since I'm winning. You were the first one to get angry at me in this discussion. I think looking over our debate would show clearly who uses more insults.


You are right, It was a progressive mode of production in that sense, not in a social sense however. There is more war, more exploitation, more war crimes then ever before.But these resulted from class antagonisms present in the capitalist system, not because we used a guillotine.


No it's just a reality, there is more then class. Race is a perfect example. Yes racism defends the existing class order, but there are legitimately racist people that regardless the mode of production they will want to hunt down someone else.Yes, there is an absolute ideal of racism that exists and is totally independent from the material reality. I understand now.


Except you didn't refute anything, you just said "I don't understand". I gave an example of how they are one of the same, now you are saying I misunderstand them without clarifying. Huh funny, sounds like you are doing the exact same thing you are claiming I am doing. You better get your tactics straight cause its starting to sound like you may be talking out of your ass.That's because your example was some bullshit about how both sought to use the state and how they're essentially the same. Reformism, as the name suggests, seeks to reform the BOURGEOIS state. Marxism-Leninism seeks to abolish it and establish a proletarian state that rules in their interests. The two are qualitatively different, not that you'd understand.


I agree with this statement. I don't see it as authoritarian. The methods of achieving this forcible overthrow and maintaining it are where we depart.The authority must be maintained because the bourgeoisie will actively resist the proletariat. This maintenace of authority is temporary and based on class struggle until class is abolished, then it will become useless.


At least I'm not resorting to name calling. Don't get all worked up.You have been condescending from the very start of this discussion. Your very first post was malicious sarcasm directed at me, which was also devoid of any theoretical content, you just wanted to make yourself look big. Also, let's go back and look at some things you've said to me:

"So don't call me un - marxian because you are equally "Arrogant" for half ass explaining your analysis. "

"It's even more dangerous when you are Marxist - Leninist (I'm not sure your exact brand of Lenin lover, so the next part is pure speculation to your belief)" ("Lenin lover," to be precise, along with the implication that I am somehow dangerous)

"You don't detect sarcasm, I think you read it like two posts down. Really? I actually don't think so, and in case you haven't opened your eyes," (Not directed at me, but still more mean-spirited sarcasm at other users)

And after that I began responding to your insults in kind.


It was just funny to see you on your high horse claiming you are the fucking expert on Marx then misidentify "On Authority" as a work by him.Whether I misidentified the work or not, what does that mean for your argument? I was aware that Engels wrote the work, I simply understand that his views and Marx's were extremely similar, and Marx justified authoritarianism in other works anyway, such as the Communist Manifesto. But you're still falling back on this as if it proves everything else I said is incorrect. You're still ignoring a class analysis in favor of liberal human nature and "violence begets violence" style arguments.


bah excuses! :DYes, the fact that Marx and Engels developed their ideals together, and Marx never said anything to disclaim what Engels stated about authority, is merely an excuse.

EDIT: Since you seem to be taking great pleasure in claiming I mistook the authorship of On Authority (I might even say it's the only leg you're standing on), I've gone ahead and gathered a collection of Marx's views that are similar to the ones espoused by Engels in "On Authority."

"Now, as for myself, I do not claim to have discovered either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." - Letter from Marx to Joseph Wedemeyer. Oh look, it's Marx supported the dictatorship of the proletariat, institutionalized authority against the bourgeoisie. When you're done dancing around the fact that I mistakenly said Marx wrote "On Authority" and this somehow invalidates everything I've said thus far, take a look at this and the others below.

"After every revolution marking a progressive phase in the class struggle, the purely repressive character of the state power stands out in bolder and bolder relief." - The Civil War in France. What, Marx saying that the authoritative power of the state stands out after a progressive revolution? HE'S ALSO STATING THAT THE BOURGEOIS REVOLUTION WAS PROGRESSIVE?!?!!? B-but how can this be, Paulappaul?!

"In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie." - Once again, Marx is supporting a bourgeois revolution against feudalism because it is progressive. So which is worse? Me accidentally saying Marx wrote On Authority, or you totally misunderstanding everything the man said?

Also, I missed your comment about the proletarians oppressing themselves after the bourgeoisie are eliminated. This makes no sense and only shows your dependence upon liberal idealism. The bourgeois repression you fear so much is based upon class struggle, and in a classless society will be eliminated. Your stance is that the mere institutionalization of violence against the bourgeoisie will somehow corrupt society and make it inherently violent. You also stated your dislike of the French Revolution with its excessive violence, but you agree with Marx that the proletarian must use violence to seize power. So what are we do to when the bourgeoisie resists? Nothing? If you suggest that we use violence to stop a bourgeois counterrevolution, then you are supporting the institutionalization of violence. If not, then you are a reformist because you propose that we can somehow reach a bargain with the bourgeoisie. I also want to reiterate that the Leninist position on the state is not reformation of the bourgeois state, but its utter destruction and establishment of a proletarian state. The Tsarist state and the Bolshevik state had nothing structurally in common. The real challenge in this debate is dealing with your position that is full of contradictions and hypocrisy, with a nice coating of insults to draw away attention from your lack of knowledge.


The point is, you don't use authoritative means at all cause once you do you run the perfectly likely chance that they will be used against you by the paranoid, the power hungry, etc.Then you say this:


I agree with this statement. I don't see it as authoritarian. The methods of achieving this forcible overthrow and maintaining it are where we depart.So you don't see a FORCIBLE overthrow as AUTHORITARIAN? What other means of achieving a forcible overthrow are there than force? Please elaborate on your position. When Marx said those words, he was advocating the use of force as a way to abolish the capitalist state. Any other interpretation of this is merely revisionism on your part. You say yourself that we must never use authoritarian instruments because they will be turned against us by some invisible law of the universe, but then you say that you agree with Marx that we must achieve a forcible overthrow and maintain it somehow. You have denied the use of violence in any case, you said so yourself. You are going back on your own words here. You try to call me a reformist, but you have consistently denied the use of authoritarianism, while still trying to claim that you adhere to Marx and Engels, who both advocated authority as a means of proletarian revolution, and stated the shift from feudalism-capitalism was progressive. Unless you disagree with them, in which case you are revising what they have said, and are no longer taking the Marxist position, which you must admit to. It is becoming more and more clear, especially with your statement about the change to capitalism not being positive in the "social sense." You fail to realize that the problems of capitalism all result from material class struggle, and you are approaching the issue from an angle that is alien to Marxism ("Social sense"). You are a revisionist of Marx.


Because reformism is just as authoritative as Marxist - Leninism. Welding the existing state machinery to your own end and utilizing its coercive forces to institute the DOTP is just as unjust as a workers state doing the same. If we are going to talk about semantics, your difference between authoritarianism and reformism is bullshit.Please, please, please show me where Lenin, Stalin, or any prominent Bolshevik advocated wielding the existing bourgeois state machinery to institute the DotP. One need only look at what Lenin said in State and Revolution to see that this is a complete and utter misunderstanding of anything the man ever said. It is also clear that the Bolshevik Revolution did not harness the existing state machinery to create the DotP, but abolished it, and then established the DotP. My difference between Marxism-Leninism and reformism is bullshit to you because you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.


There's more to life then class yo."he history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." - Karl Marx's famous words. Please just admit that you are not a Marxist and stop trying to revise and bastardize what Marx, Engels, and Lenin said.


No it's just a reality, there is more then class. Race is a perfect example. Yes racism defends the existing class order, but there are legitimately racist people that regardless the mode of production they will want to hunt down someone elseI've already commented on this, but I really want to emphasize how far away from the Marxist position you are. The ideology stems from the ruling class and its struggle with other classes. These are not my ideals, they are Marx's, and I can back them up with quotes. You are falling on liberal human nature. You have no materialist or dialectical analysis. You're saying the exact thing that pro-capitalist liberals say as a criticism of communism.

There, I just wanted to go back over your old posts and emphasize that you're not a real Marxist, merely a reformist/revisionist. Now you can go back to insulting me about On Authority.

[barbelo]

That is not the same thing as your OP. Your OP talked about Libertarian Socialism being silly. Now, if you would please answer my previous question I would like to see your response.

I was going to sleep.
But well, your question about slums?

I don't know. Maybe build state housings, forcibly re-allocate the slum population there so they won't die in the next rain...
I'm think this is a pretty authoritarian thing to do yet would be for their own good.

[The Jay]

I was going to sleep.
But well, your question about slums?

I don't know. Maybe build state housings, forcibly re-allocate the slum population there so they won't die in the next rain...
I'm think this is a pretty authoritarian thing to do yet would be for their own good.

What gives you the right to do that? Are you the arbiter of who can do what?

[RedMaterialist]

how do you have a dictatorship of the working class without authoritarianism? A non-authoritarian dictatorship?

[The Jay]

how do you have a dictatorship of the working class without authoritarianism? A non-authoritarian dictatorship?

I addressed this previously in the thread.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Considering war sparked out over absolutely nothing quite frequently, and peasants were literally dragged to war without any training as cannon fodder, I would say that the bourgeois draft seems a slight bit more preferable, but yes that is merely one area where feudalism can be compared to capitalism.

If we're comparing the modern draft to conscription in Europe during the "feudal era", this isn't really true. It was actually harder for medieval kings to go to war than most people seem to think. It's far easier for modern presidents like Obama to take military action than it was for a British monarch, for example, who had to raise militias in a time-consuming process and pay soldiers salaries for their service...or at least that's the kind of force that Henry V invaded France with, for example.

Famous conscripted militias in olden times like the Anglo-Saxon fyrd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyrd) were actually mostly comprised of the lower nobility, not impoverished peasants.

I'm not so familiar with conscription in the rest of the world, though. May have been different in Asia, for example.

This is kind of off-topic, though.

[Ostrinski]

Paul you are insufferably rude and arrogant. Please try to be more civil.

[PetyaRostov]

(in regards to the statement about linguistics)


Then you're wasting everyone's time.

The language IS important.

The idea that revolution is authoritarian in that the working class asserts their authority over what they produce is something enirely different from the idea that the governing body post revolution ought to be authoritarian

different context, different connotation, different meanings.

[Камо́ Зэд]

(in regards to the statement about linguistics)


The language IS important.

The idea that revolution is authoritarian in that the working class asserts their authority over what they produce is something enirely different from the idea that the governing body post revolution ought to be authoritarian

different context, different connotation, different meanings.

But don't the proletariat assert authority over production post-revolution? And isn't it reasonable to say that attempts to undermine socialist development and the gains of the revolution must necessarily be repressed?

[Igor]

getting drafted into war at the whim of two feuding internal lords.

people are still drafted into war all the time so idk what's your point here exactly

[PetyaRostov]

perhaps, (i don't really have a difinitive opinion upon this as of yet) but i think it is important to consider just what we deem as undermining socialist development post-revolution. Whom do we consider to be counter revolutionary, infantile, well-intended but poor in planning. Anarchists, syndicalists, Trotskites perhaps? Why then should they join the revolution to begin with!? And who determines just what "undermines socialist development" the revolutionary vanguard? some council oligarchy? who is to say that they wont act within their own interests, or perhaps not-even that, lets not chalk it up to the mere notion of selfishness. Who's to say that they wont act under their own moral authority, by their own choosing of what is best for the people. Can they not use this pragmatic notion "must necessarily be repressed" to get rid of people with ideas which are contrary to their own? This seems no longer democratic (which yes, i realize is presicely what you is stated) but no longer the "dictatorship of the proletariat". But rather the dicatorship of the lucky few with the loudest voices in a time of chaos making decisions which are not informed by the proletariat as a whole

[Rational Radical]

perhaps, (i don't really have a difinitive opinion upon this as of yet) but i think it is important to consider just what we deem as undermining socialist development post-revolution. Whom do we consider to be counter revolutionary, infantile, well-intended but poor in planning. Anarchists, syndicalists, Trotskites perhaps? Why then should they join the revolution to begin with!? And who determines just what "undermines socialist development" the revolutionary vanguard? some council oligarchy? who is to say that they wont act within their own interests, or perhaps not-even that, lets not chalk it up to the mere notion of selfishness. Who's to say that they wont act under their own moral authority, by their own chobureaucraticosing of what is best for the people. Can they not use this pragmatic notion "must necessarily be repressed" to get rid of people with ideas which are contrary to their own? This seems no longer democratic (which yes, i realize is presicely what you is stated) but no longer the "dictatorship of the proletariat". But rather the dicatorship of the lucky few with the loudest voices in a time of chaos making decisions which are not informed by the proletariat as a whole
Council Oligarchy? I don't know how a system of federated,democratic workers councils is oligarchic at all,but I can see elitist bureaucrats reinstituting ruling class hegemony over the proletarian by using state power being bourgeois though.

[The Jay]

Council Oligarchy? I don't know how a system of federated,democratic workers councils is oligarchic at all,but I can see elitist bureaucrats reinstituting ruling class hegemony over the proletarian by using state power being bourgeois though.

It wouldn't be bourgeois, but it would not be good either. Being bourgoeis requires ownership of the MoP as opposed to managing it and there is a difference.

[Rational Radical]

It wouldn't be bourgeois, but it would not be good either. Being bourgoeis requires ownership of the MoP as opposed to managing it and there is a difference.

The state would virtually own the means of production as opposed to the MoP being collectivized among the workers,thus would mean bureaucrats have a lot more influence than the working class,but we are on the same page and I think its's just my language you disagree with which is perfectly fine if you understood me. Whether state controlled or private,it's no good for the working class as you've said maany times and some can't. seem to get. All the fetishizing about the Russian Revolution,the Party,what the DotP means and old concepts are the reason why I have to sit and endure my Republican history teacher say that communism has failed,and I'm prety sure if these authoritarians lived under the conditions they praise they would look to alternatives.

[The Jay]

I agree with you, but do you see my point? The relations would not be capitalist but something else equally bad; therefore, not bourgeois.

[leftistman]

Non-authoritarian socialism is absolutely possible! Take the Zapatista Army, for example; it has successfully managed its communities for more than twenty years now and they have successfully fought off the capitalists. They have worldwide support and show no sign of dissolution happening anytime soon. I think that it would be more reasonable to say that non-authoritarian socialism cannot exist within the parliamentary system because there will always be people seeking power and not serving the interests of the population thus preventing socialism from being practiced. Under non-authoritarian socialism, the masses must have full and direct control of the economy and their society. There can be no supreme rulers because that prevents the process of both liberty and economic democracy. Supreme power corrupts supremely!

[barbelo]

Take the Zapatista Army, for example

I don't really know the zapatistas in deep and I'm reading about them now.
But isn't this the same case of a kibbutz? Isolated and voluntary communities existing within another society?

[Камо́ Зэд]

But isn't this the same case of a kibbutz? Isolated and voluntary communities existing within another society?

There are actually a lot of kibbutzim that are becoming more and more industrial, and many members leave as adults.

[leftistman]

An ancestor of mine was one of the founders of the first Jewish settlement in Rosh Pina during the 1800s. Her house is now a small historical site that can be visited. Anyways, a few years ago these two Israeli girls from a kibbutz stayed at my house briefly as part of an exchange program and they told my family that there is privatization in their kibbutz and that it was not the socialist community that it was made out to be. She told us that there were poor people in the community. It's like China but not a dictatorship.

[barbelo]

Yes, I've read about the "kibbutz crisis" but I also heard of a kibbutz in Eilat that became absurdly rich now days and people won't leave it for nothing.
Such cases.

It's sad how socialist empirical experiments like the kibbutz were forgotten and there isn't any contemporary attempts of something like this, while the left lose it time discussing about Julian Assange and elections.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I don't know that kibbutzim are really all that socialist. Typically, they are led by "elders" who have supreme decision-making power, as I understand it.

[PetyaRostov]

I don't know that kibbutzim are really all that socialist. Typically, they are led by "elders" who have supreme decision-making power, as I understand it.
yes, but how does this relate to the Zapatistas?

[Art Vandelay]

While what the Zapatistas have done is commendable, its not socialism.

[Red Commissar]

I don't know that kibbutzim are really all that socialist. Typically, they are led by "elders" who have supreme decision-making power, as I understand it.

Well that and Kibbutzum were typically founded by evicting people off their lands, you generally didn't find them and settlers living and working in Kibbutzum together. Not really a good model to follow if you're wanting to seek workers coming together regardless of ethnic, national, or religious identification. In concept maybe, but even at that you're looking at what ended up becoming a very exclusive model, rather than inclusive.

Kibbutzum were fairly communal and "socialist" for what it's worth in their early years. But slowly like co-ops they ended up finding it difficult to break off from capitalist relations around them, especially once the state lost interest in supporting the model as a way to "settle" rural parts of Israel away from the coasts. Nowadays the ones left are usually subsidized by the state as show pieces from the early years of the country for tour groups as well as youth events, and in some unfortunate cases the forefront of the settler movement nowadays.

I wouldn't compare them to the Zapatista movement- Kibbutzum were supported and encouraged by the state of Israel. EZLN was in rebellion against the Mexican state and tried to make "free zones" where indigenous people could run their villages without interference from distant provincial governors.

[leftistman]

While what the Zapatistas have done is commendable, its not socialism.
How is it not socialism? They have been fighting capitalism, NAFTA, and globalization for the past 20 years. They live in collectivist communities.

[Art Vandelay]

How is it not socialism? They have been fighting capitalism, NAFTA, and globalization for the past 20 years. They live in collectivist communities.

I'm going to guess that your rather new into radical politics, because fighting the Mexican government and living in collectivist communities does not equal socialism.

[leftistman]

I'm going to guess that your rather new into radical politics, because fighting the Mexican government and living in collectivist communities does not equal socialism.
Why don't you consider them to be socialists? What would they need to do to prove to you that they are socialists?

[Philosophos]

Well first I believe that the left attracts so many young people even if they haven't read one book about left theories because it's something like a taboo for the older people and so they try to fight them with this way (my sister used to do it because she wanted to be different from our father). At the same time the young voters (that have no idea about left wing) have hallucinations. They don't know that markets are a capitalist characteristic or that they might have to do something instead of just voting if they want things to change. They don't know it but they want capitalism with a democratical-socialistic flavour that will make everything magically better.

Also I think I'm realistic saying that there are not big chances of having a real socialist society because there are many different tendencies that don't want to back down to their opinions and compromise with something in the middle, there are sooooo many capitalists that won't let any socialist country stay with socialism for long and at the same time there are a lot of people that are right winged and don't want communists around (idiots that have communist ideas but still don't want communists around because they are brainwashed or something).

If communists actually want communism to occure they must organise worldwidly and start putting aside their differences at least until they abolish capitalism.

[Art Vandelay]

Why don't you consider them to be socialists? What would they need to do to prove to you that they are socialists?

First off the Zapatistas don't even claim to be socialists, their ideology is a mix of anarchism and "libertarian Marxism," along with indigenous practices and beliefs. While they would probably fall into the camp of libertarian socialism, they dismiss such a classification. Socialism is a stateless classless society, I think it's fairly obvious as to why the tiny Mexican region controlled by the Zapatistas could not even possibly be socialism.

Just as a side note, pacifism is bankrupt, the sooner you drop that the better.

[leftistman]

First off the Zapatistas don't even claim to be socialists, their ideology is a mix of anarchism and "libertarian Marxism," along with indigenous practices and beliefs. While they would probably fall into the camp of libertarian socialism, they dismiss such a classification. Socialism is a stateless classless society, I think it's fairly obvious as to why the tiny Mexican region controlled by the Zapatistas could not even possibly be socialism.

Just as a side note, pacifism is bankrupt, the sooner you drop that the better.
The Zapatistas have 32 municipalities across Mexico, so I would say that they control a significant amount of territory.

Don't change the subject to pacifism. I am not a pacifist in the strictest sense, but I do have many non-violent leanings. Because I view non-violence as appropriate and productive in many cases, I have my tendency set as anarcho-pacifist.

[Art Vandelay]

The Zapatistas have 32 municipalities across Mexico, so I would say that they control a significant amount of territory.

Don't change the subject to pacifism. I am not a pacifist in the strictest sense, but I do have many non-violent leanings. Because I view non-violence as appropriate and productive in many cases, I have my tendency set as anarcho-pacifist.

I didn't change the subject, I mentioned it in passing; also you didn't address what I said, socialism is a stateless classless society.

So how exactly did the Zapatistas create socialism in their 32 municipalities in Mexico?

[leftistman]

I didn't change the subject, I mentioned it in passing; also you didn't address what I said, socialism is a stateless classless society.

So how exactly did the Zapatistas create socialism in their 32 municipalities in Mexico?
A classless and stateless society is communism, not socialism. Socialism can mean many different things. In the case of the Zapatista territories, it means that the people in the communities have direct control over what is produced, how it is produced, and direct ownership of the produce. As a community they work not as individuals seeking profit, but as a commune seeking to meet the needs of everyone in the community and those outside of the community(spreading their cause). Everyone in these communities has their needs met, and contributes to the community to the best of their abilities. One could even argue that these are communistic considering that they function according to the principle, "from each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs."

[Le Socialiste]

We really need to cut these buzzwords out of our vocabulary. The DotP is a dual-purpose mechanism that, as an appendage of the working-class, strives to respond to matters or concerns facing working people. But it has another purpose, namely as a representative of workers' interests (such is the role of the state in class society, that it can only be exercised as an organ by the class that controls it) while possessing the means by which all remnants of bourgeois rule can be swept away. It is the transitional body of the proletariat, incorporating the embryonic - but steadily evolving - formations of class rule below it. The Dictatorship is not a thing detached, ruling in the proletariat's stead; it is the expressive organ through which the working-class exercises its direct interest(s), built up through a network of proper channels and governmental models. It is an adaptive, revolutionary framework that places the question (and answer) of power squarely before the collective body of workers.

This necessitates the steady dismantlement of all prior methods of economic planning (which are themselves subject to the anarchic fluctuations of the market) and political-state rule. There will be resistance, especially amongst the more privileged, propertied elites, requiring their assimilation into the new society. Should this practice encounter some kind of pushback, it becomes necessary to remove the resisting elements so that they no longer pose a problem or threat; it's really as simple as that.


For me it's pretty obvious that this is impossible to realize.
Seizure of property and wealth- the first requisites to a planned economy- are already very dictatorial actions.
Mass deportations and re-allocation of populations in state apartments are also necessary for a communist urbanism.
All production and resource extraction is nationalized.
And many others examples, unless we are talking of an isolated community like a kibbutz.

What you think?

Good luck moving everyone into those hideous, gray blocks you call apartments. :rolleyes:

The DotP doesn't work that way. It certainly can create communalized living centers, should that be the direction of the working-class. But it can't forcibly evict people from their homes and force them into "state apartments." And come on - 'communist urbanism'? What does this even mean?

[Grenzer]

And come on - 'communist urbanism'? What does this even mean?

Pol Pot turned on his head.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This put me thinking: is it even possible to create a non-authoritarian socialist government? Are people trying to change the dictatorship of the proletariat to the democracy of the proletariat?
The dictatorship of the proletariat should be a democracy of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat means a class dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, not a dictatorship over the proletariat by a vanguard party.

[Art Vandelay]

A classless and stateless society is communism, not socialism. Socialism can mean many different things.

In my opinion this is false. While many, including some of my comrades may disagree, socialism is a stateless classless society. While I realize that this is a point of contention among the left, this is my stance on the matter.


In the case of the Zapatista territories, it means that the people in the communities have direct control over what is produced, how it is produced, and direct ownership of the produce. As a community they work not as individuals seeking profit, but as a commune seeking to meet the needs of everyone in the community and those outside of the community(spreading their cause). Everyone in these communities has their needs met, and contributes to the community to the best of their abilities.

Yes and in many cases (although far from all) this is how many indigenous groups continue to live.


One could even argue that these are communistic considering that they function according to the principle, "from each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs."

No socialism has never existed anywhere on this planet, let alone communism; I'm frankly surprised to see someone even attempt to claim such a thing, I mean I don't even think they have any proletarians in their communities.

[barbelo]

Good luck moving everyone into those hideous, gray blocks you call apartments. :rolleyes:

The DotP doesn't work that way. It certainly can create communalized living centers, should that be the direction of the working-class. But it can't forcibly evict people from their homes and force them into "state apartments." And come on - 'communist urbanism'? What does this even mean?

I was lacking a better term and I wasn't exactly imaging the classical soviet block.
The slum example is perfect, some people live in threatened areas yet they doesn't want to leave no matter how much they are benefited by it.
Any measure of re-allocation would be authoritarian.

[Positivist]

It was defiantly sarcasm. Means and Ends are one of the same, the fact that the dictatorship of bourgeois came about by authoritative means and continues to be the most tyrannical and oppressive system may say something about the methods we employ in the future. just sayin, you know.

How would you reccommend we go about the seizure of private property except through violence? The bourgiose aren't going to just give it up and setting up communes or syndicates doesn't actually acquire any more resources in and of themselves.

[International_Solidarity]

I think you should define "authoritarian" a bit more. Authoritarian, as in completely suppressing the Bourgeoisie, is completely and absolutely necessary. Authoritarian as in ruled by one person or a small group who have power over the entire proletariat, even those that are Marxists, then no, I do not believe that this is necessary, or even practical, for a truly Socialist government.

[RedMaterialist]

The concept of the oppressed abolishing their oppressors as an authoritarian act is playing with words.

That's what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think you should define "authoritarian" a bit more. Authoritarian, as in completely suppressing the Bourgeoisie, is completely and absolutely necessary. Authoritarian as in ruled by one person or a small group who have power over the entire proletariat, even those that are Marxists, then no, I do not believe that this is necessary, or even practical, for a truly Socialist government.
Exactly! Suppressing the bourgeoisie is authoritarian, but when we say anti-authoritarian we mean the way in which society is then organized.