Authoritarian?

[nihilust]

To my knowledge, i am and have been developing a view point that abides some of the more authoritarian factors. Things that stick out to me i.e. are secret police, forcible repression of counter revolutionaries, i like the idea of having a leader and being loyal (so long as this man is for the peoples well being etc) and other things. Can anyone give me more information on this or things among the same nature and please try and answer the question because most posts i make or see, by page 2-3, completely deviate from OP intent lol thanks guys/girls!

[Manic Impressive]

Sounds like fascism to me.

The first job of a Marxist is to start dismantling the state apparatus not strengthening it.

[#FF0000]

i like the idea of having a leader and being loyal (so long as this man is for the peoples well being etc)

How is that different from having a nice boss, I wonder?

[nihilust]

Sounds like fascism to me.

The first job of a Marxist is to start dismantling the state apparatus not strengthening it.

well if youre familiar with marxs transitional period, its necessary to have a forcable overthrow, which is primarily what i am referring to.

[nihilust]

How is that different from having a nice boss, I wonder?

the leader as in someone to rely on, to trust etc

[nihilust]

i guess the big picture here is i agree with a violence and repression of counter revolutionaries as a use of strengthening the "party"

[Manic Impressive]

well if youre familiar with marxs transitional period, its necessary to have a forcable overthrow, which is primarily what i am referring to.
Why did Marx think a transitional period needed?

[nihilust]

secure the state with force, and at first of course you can not right away eliminate the previous system (thus socialism is practiced) then communism. a transitional period is needed for time to rid of old world ways. but hey, im just trying to learn because i know being authoritarian isnt fascist so what you previously said about that was unnecessary

[Manic Impressive]

No I'm not asking why you think it's necessary I'm asking why Marx & Engels thought it was necessary in 1846.

ignore the fascism comment, I didn't intend to call you a fascist.

[Crimson Commissar]

I agree to some extent. Though I believe there is a strong and distinct difference between authoritarian and totalitarian policies. Authoritarianism, I believe, is necessary for a more realistic approach to Socialism. Simply because there are very large parts of the populace that aren't going to agree with a revolution in their country, or anywhere for that matter, or will seek to undermine it from within by steering it away from a Socialistic path. (Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, etc.)

I don't view it as so black and white that everything must be divided into "authoritarian" and "libertarian" however. We need to make distinctions between allowing as much freedom as possible in unrelated areas such as lifestyle and personal belief, while keeping capitalist and reactionary ideas at bay by maintaining strong Communist control over all political matters. Because, in my opinion, while it isn't our place at all to interfere with what any ordinary man or woman does in their personal life, it certainly is our place to deny any anti-Communist movements from having a platform from which to take power or spread their influence.

[Manic Impressive]

Let me help


its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible...........

.........When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character


Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.


After 1848, modern industry made great advances. In 1847, Engels had written of the means of production not being available in sufficient quantity to permit the immediate, or even rapid, establishment of socialism. A quarter of a century later, in 1872, he was writing


it is precisely this industrial revolution which has raised the productive power of human labour to such a high level that for the first time in the history of mankind the possibility exists, given a rational division of labour among all, of producing not only enough for the plentiful consumption of all members of society and for an abundant reserve fund, but also of leaving each individual sufficient leisure so that what is really worth preserving in historically inherited culture – science, art, forms of intercourse may not only be preserved but converted from a monopoly of the ruling class into the common property of the whole of society, and may be further developed.


When Engels later reflected on what he and Marx had said in the communist manifesto he said.

History has proved us, and all who thought like us, wrong. It has made it clear that the state of economic development at that time was not, by a long way, ripe for the elimination of capitalist production
So what happens if communists were able to take control of the state before the means of production had been developed enough to implement socialism and before the working class had achieved a level of consciousness capable of running society themselves? Engels answers this again.

The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government at a time when society is not yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents and for the measures which that domination implies. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the degree of antagonism between the various classes, and upon the level of development of the material means of existence, of the conditions of production and commerce upon which class contradictions always repose. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him or the stage of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to the doctrines and demands hitherto propounded which, again, do not proceed, from the class relations of the moment, or from the more or less accidental level of production and commerce, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus, he necessarily finds himself in a unsolvable dilemma. What he can do contradicts all his previous actions and principles, and the immediate interests of his party and what he ought to do cannot be done. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whose domination the movement is then ripe. In the interest of the movement he is compelled to advance the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with talk and promises, and with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. He who is put into this awkward position is irrevocably lost.

Marx says

If the proletariat destroys the political rule of the bourgeoisie, that will only be a temporary victory, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in 1794, so long as in the course of history, in its ‘movement’, the material conditions are not yet created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and thus the definitive overthrow of bourgeois political rule.


The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here
So in 1847 Marx and Engels thought that a transition was needed due to the means of production not being developed enough for communism to exist. Later they realized that even if communists had been able to capture political power they would have been forced to become a bourgeois revolution by developing capitalism, whether they wanted to or not. And by the 1880's they thought that it might now be possible to abolish capitalism. We are now in 2012 and many Leninist groups are pushing a theory of decadence, which states that by 1921(?) capitalism had reached it's peak and is now in decline. So I think most everyone accepts by now that communism can be established, the means of production are sufficiently developed on world wide scale.

Suppressing counter revolutionaries was not a concern for Marx and Engels as they were internationalist (no socialism in one country) and they believed in the working class emancipating themselves not communists doing it for them (manifesto chapter 2). So if The vast majority of the working class is in control what can a tiny minority really do about it? And how can they be a serious threat when we are talking about a tiny minority of the worlds population? The answer is they wouldn't be able to do anything about it, as long as the vast majority are acting in the interests of the vast majority in other words a class conscious majority. If you have that then there is no need for a coercive state apparatus.

you can drag a horse to water but you can't make it drink

[Ostrinski]

The "state" that the proletariat creates upon the political overthrow of the bourgeoisie is only a semi state and in fact does not need to resemble at all what we conventionally know a state as. The reason for this is that the proletariat does not need the state outside of the context of the threat of a class-alien counter revolution.

So the state only exists only in relation to the preconditions for its existence. A quality revolutionary movement can deal with these threats easily, however, and if they can't then that is either indicative of a weak revolutionary movement or geo-political conditions that can't be helped (isolation).

The problem is that many of our Marxist-Leninist comrades confuse the nature of the proletariat's state with that of the bourgeoisie's. This fetishism with police state measures, political repression, arbitrary state violence, etc. demonstrates that well. You need to realize that the only thing that gives legitimacy to these kinds of measures is the need to defend a minority from massive political upheaval.

It's common sense really. A healthy revolutionary movement encompasses and incorporates the majority of society into itself. Why do the majority of people need to use such excessive policies and measures against a minority of the population? We've already established that the workers are in the saddle and in control of the state. What the fuck can the bourgeoisie do in a situation like that? Fight back? :lol: Wasn't it Lenin that said "Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps."? Nah, they're not gonna run up on the assemblies with guns, they'd be too frightened to use them.

So you really only need this type of shit if the revolutionary government isn't actively run by the workers themselves, not just if the government lacks popular support. In which case? The sooner this failed regime is brought down the better. Why would a government run by the workers need to repress itself? All you need to do is follow things logically through to conclusion to overcome this fanaticism with authoritarianism.

Oh, and the whole strongman aesthetic. If what you want is a strongman then I suggest you give up socialist politics because socialism is a liberatory movement that empowers society rather than subjugates it to its will. The workers have no use for a strongman and they don't have any use for anyone who wants one. And if you think the workers need a strongman, then why are you a socialist? You've already decided that workers can't think and rule for themselves in a collective and democratic manner, so why not just pursue some other ideology that calls for a strongman? You'd save yourself some time.

[#FF0000]

the leader as in someone to rely on, to trust etc

"We aren't here to just tell you want to do here as Marshall's/MacDonalds/Avon Distribution Center! We have an Open Door here. If you have a problem or a concern, just walk on in and we'll have a chat. A rap sesh. A talkarooskie. Just us cool kids".

Nah, there is no difference between a 'leader' and a boss. And would you believe that prior to Stalin, the popular idea in the Bolsheviks was that they were a "leaderless" party? It wasn't just Lenin up there calling the shots. And the image of the Fascists in italy falling over themselves to placate and worship "Il Duce" was a popular target of ridicule.

Socialism is authoritarian and totalitarian in that the authority of the working class is total. I'm find for the ruthless repression of counter-revolutionaries, but secret police (Which is accountable to who?)? A "leader"? No, I'm a communist because I want an end to these things. "Authoritarianism" as you mean it doesn't mesh with socialism.

[nihilust]

Let me help





After 1848, modern industry made great advances. In 1847, Engels had written of the means of production not being available in sufficient quantity to permit the immediate, or even rapid, establishment of socialism. A quarter of a century later, in 1872, he was writing




When Engels later reflected on what he and Marx had said in the communist manifesto he said.

So what happens if communists were able to take control of the state before the means of production had been developed enough to implement socialism and before the working class had achieved a level of consciousness capable of running society themselves? Engels answers this again.


Marx says



So in 1847 Marx and Engels thought that a transition was needed due to the means of production not being developed enough for communism to exist. Later they realized that even if communists had been able to capture political power they would have been forced to become a bourgeois revolution by developing capitalism, whether they wanted to or not. And by the 1880's they thought that it might now be possible to abolish capitalism. We are now in 2012 and many Leninist groups are pushing a theory of decadence, which states that by 1921(?) capitalism had reached it's peak and is now in decline. So I think most everyone accepts by now that communism can be established, the means of production are sufficiently developed on world wide scale.

Suppressing counter revolutionaries was not a concern for Marx and Engels as they were internationalist (no socialism in one country) and they believed in the working class emancipating themselves not communists doing it for them (manifesto chapter 2). So if The vast majority of the working class is in control what can a tiny minority really do about it? And how can they be a serious threat when we are talking about a tiny minority of the worlds population? The answer is they wouldn't be able to do anything about it, as long as the vast majority are acting in the interests of the vast majority in other words a class conscious majority. If you have that then there is no need for a coercive state apparatus.

you can drag a horse to water but you can't make it drink


Much clarification in this, thank you!

[doesn't even make sense]

Although right-wing rhetoric will tend to obscure this by distorting history in anachronistic ways, socialist revolutions tend not to create societies more authoritarian than the ones they have overthrown. The Russian revolution overthrew an absolute monarch. The Cuban revolution overthrew a military dictator, etc. etc.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

i guess the big picture here is i agree with a violence and repression of counter revolutionaries as a use of strengthening the "party"
So who decides who's a counter-revolutionary and who's a revolutionary with a different view?

[nihilust]

So who decides who's a counter-revolutionary and who's a revolutionary with a different view?

after reading the posts ive decided that i was wrong in saying what i did, although that cant already mean ive completely changed over night from what was stated, i get that its unnecessary to have what was stated if there is a strong, successful revolution. thanks guys!

[Tim Cornelis]

I agree to some extent. Though I believe there is a strong and distinct difference between authoritarian and totalitarian policies. Authoritarianism, I believe, is necessary for a more realistic approach to Socialism. Simply because there are very large parts of the populace that aren't going to agree with a revolution in their country, or anywhere for that matter, or will seek to undermine it from within by steering it away from a Socialistic path. (Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, etc.)

This is extremely flimsly logic. You say we need an authoritarian rule to stay on the path towards socialism, then you counter your own argument by naming two failures of exactly that! I can hardly imagine anything more authoritarian than Stalin and Mao's rule, whom were succeeded by Brezhnev (which paved the way for someone like Gorbachev) and Deng Xiaoping.
They managed to steer away from socialism precisely because they had an authoritarian state structure at their disposal to force that on the working class without their approval.
If there hadn't been an authoritarian state structure constructed under Lenin, Stalin, or Mao, then Gorbachov or Deng Xiaoping couldn't have used it to their advantage, and instead the working class would have ruled--i.e. an actual dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Luís Henrique]

well if youre familiar with marxs transitional period, its necessary to have a forcable overthrow, which is primarily what i am referring to.

Marx's transitional period would be a dictatorship of a whole class, the proletariat, over the other classes of society. Now, a whole class can only exercise a dictatorship if its internal procedures are strictly democratic. Otherwise you have the dictatorship of a party, a cabal, a brotherhood, at best the dictatorship of a class fraction, at worst the dictatorship of an individual - but not a dictatorship of a class.


the leader as in someone to rely on, to trust etc

Who decides whether the leader is trustable and reliable? The leader himself? How is personal dictatorship avoided in such case?

... or the people he leads? In such case, if the people are ultimately trusted with deciding whether the leader is reliable or not, why can't they take the whole responsibility upon them, and do without leaders?


i know being authoritarian isnt fascist

No, though being a fascist is necessarily being authoritarian. But the point is, though authoritarianism is not necessarily fascism, it doesn't mean that it is progressist, or justifiable, or good, or anything like that.

Luís Henrique

[Pravda]

I die a little inside when communist say that he "likes the idea of having a leader and being loyal". I mean, the whole point of socialism is the emancipation of majority of population, getting control over their lives (at least for me), not to subordinate to the "dear leader".

[Crimson Commissar]

This is extremely flimsly logic. You say we need an authoritarian rule to stay on the path towards socialism, then you counter your own argument by naming two failures of exactly that! I can hardly imagine anything more authoritarian than Stalin and Mao's rule, whom were succeeded by Brezhnev (which paved the way for someone like Gorbachev) and Deng Xiaoping.
They managed to steer away from socialism precisely because they had an authoritarian state structure at their disposal to force that on the working class without their approval.
If there hadn't been an authoritarian state structure constructed under Lenin, Stalin, or Mao, then Gorbachov or Deng Xiaoping couldn't have used it to their advantage, and instead the working class would have ruled--i.e. an actual dictatorship of the proletariat.

You say this, but actually, I'd say the reason reformists were able to gain their positions in the first place was because the Soviet and Chinese Communist Parties weren't strict enough at that point. A problem that often plagues post-revolutionary states is opportunists that will align themselves with the Socialist government just to have their own slice of the pie in dictating the direction of the country. Gorbachev is a very good example of this in that he was born in the Soviet Union, raised in the Soviet Union, and only saw joining the Communist Party as a road towards him disestablishing Socialism.

To counter this I think that any Communist ruling party would need to take steps after gaining power, to disassociate itself from the traditional Capitalist idea of a political party and allow the ordinary workers and people of the nation to take up positions within the state structure. But not in any way should we provide Capitalist or Anti-Communist movements a platform from which to retake power through a "democratic" political system.

I'd be interested to hear what your alternative would be though. Rather surprised that you denounced Mao while having a Chinese propaganda poster as your avatar. :lol:

[hashem]

1- communists dont support "secret police". they support replacement of mercenary police and soldiers with armed masses of workers and toilers who are controlled by councils and there is no "secret" about their activity.

2- "forcible repression of counter revolutionaries" doesnt mean abolishing freedom of speech or giving power to "secret police". it means giving true power to majority of population who are workers and toilers. it would be true democracy that represses any attempt by minority (exploiters and reactionaries) to restore its power.

3- under socialism leadership is collective (to extent that is possible) and leaders are elected by councils and are easily replaceable at any time.

[Yuppie Grinder]

You sound like a masochist looking for someone to submit to. Gross.

[Manic Impressive]

after reading the posts ive decided that i was wrong in saying what i did, although that cant already mean ive completely changed over night from what was stated, i get that its unnecessary to have what was stated if there is a strong, successful revolution. thanks guys!
Good on you comrade I think many of us have felt that extreme measures are needed during some dark times but we must learn that this stems from anger not rational thought and is caused by alienation, a product of capitalism, a material condition which effects us all. But remember you cannot fight alienation with alienated means.

[Let's Get Free]

You say this, but actually, I'd say the reason reformists were able to gain their positions in the first place was because the Soviet and Chinese Communist Parties weren't strict enough at that point. A problem that often plagues post-revolutionary states is opportunists that will align themselves with the Socialist government just to have their own slice of the pie in dictating the direction of the country. Gorbachev is a very good example of this in that he was born in the Soviet Union, raised in the Soviet Union, and only saw joining the Communist Party as a road towards him disestablishing Socialism.


It had nothing to do with "not being strict enough." The "opportunists" and "reformists" and "revisionists", whatever you want to call them, did not fall from out of the sky. They are the logical consequences of the authoritarian system founded and established in those countries.