Poll: Are you an Anarchist or Authoritarian Communist?

[tooAlive]

I've been debating here on and off for a few days at a time since last year, and I've come to see a few different leanings from within your leftist ideals. Most notably:

1) The anarchist communist that is against all previous, present and future iterations of socialism or communism such as the ones present in countries like the former USSR or modern day Cuba, for example.

2) The authoritarian communist that believes in and supports authoritarian regimes like the former USSR and modern day Cuba, for example.

I'd like to know which flavor you side with, and why.

[#FF0000]

Damn son, you managed a loaded question while poisoning the well at the same time.

[Per Levy]

i cant see a poll, also there are of course way more variety than stalinists and certain types of anarchists on this board.


Damn son, you managed a loaded question while poisoning the well at the same time.

i do belive that was the point of the op.

[Marshal of the People]

I've been debating here on and off for a few days at a time since last year, and I've come to see a few different leanings from within your leftist ideals. Most notably:

1) The anarchist communist that is against all previous, present and future iterations of socialism or communism such as the ones present in countries like the former USSR or modern day Cuba, for example.

2) The authoritarian communist that believes in and supports authoritarian regimes like the former USSR and modern day Cuba, for example.

I'd like to know which flavor you side with, and why.

There is no such thing as an authoritarian communist! Communism is a stateless, classless society, what can be authoritarian about that? Of course there are people who wish to achieve communism by authoritarian means, but I would say they are in the minority.

[motion denied]

I came to vote full blown authoritarian with no regrets, but after reading your description...

[tooAlive]

Damn son, you managed a loaded question while poisoning the well at the same time.


i cant see a poll, also there are of course way more variety than stalinists and certain types of anarchists on this board.

No poison in the well -- just stirred the water a little bit.

i do belive that was the point of the op.

Poll is up. Had to edit the choices a few times as I was over the char limit.

[Sinister Intents]

I've been debating here on and off for a few days at a time since last year, and I've come to see a few different leanings from within your leftist ideals. Most notably:

Alright... I kinda cringe at the site of this thread for some reason.


1) The anarchist communist that is against all previous, present and future iterations of socialism or communism such as the ones present in countries like the former USSR or modern day Cuba, for example.

I'm an anarchist communist, and I'm against those that you consider iterations of socialism and communism even though they were and are not socialist let alone communist. They may have had socialist leanings in certain cases, and used socialist rhetoric, but in reality they weren't socialist. Socialism cannot exist in one country, it may for a time, but it will decay back to capitalism because the capitalists will ensure it is crushed so it doesn't spread. Socialism must be a globalized system like capitalism is today, if capitalism were not global today I do not think it would last and socialism would progress worldwide.


2) The authoritarian communist that believes in and supports authoritarian regimes like the former USSR and modern day Cuba, for example.

I don't think there are really authoritarian communists here.


I'd like to know which flavor you side with, and why.

Didn't you pretty much ask this question before?

[tooAlive]

I came to vote full blown authoritarian with no regrets, but after reading your description...

If you'd be so kind as to provide a better description for choice #2, and perhaps a mod can do your side a favor of correcting it. :)

[tooAlive]

Alright... I kinda cringe at the site of this thread for some reason.



I'm an anarchist communist, and I'm against those that you consider iterations of socialism and communism even though they were and are not socialist let alone communist. They may have had socialist leanings in certain cases, and used socialist rhetoric, but in reality they weren't socialist. Socialism cannot exist in one country, it may for a time, but it will decay back to capitalism because the capitalists will ensure it is crushed so it doesn't spread. Socialism must be a globalized system like capitalism is today, if capitalism were not global today I do not think it would last and socialism would progress worldwide.



I don't think there are really authoritarian communists here.



Didn't you pretty much ask this question before?

Well, there's already someone here who says otherwise.

My original question was why you were all communists; now I want to know why some of you lean to the anarchist side (which I can sympathize with) and why others lean to the other authoritarian side of communism.

[Marshal of the People]

Well, there's already someone here who says otherwise.

My original question was why you were all communists; now I want to know why some of you lean to the anarchist side (which I can sympathize with) and why others lean to the other authoritarian side of communism.
Communism doesn't and can't have an authoritarian side, it is stateless and classless, authoritarianism is incompatible with it. And further more none of the nations you mentioned in your original post were communist and neither did they claim to be, they all claimed/claim they were/are socialist.

[Sinister Intents]

Well, there's already someone here who says otherwise.

My original question was why you were all communists; now I want to know why some of you lean to the anarchist side (which I can sympathize with) and why others lean to the other authoritarian side of communism.

I see this but I don't think he's really being serious about being 'authoritarian communist' authoritarian communist is an oxymoron really. Under communism there is no state and there is no one to exert authority because all authority is illegitimate. The worker's state can't even really be considered authoritarian.

[Future]

I've been debating here on and off for a few days at a time since last year, and I've come to see a few different leanings from within your leftist ideals. Most notably:

1) The anarchist communist that is against all previous, present and future iterations of socialism or communism such as the ones present in countries like the former USSR or modern day Cuba, for example.

2) The authoritarian communist that believes in and supports authoritarian regimes like the former USSR and modern day Cuba, for example.

I'd like to know which flavor you side with, and why.

1.) Anarchist communists are not against all iterations of socialism and communism that have been practiced in the past. The Spanish Revolution for example was a successful anarcho-communist revolution that worked and lasted for a good while until it was stamped out by authoritarian powers. But if you mean that anarchist communists reject any form of statist (what we call "fake") socialism like that seen in Cuba, the former USSR, etc, then yes, we do.

2.) There are many authoritarian (state) socialists who don't necessary support modern Cuba and so on. I believe most Trotskyists would reject any form of state socialism as it is practiced in today's world, as like us anarchists, they would claim that existing "socialist" countries are not really socialist at all - same goes for Luxemburgists, and so on. It depends on the tendency. But we anarchists still reject the authoritarian statism found in Trotskyism and so on.

Anyway, I am a Libertarian Socialist, which is kind of an umbrella term for anarchist communists of several stripes. The "stripe" I most identify with would be Anarcho-communism achieved through some variation of Anarcho-syndicalism.

[tooAlive]

Communism doesn't and can't have an authoritarian side, it is stateless and classless, authoritarianism is incompatible with it. And further more none of the nations you mentioned in your original post were communist and neither did they claim to be, they all claimed/claim they were/are socialist.

I want to know why some of your comrades claim to be authoritarian. Perhaps this discussion will serve meaningful to you all as well, seeing as that must have you divided amongst yourselves.

I've already seen 2 today.

And Cuba claims to be communist, at the moment.

[#FF0000]

Well, there's already someone here who says otherwise.

My original question was why you were all communists; now I want to know why some of you lean to the anarchist side (which I can sympathize with) and why others lean to the other authoritarian side of communism.

What we're saying is that there is more nuance to these things than what you think is the anarchist and what you think is the "authoritarian" side. What you should set out to do, before anything, is to try to understand Marxism on its own terms, so you can articulate your and ideas in a way that makes sense.

I'm neither an anarchist nor a marxist-leninist or maoist. And the handful of users on this site who do support things like "REVOLUTIONARY TOTALITARIANISM" are harsh critics of the USSR, Albania, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. None of this fits anywhere in your poll and in your understanding of things.

[Sinister Intents]

I want to know why some of your comrades claim to be authoritarian. Perhaps this discussion will serve meaningful to you all as well, seeing as that must have you divided amongst yourselves.

I've already seen 2 today.

And Cuba claims to be communist, at the moment.

Good luck with finding many true authoritarians. Define authoritarian? Communism and authoritarianism don't mix. But still Cuba isn't communist, they may have socialist rhetoric and claim socialism and communism, but they're not communist.

[Marshal of the People]

I want to know why some of your comrades claim to be authoritarian. Perhaps this discussion will serve meaningful to you all as well, seeing as that must have you divided amongst yourselves.

I've already seen 2 today.

And Cuba claims to be communist, at the moment.
I think they must have been joking, but if they weren't they still can't be an authoritarian communist. They may want to achieve communism in an authoritarian way, but there is no such thing as an authoritarian communist.

[tooAlive]

I see this but I don't think he's really being serious about being 'authoritarian communist' authoritarian communist is an oxymoron really. Under communism there is no state and there is no one to exert authority because all authority is illegitimate. The worker's state can't even really be considered authoritarian.

Well I think he's being pretty serious, judging by a few others of his posts.

Lets allow him to elaborate, along with others that feel the same way he does.

[Sinister Intents]

Well I think he's being pretty serious, judging by a few others of his posts.

Lets allow him to elaborate, along with others that feel the same way he does.

Like #FF000 said comrade. They'll elaborate, but to me they don't seem really authoritarian when I see the posts of other users.

This thread just makes me cringe, its like a trainwreck to me

[Future]

Communism doesn't and can't have an authoritarian side, it is stateless and classless, authoritarianism is incompatible with it.

And this as well tooAlive. True communism has to be anarchistic. We anarchists believe it should be stateless from the very beginning unlike most (not all) Marxists who see a kind of vertical, party-led transition state as necessary.

[ToxicAcidRed]

Anarcho-Anarchism
I'm just a lone wolf. I don't want to be controlled, and I don't have any desire to control others. I wish to be an independent individual, detached from any foreign influence.

If I went nomad I would need survival essentials like insect-repellent, a water filter, canned food, etc.

I will need

Survival Essentials (as mentioned)
A few friends, we will watch after each other
Women too, in order to keep the society going. Not trying to sound sexist, but it's a fact.

But a successful anarchist society will have to be as small as possible! The more civilians, the harder to control.

I'm against Lazzes-faire capitalism, but capitalism collapses eventually. After that it will disintegrate into corporatism, followed by socialism, then communism. Communism and Anarchism are basically two sides of the same coin. Thus, after communism has come into place, anarchism is inevitable.

Anarcho-Communism is a redundancy, considering communism is already a state-less and classless system. That term is just used to distinguish between the mainstream definition of Communism (Bolshevism), and the original definition which is Anarcho-Communism (which again, is a redundancy).

[tooAlive]

I'm mainly referring to statements like this from other members:


tooAlive, my critique was more directed to the comrades here who identify with anarchism and ultra-left variations of marxism, who have points of view such as these:

"I also belive that Americans enjoy far more civil liberties than Cubans. The civil liberties that exist in the United States are objectively superior to those in Cuba or those in the fomer Soviet Union"

"I mean that the collapse of the USSR itself in a vacuum can only be seen as a victory for real socialism in Europe. The event resulted in a bourgeois superpower that called itself communist crumbling, which could finally free up Europe to pursue socialism like it was meant to be practiced - and the USSR's anti-communist dogma that it brainwashed the region with could finally lose its grip faster"


Yeah, after the fall of the USSR the fight for real socialism in the Eastern countries sure is on fire! Look at Ukraine, Russia, former Yugoslavia, etc...

"Yeah, that usually happens to Communist oppositions in "communist" places. Now that I think of it, it happens basically everywhere. No one likes letting communists in opposition speak for themselves, really."

In defence of the the Venezolan Opposition labeled fascist by state TV (Basically Capriles and MUD)


I was just talking about how terrifying it is to listen to communists saying shit that might as well be coming out of your right-wing mouth.

[#FF0000]

yo how about you engage them in an actual discussion instead of making a weird passive-aggressive thread with intellectually dishonest question

[tooAlive]

yo how about you engage them in an actual discussion instead of making a weird passive-aggressive thread with intellectually dishonest question

I didn't think this question would be intellectually dishonest at all.

I asked then to elaborate but haven't gotten an answer yet. If there's a better term for them than "authoritarian communist" please correct me so I don't make the mistake of calling them that again.

I thought that by starting the thread a few more may come out of the woodwork and elaborate on what they believe.

[Future]

Lol, I find it amusing that Coluna Prestes takes my quotes out of context.


"I also belive that Americans enjoy far more civil liberties than Cubans. The civil liberties that exist in the United States are objectively superior to those in Cuba or those in the fomer Soviet Union"

The context:



So, I believe that all forms of the state are oppressive and they should be totally destroyed in favor of a highly organized, horizontal, and automonous anarchistic society. I also belive that Americans enjoy far more civil liberties than Cubans. The civil liberties that exist in the United States are objectively superior to those in Cuba or those in the fomer Soviet Union, but they are also objectively shit compared to what should be available. You can protest in the United States and get pepper sprayed. You can protest in Cuba and go missing. Both are shit countries with shit states that oppress their working class people in different ways.


"I mean that the collapse of the USSR itself in a vacuum can only be seen as a victory for real socialism in Europe. The event resulted in a bourgeois superpower that called itself communist crumbling, which could finally free up Europe to pursue socialism like it was meant to be practiced - and the USSR's anti-communist dogma that it brainwashed the region with could finally lose its grip faster"

I spent quite a few posts clarifying what I meant by this in the "How will communists get communists to be communists" thread.

[#FF0000]

Cops in the US will do more than pepper spray you though. And is what you said about Cuba actually based on anything that really happened?

[tooAlive]

Btw, the poll will be slightly skewed as I'll have to vote to see the results, and I forgot to add a 3rd option for myself. :lol:

[#FF0000]

I didn't think this question would be intellectually dishonest at all.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, there.


I asked then to elaborate but haven't gotten an answer yet. If there's a better term for them than "authoritarian communist" please correct me so I don't make the mistake of calling them that again.

There is none because your conception of "Authoritarian communism" doesn't exist. All Marxists and anarchists see the destruction of the state as the ultimate goal, and your description of "authoritarian communist" doesn't describe any actual currents in Marxist thought.

[tooAlive]

Cops in the US will do more than pepper spray you though. And is what you said about Cuba actually based on anything that really happened?

Absolutely. Both my parents went through hell there as soon as they went public about wanting to leave the island.

I've also been there quite a few times and have a lot of family members still there. Which is why I tend to get pretty defensive when someone jumps out defending it or compares it to the US. Trust me.. You have no idea how lucky you are to be here.

Yeah, things could be better. But they could be a whole lot worse.

[#FF0000]

I've also been there quite a few times and have a lot of family members still there. Which is why I tend to get pretty defensive when someone jumps out defending it or comparing it to the US. Trust me.. You have no idea how lucky you are to be here.

I don't think you've actually seen or paid any attention to how protesters and activists have been treated in the United States.

EDIT: Or just regular ol' black people. Or teenagers. Or anyone who runs into a cop who had a bad day. Let's not get off topic but holy shit do you have some rose-tinted glasses for a "free-thinker". You're talking about a country with the largest prison population in the world and a multi-billion dollar "Defense" budget that has propped up dictators and butchers all over the world.

[Althusser]

Stupid troll bait. Voted authoritarian.

[tooAlive]

Stupid troll bait. Voted authoritarian.

Nope. I hate those regimes far too much to even jokingly side with them. Least the 1st option has Libertarian in it.

And even if I did, 3 others either agree or trolled with me. (so far)

[Future]

Cops in the US will do more than pepper spray you though. And is what you said about Cuba actually based on anything that really happened?

Oh, the cops in the US will fuck you up, have no illusions about it. I just used "pepper spray" an "go missing" as examples of how Cuba tends to be much more severe than the US when it comes to voicing opposition.

And I read a story on www.wsws.org (http://www.wsws.org) about Cuban student protesters (not rioters, protesters) being put in prison without trials a few years ago. I have no idea what that article is called however - it's been too long.

[#FF0000]

And I read a story on www.wsws.org (http://www.wsws.org) about Cuban student protesters (not rioters, protesters) being put in prison without trials a few years ago. I have no idea what that article is called however.

yo you heard what they were doing to anarchists on the west coast last year, right?

[tooAlive]

I don't think you've actually seen or paid any attention to how protesters and activists have been treated in the United States.

EDIT: Or just regular ol' black people. Or teenagers. Or anyone who runs into a cop who had a bad day. Let's not get off topic but holy shit do you have some rose-tinted glasses for a "free-thinker". You're talking about a country with the largest prison population in the world and a multi-billion dollar "Defense" budget that has propped up dictators and butchers all over the world.

Hey man, In no way shape or form have I defended or intend to defend any of that.

Condemning the opponent doesn't mean I support the status quo.

[Future]

yo you heard what they were doing to anarchists on the west coast last year, right?

No, enlighten me.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'm neither an anarhist nor an "authoritarian communist." Don't know which option to pick.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm neither an anarhist nor an "authoritarian communist." Don't know which option to pick.

I'd say pick the libertarian/anarchist position, because you're definitely not an authoritarian, perhaps more options are needed.

[#FF0000]

No, enlighten me.

They held a bunch of anarchists in prison without charges.


I'd say pick the libertarian/anarchist position, because you're definitely not an authoritarian, perhaps more options are needed.

Yo no shit more options are needed.

[Future]

They held a bunch of anarchists in prison without charges.

Who, when, and can you link me to an article or something.

[Sinister Intents]

They held a bunch of anarchists in prison without charges.



Yo no shit more options are needed.

I fear being imprisoned because of that, I'm way too open an anarchist communist...

Haha yeah, but what would they be exactly

[tooAlive]

I'm interested to hear what some of the authoritarians have to say.

[Sinister Intents]

Can one of the 4 that voted authoritarian please explain their reasoning?

I've already heard the arguments for option 1 quite a few tikes. Haven't heard yours yet. That's the whole purpose of this thread.

I think some people picked it for the sake of it being their. I hope you get the answers you seek tbh, but I don't think there are seriously any truly 'authoritarian' communists here.

[#FF0000]

Who, when, and can you link me to an article or something.

Look up the "Seattle Grand Jury" resisters.

[#FF0000]

I think some people picked it for the sake of it being their. I hope you get the answers you seek tbh, but I don't think there are seriously any truly 'authoritarian' communists here.

If there are, they are cosplay communists who are more into Red Alert than politics.

[Queen Mab]

Even the bourgeois 'right to protest' (such as it is) is predicated on an antagonistic relationship between the individual and the state. The individual has her freedom alienated from herself and abstracted to the state, which it then contracts back to her.

The point shouldn't be "in Cuba you get shot for protesting against the state, while in America you only get brutalised". The point should be to ask why it is necessary for people to be given the right to protest against the state in the first place.

[tooAlive]

Even the bourgeois 'right to protest' (such as it is) is predicated on an antagonistic relationship between the individual and the state. The individual has her freedom alienated from herself and abstracted to the state, which it then contracts back to her.

The point shouldn't be "in Cuba you get shot for protesting against the state, while in America you only get brutalised". The point should be to ask why it is necessary for people to be given the right to protest against the state in the first place.

Are you saying that the state (if you support one) shouldn't allow people to protest against it in the first place?

[Future]

Look up the "Seattle Grand Jury" resisters.

That's a lovely story. And it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Also, look up the Black Spring for Cuba. It's unrelated to what I had read on wsws. Cuba and the US need to start trading tactics and methods. They're more kindred spirits than what either side is willing to admit.

[argeiphontes]

I'm anarchist (libertarian socialist) because I think that state socialism can lead to the formation of new political and coordinating classes, homogeneity, and lack of local and individual autonomy as well as minority rights and self-determination.

Anarchism doesn't come with any requirement to believe in dialectical materialism or historical materialism. Anarchists believe in creating prefigurative institutions in the world we have as given. You don't have to subscribe to theories of class consciousness or world revolution. You can support Mondragon and worker cooperatives and syndicalism as prefigurative of the future desired society. You can just like socialism for its positive qualities rather than believing it's inevitable or the negation of capitalism or anything like that. It's not a dogma or a substitute for religion. Nobody pretends there's a "scientific anarchism."

[Queen Mab]

Are you saying that the state (if you support one) shouldn't allow people to protest against it in the first place?

No, I'm saying that bourgeois freedoms presuppose the existence of state violence.

[Sinister Intents]

The people who picked authoritarian should explain why haha. What other options could be included in this poll?

[Future]

Lol, I just noticed the poll options. Just to clarify, tooAlive, an anarchist society would make plenty sure that the needs of its society are met. Anarchism is not "every man for himself", disorganized chaos where people aren't taken care of, lol. That would be anarcho-capitalism or some kind of fake thug anarchism where someone desires a state of chaos at any cost. We anarchists are communists, and communists don't let people starve. We operate under a system where the needs of the working class are always met. We just don't do so under a bullshit hierarchical state apparatus.

[tooAlive]

Lol, I just noticed the poll options. Just to clarify, tooAlive, an anarchist society would make plenty sure that the needs of its society are met. Anarchism is not "every man for himself", disorganized chaos where people aren't taken care of, lol. That would be anarcho-capitalism or some kind of fake thug anarchism where someone desires a state of chaos at any cost. We anarchists are communists, and communists don't let people starve. We operate under a system where the needs of the working class are always met.

Thanks for the bit of clarification.

What I meant by the 2nd option is that they believe only a government/state will make sure of that, while keeping the people in line.

I was actually going to have that stalin quote in your sig as option 2, but it was too long.

[Marshal of the People]

Thanks for the bit of clarification.

What I meant by the 2nd option is that they believe only a government/state will make sure of that, while keeping the people in line.

I was actually going to have that stalin quote in your sig as option 2, but it was too long.
If they believed in a state they wouldn't be a communist.

[tooAlive]

If they believed in a state they wouldn't be a communist.

Well, here's a response from Coluna Prestes in my other thread that may shed some more light on this.


I'm not going to talk about a "percentage of leftists" because I just don't have those statistics.

Anyways, RevLeft is not at all a great representative of the worldwide mass socialist movements. On one side, we have the strong Maoist movements in Southern Asia, namely India, Philipines and also Nepal, along with some other smaller countries.

In India, the Maoist Guerrillas have 30-40% of Indian territory under control, in the Eastern part of the country, while waging war against the government forces, for example.

In Europe, we have the notable Greek movement that has a very strong marxist-leninist party at the head of the unionist movement and that has proven to be capable of rallying hundreds of thousands of people to the streets and into general strikes, the KKE. The case of Spain, with the revisionist PCE and the smaller but revolutionary PCPE, is also notable, namely the miners strike last year that swept the country and led to 100,000 people marching in Madrid.

In Latin America, we have the example of the FARC that wage a civil war against the 3rd country in the USA's military payroll, after Israel and Egypt (it may have climbed to 2nd), along with the legal and illegal parties (PCC and PCCC) that along with MP and the recently re-funded UP form one of the largest, bravest and least-reported mass movements for democracy and socialism in the world.

Along with Colombia, there is also the mass movement that is currently led by progressive popular forces that counts with a large participation of the communists, especially in Venezuela and Ecuador, but also in Bolivia. These movements have mobilized literally milions of people to the streets to defend their governments against coup attempts by the very nice Venezolan opposition (you should seriously watch Chavez: Inside the Coup on YT).

All of these movements are solidary to the Cuban revolution, and defend its popular, democratic, anti-imperialist and socialist character. And except for a few of the political forces involved in the bolivarian movement (Ecuador, Bolívia and Venezuela), I can affirm that all of them defend the past and present workers' states.

PS: And seriously, watch the documentary I recommended. It talks about the importance of checking your information and news sources.

[Marshal of the People]

Well, here's a response from Coluna Prestes in my other thread that may shed some more light on this.
That didn't explain anything, there is a difference between socialism and communism.

[tooAlive]

That didn't explain anything, there is a difference between socialism and communism.

So, socialism is the totalitarian one?

I thought you guys used those terms interchangeably.

[Marshal of the People]

Maoists and Marxists-lennists want to achieve a classless and stateless society, they just want a strong state to help them on the way.

[Marshal of the People]

So, socialism is the totalitarian one?

I thought you guys used those terms interchangeably.
I personally don't use the terms interchangeably.

Socialism can be totalitarian it can also be democratic. Socialism is just an economic system, it can be used with any political system.

[tooAlive]

I personally don't use the terms interchangeably.

Socialism can be totalitarian it can also be democratic. Socialism is just an economic system, it can be used with any political system.

Neither do I.

The way I've grown accustomed to describing it is, correct me if I'm wrong, socialism being used as the transition from capitalism into communism. Once the monetary system is done away with, the socialist state can "wither away" and thus abolish all classes while becoming communism.

[Queen Mab]

I thought you guys used those terms interchangeably.

You are correct. Marshal of the People is wrong.


Socialism can be totalitarian it can also be democratic. Socialism is just an economic system, it can be used with any political system.

The economic system is the base of the political system. A non-hierarchical economic system cannot produce a hierarchical political system.

And totalitarian is a buzzword.

[Queen Mab]

Neither do I.

The way I've grown accustomed to describing it is, correct me if I'm wrong, socialism being used as the transition from capitalism into communism. Once the monetary system is done away with, the socialist state can "wither away" and thus abolish all classes while becoming communism.

Stalin introduced a distinction between socialism and a higher stage of communism to hide the capitalist nature of the USSR. Marx saw capitalism transitioning directly into communism/socialism. The working class would be in charge of a state (of a different form) under capitalism during the transition. He'd say that a 'socialist state' is a contradiction.

[Marshal of the People]

Neither do I.

The way I've grown accustomed to describing it is, correct me if I'm wrong, socialism being used as the transition from capitalism into communism. Once the monetary system is done away with, the socialist state can "wither away" and thus abolish all classes while becoming communism.

That depends on which tendency you subscribe to. Anarchists want to go straight to communism while Marxist-leninists want to go through a form of socialism.

[tooAlive]

You are correct. Marshal of the People is wrong.

Well, I must be wrong then as I don't use the terms interchangeably myself. :grin:

But alas, I know most of you do. So I go along with it.


The economic system is the base of the political system. A non-hierarchical economic system cannot produce a hierarchical political system.

And totalitarian is a buzzword.

I would disagree. Perhaps socialism as an economic system is not hierarchical, but the mere implementation of a political system (run by a state, government, ect..) is inherently creating a hierarchy of townspeople and government bureaucrats.

[tooAlive]

Stalin introduced a distinction between socialism and a higher stage of communism to hide the capitalist nature of the USSR. Marx saw capitalism transitioning directly into communism/socialism. The working class would be in charge of a state (of a different form) under capitalism during the transition. He'd say that a 'socialist state' is a contradiction.

So the theory of a "socialist transition" from capitalism into communism where the state temporarily takes over the means of production and all private property while abolishing the monetary system with the intent of letting the state wither away and move into communism is an idea brought forth only by Stalin?

[Queen Mab]

I would disagree. Perhaps socialism as an economic system is not hierarchical, but the mere implementation of a political system (run by a state, government, ect..) is inherently creating a hierarchy of townspeople and government bureaucrats.

There would be no state or government under socialism. There would be a 'free association of producers'. That's what I mean when I say that the economic base precludes the possibility of 'totalitarianism'.

[argeiphontes]

I would say that socialism is any system that abolishes the capitalist social relations of production, so wage labor, private property, and private appropriation and distribution of the social surplus are gone.

Communism goes further in that is a (necessarily worldwide) coordinated economy with no state apparatus.

But it's obvious why I would use exactly that definition (hint: where's the market?). It's the same one used by Marxian economist Richard Wolff though, so I feel good about it ;) Relations of production are social relations after all.

[Queen Mab]

So the theory of a "socialist transition" from capitalism into communism where the state temporarily takes over the means of production and all private property while abolishing the monetary system with the intent of letting the state wither away and move into communism is an idea brought forth only by Stalin?

No, I just wanted to point out that this happens under capitalism, not socialism or communism.

[tooAlive]

No, I just wanted to point out that this happens under capitalism, not socialism or communism.

Right.. So you're of the notion that Stalin and the USSR were capitalist, right? Or more specifically, state-capitalist.

[consuming negativity]

I'm an anarchist but I voted "authoritarian" because I'm not going to let you tell me what to choose.

[Sinister Intents]

Right.. So you're of the notion that Stalin and the USSR were capitalist, right? Or more specifically, state-capitalist.

You read the article I posted on your wall right? I figured it played into this thread. I'll post it here Emma Goldman - There Is No Communism In Russia. (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/227.html)

[Marshal of the People]

I'm an anarchist but I voted "authoritarian" because I'm not going to let you tell me what to choose.
He didn't tell you what to choose he gave you two options (not enough I know but still they were options) to choose from, he didn't tell you to pick a specific one.

If you didn't want to told what to choose (even though he didn't tell you to choose any specific one) why did you pick one? Why didn't you just boycott the poll?

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Doesn't "authoritarian communist" just mean basically any tendency that advocates the use of a socialist state as a transition phase to full communism? Like Marxism and any type of it like Marxism-Leninism or Trotskyism? That's how I've always seen it used.

[consuming negativity]

He didn't tell you what to choose he gave you two options (not enough I know but still they were options) to choose from, he didn't tell you to pick a specific one.

If you didn't want to told what to choose (even though he didn't tell you to choose any specific one) why did you pick one? Why didn't you just boycott the poll?

I was trying to be light-hearted and humorous. :unsure:

[Marshal of the People]

Doesn't "authoritarian communist" just mean basically any tendency that advocates the use of a socialist state as a transition phase to full communism? Like Marxism and any type of it like Marxism-Leninism or Trotskyism? That's how I've always seen it used.
It is an oxymoron so I personally wouldn't use it, and Trotskyism is hardly authoritarian.

[Marshal of the People]

I was trying to be light-hearted and humorous. :unsure:
How? Wouldn't that just make it seem as though "authoritarian communism" is an actual thing?

[tooAlive]

You read the article I posted on your wall right? I figured it played into this thread. I'll post it here Emma Goldman - There Is No Communism In Russia. (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/227.html)

Yes, I read it -- thank you. There were no communist principles in the USSR, same as there aren't any in Cuba, or Venezuela. I understand that part.

What I have so much trouble understanding is, if they're not really socialist/communist or whatever, why do people still support them?

I suppose the difference comes in specifying what specific ideology you subscribe to, as "socialism" or "communism" have become words that describe too many things.

[Queen Mab]

What I have so much trouble understanding is, if they're not really socialist/communist or whatever, why do people still support them?

Why do people support America, or Putin's Russia, or Israel or any number of states?

The USSR inherited a degenerated revolutionary tradition and had a very powerful interest in setting up communist parties around the world and subordinating them to the interests of Soviet capital.

[#FF0000]

Doesn't "authoritarian communist" just mean basically any tendency that advocates the use of a socialist state as a transition phase to full communism? Like Marxism and any type of it like Marxism-Leninism or Trotskyism? That's how I've always seen it used.

It's a perjorative way of talking about those tendencies, yeah.

And that's why it's dumb and useless: It's pejorative.

[Sinister Intents]

Yes, I read it -- thank you. There were no communist principles in the USSR, same as there aren't any in Cuba, or Venezuela. I understand that part.

What I have so much trouble understanding is, if they're not really socialist/communist or whatever, why do people still support them?

I suppose the difference comes in specifying what specific ideology you subscribe to, as "socialism" or "communism" have become words that describe too many things.

This makes me feel like we're having a positive impact on tooAlive's politics

[Marshal of the People]

This makes me feel like we're having a positive impact on tooAlive's politics
We could make a socialist out of him yet.:grin:

[Sinister Intents]

We could make a socialist out of him yet.:grin:

I think I said that to him/her before :grin:

[Marxaveli]

I think the OP is confusing "authoritarian communists" with Marxists, since anarchists are also communist.

Communism is a more broad term that refers to a classless/stateless/moneyless society. Now, there are different theoretical frameworks on how such a society is to be achieved, with Anarchism and Marxism being two of them.

A better, less erroneous way to ask this question would have been to ask if one was an Anarchist, a Marxist, or something else.

[liberlict]

Anarchist.

[Marshal of the People]

Anarchist.
I thought you were a capitalist?

[liberlict]

Anarchist.

[Marshal of the People]

Anarchist.
Are you an "anarcho"-capitalist?

[Sinister Intents]

Are you an "anarcho"-capitalist?

He leans towards anarchist syndicalism, and doesn't really count as a capitalist, he's one of the better restricted members who show potential

[Marshal of the People]

Oh, sorry liberlict.

[The Jay]

Yes, I read it -- thank you. There were no communist principles in the USSR, same as there aren't any in Cuba, or Venezuela. I understand that part.

What I have so much trouble understanding is, if they're not really socialist/communist or whatever, why do people still support them?

I suppose the difference comes in specifying what specific ideology you subscribe to, as "socialism" or "communism" have become words that describe too many things.

That's what happens when you have people clamoring over words that have changed meaning through different theoretical avenues. It would be best, specifically since this is OI, to determine definitions before asking general questions or making general statements.

[argeiphontes]

I think the OP is confusing "authoritarian communists" with Marxists, since anarchists are also communist.

Not all anarchists are communists. There's a spectrum of left-libertarians from (roughly) Tucker (maybe Spooner?) to Kropotkin. IIRC mutualists and leftward fall under 'libertarian socialism'.

[Halert]

Authoritarian in the sense that i agree with engels on the argument that he made in his work "On authority". I don't support bourgeoisie nations like the former USSR and modern day Cuba.

[liberlict]

Anarchist.

lol. Crazy how this totally insipid post boosted my rep. Win.

[argeiphontes]

lol. Crazy how this totally insipid post boosted my rep. Win.



in·sip·id
inˈsipid/
adjective
adjective: insipid
1.
lacking flavor.
"mugs of insipid coffee"
synonyms:tasteless (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=637&q=define+tasteless&sa=X&ei=KwbmUpGeCYWBqwGOhoG4Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQ_SowAA), flavorless, bland (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=637&q=define+bland&sa=X&ei=KwbmUpGeCYWBqwGOhoG4Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ_SowAA), weak (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=637&q=define+weak&sa=X&ei=KwbmUpGeCYWBqwGOhoG4Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQ_SowAA), wishy-washy (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+wishy-washy&sa=X&ei=KwbmUpGeCYWBqwGOhoG4Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQ_SowAA&biw=1280&bih=637); More

You can project promise onto that I guess. ;) Read anything interesting lately?

[Remus Bleys]

I'm way authoritarian baby. I reject democracy as a whole. In fact, I don't even criticize Stalin or Mao for mass murder. Nor do I give a damn if if the West is more free or liberally minded, both the East and the West are to be equally opposed. In fact, I would go so far as to call myself a revolutionary totalitarian.
if you step closer you may be able to bathe in my edginess.

this is a silly thread. also relevant
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

[Brutus]

^ proletarian dictatorship ftw, Remy! Obviously gonna be a one party state and all, because we openly declare our aims of crushing all class enemies.

[liberlict]

You can project promise onto that I guess. ;) Read anything interesting lately?

Lately I've been reading the polemics between Lenin and Kautsky. It would have been so rad if these guys could have just dueled it out on message forums like this one.

Other than that 've been reading An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought Volumes I & II by Murray N. Rothbard. Rothbard is an absolute sociopath. He hates absolutely everyone sans himself. Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, he even gives Mises a hard time. He's crazy. Quite a caustic analysis though. The chapter on Marx is called "Messianic Communism".

[Marshal of the People]

^ proletarian dictatorship ftw, Remy! Obviously gonna be a one party state and all, because we openly declare our aims of crushing all class enemies.
How are you going to stop the one party state from holding onto power and transforming the world into a state-capitalist society? Define "class enemy" please.

[Remus Bleys]

How are you going to stop the one party state from holding onto power and transforming the world into a state-capitalist society?
Because thats not how proletarian dictatorship works. The class interests and the class itself is in perfect unity with the party, if this were not the case then proletarian dictatorship could never "solidify." The class that acts as a class for itself is organized into the party, and so the goals of this party are one and the same with the proletariat (the manifesto). So why would the proletariat go against its interests, ie uphold capitalism?

Define "class enemy" please.
those who would stand in the way of Revolution.

THE ONLY FREEDOM FOR THE PROLETARIAT LIES IN ITS DICTATORSHIP

[liberlict]

How are you going to stop the one party state from holding onto power and transforming the world into a state-capitalist society? Define "class enemy" please.

It's a big leap of faith isn't it.

[Marshal of the People]

Because thats not how proletarian dictatorship works. The class interests and the class itself is in perfect unity with the party, if this were not the case then proletarian dictatorship could never "solidify." The class that acts as a class for itself is organized into the party, and so the goals of this party are one and the same with the proletariat (the manifesto). So why would the proletariat go against its interests, ie uphold capitalism?
Who is going to be in charge of the proletarian dictatorship? (Is it an elite few?) What is going to stop the proletarian dictatorship from taking supreme power? How can you make sure the party has the same goals of the proletariat? What is stopping the party from telling the people what they do and do not believe?


those who would stand in the way of Revolution.

THE ONLY FREEDOM FOR THE PROLETARIAT LIES IN ITS DICTATORSHIP

That could be used to have anyone arrested. What do you intend to do with them after you arrest them? Kill them?

[Remus Bleys]

Who is going to be in charge of the proletarian dictatorship? (Is it an elite few?) What is going to stop the proletarian dictatorship from taking supreme power? How can you make sure the party has the same goals of the proletariat? What is stopping the party from telling the people what they do and do not believe? The proletariat. duh. of course the proletarian interests will dominate.
Furhtermore, it would be liberal to oppose the proletariats means to ensure its dictatorship and totalitarian control over society. The more it consumes, the more it grows in power, the more it grows in power, the sooner we will see communism. Whereas you would oppose this power, this ease of proletarian power, in favor of something as arbitrary and metaphysical as liberty. Disgusting.


That could be used to have anyone arrested. What do you intend to do with them after you arrest them? Kill them?
ITs utopian to map out revolution. Why does no one understand this?
but no great movement has lacked bloodshed

[Marshal of the People]

The proletariat. duh. of course the proletarian interests will dominate.
Furhtermore, it would be liberal to oppose the proletariats means to ensure its dictatorship and totalitarian control over society. The more it consumes, the more it grows in power, the more it grows in power, the sooner we will see communism. Whereas you would oppose this power, this ease of proletarian power, in favor of something as arbitrary and metaphysical as liberty. Disgusting.
How can the proletariats interests dominate if it is not they but a party in control? Unless you intend to have every single member of the proletariat as equal members in the party, do you mean this?
Don't you like liberty? What is wrong with it? Do you prefer slavery or serfdom? I am pretty sure a communist society is suppose to be libertarian in nature so... Interesting choice of adjective that you used at the end.


ITs utopian to map out revolution. Why does no one understand this?
but no great movement has lacked bloodshed
I agree with that, but you haven't answered my question. What are you going to do with the people classified as "class enemies"? and how would you classify a person as such?

[Althusser]

That could be used to have anyone arrested. What do you intend to do with them after you arrest them? Kill them?

You know what happens to people in countries if they are a threat to the class in power? Yeah, that.

[Brutus]

I agree with that, but you haven't answered my question. What are you going to do with the people classified as "class enemies"? and how would you classify a person as such?
He said it's utopian to map out revolution. And it doesn't matter what he thinks, anyways; it doesn't matter what any of us think. The course which represents proletarian class interests will be taken, but it has yet to be seen what that course is.

[Remus Bleys]

How can the proletariats interests dominate if it is not they but a party in control? Unless you intend to have every single member of the proletariat as equal members in the party, do you mean this?
Equal? No. But the class is centralized into the organ known as the party.


Don't you like liberty? What is wrong with it? Do you prefer slavery or serfdom? I am pretty sure a communist society is suppose to be libertarian in nature so... Interesting choice of adjective that you used at the end.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/05.htm

[Marshal of the People]

He said it's utopian to map out revolution. And it doesn't matter what he thinks, anyways; it doesn't matter what any of us think. The course which represents proletarian class interests will be taken, but it has yet to be seen what that course is.
So mass murder is fine?

[Althusser]

I agree with that, but you haven't answered my question. What are you going to do with the people classified as "class enemies"? and how would you classify a person as such?

It's really not hard to understand. The bourgeoisie that arose within the Chinese Communist Party were class enemies. Anyone that will take up arms or fight against the revolution would be class enemies. What you have to understand is that the party should be an extension of the working class. The red guards in China dealt with class enemies without any centralized leadership. You want a good description of how the working class gets its power in the DotP, go read the chapter on it in Foundations of Leninism by Stalin. Go read about On the Cultural Revolution by Louis Althusser.


So mass murder is fine?

You're one to talk Tarkin! What about Alderaan?

Seriously though, when did he say mass murder was fine?

[Marshal of the People]

It's really not hard to understand. The bourgeoisie that arose within the Chinese Communist Party were class enemies. Anyone that will take up arms or fight against the revolution would be class enemies. What you have to understand is that the party should be an extension of the working class. The red guards in China dealt with class enemies without any centralized leadership. You want a good description of how the working class gets its power in the DotP, go read the chapter on it in Foundations of Leninism by Stalin.
Okay... So we kill anyone who has views which are detrimental to the proletariat? Why can't we just re-educate them?

[Marshal of the People]

You're one to talk Tarkin! What about Alderaan?

Seriously though, when did he say mass murder was fine?

LOL:lol:.
He said the class enemies will be dealt with. I guessed that meant extermination.

[Brutus]

So mass murder is fine?

Wow, since when were materialists guided by sentimentality? It's fucking pathetic that you've descended to this level of moralism.

[Remus Bleys]

It's really not hard to understand. The bourgeoisie that arose within the Chinese Communist Party were class enemies.
Not really. How can the bourgeoisie be class enemies of the bourgeoisie? Maybe perhaps they have different interests but class enemies? No.

Anyone that will take up arms or fight against the revolution would be class enemies.
And this included Stalinism's idols like Hoxha, Tito, Khrushchev, Ceausescu, Stalin and Mao.

What you have to understand is that the party should be an extension of the working class.
The party is more of an organ of the working class. It is not an extension but an integral part.

The red guards in China dealt with class enemies without any centralized leadership.
Sure this happens. But a better example would perhaps be wildcat strikes as the red guard was fighting for the local bourgeoisie.

You want a good description of how the working class gets its power in the DotP, go read the chapter on it in Foundations of Leninism by Stalin.
You are seriously suggesting that we learn about communism from those who developed and enforced capitalism; leading a bourgeois state?

[Marshal of the People]

Wow, since when were materialists guided by sentimentality? It's fucking pathetic that you've descended to this level of moralism.
I'll take that as a yes then.

[Thirsty Crow]

1.) Anarchist communists are not against all iterations of socialism and communism that have been practiced in the past. The Spanish Revolution for example was a successful anarcho-communist revolution that worked and lasted for a good while until it was stamped out by authoritarian powers. But if you mean that anarchist communists reject any form of statist (what we call "fake") socialism like that seen in Cuba, the former USSR, etc, then yes, we do.

That's a myth peddled by later day anarchists unable or unwilling to confront the failure of anarchists in this historical instance (just to briefly enumerate, the bourgeois state was left intact - which makes this claim of an anarhicst communist revolution a complete mystery - and capital wasn't even subjected to the first phase of expropriation as the anti-fascist entrepreneurs were left in their possession of the means of production as capital).

[Brutus]

I'll take that as a yes then.

Take it as whatever the fuck you like.

[AnaRchic]

I'm an Anarchist above all else. Though I think anarchist-communism would provide the material foundation necessary for the maximization of individual freedom, I in no way wish to impose this model on anyone. A free society would likely see the coexistence of multiple different social models, cooperating together on the basis of reciprocity.

We anarchists fight for the abolition of all forms of social hierarchy through the self-emancipation of the masses of people. We do not seek to "lead" or control revolutions, but rather to act as a focused and expressive tendency within them, spreading the ideas and organizational forms that reflect Anarchist principles. No anarchist wishes to impose his or her favored model of society on anyone. The construction of the new world will be the work of the people themselves, it is not a project for small groupings of revolutionaries.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Okay... So we kill anyone who has views which are detrimental to the proletariat? Why can't we just re-educate them?

See, he said "dealt with". Things will be done as far as they are necessary without contemplating the bourgeois morality's notions of said actions. If they are necessary to assure proletarian domination and the establishment of communism, then no folly abstractions can stand in the way. What exactly this will be depends on what is necessary in the situation that arises, it cannot be set in stone prior to the situation, because we do not know under what variables it will be forced to operate.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I'm more Anarchist-Libertarian. But in the current system I prefer big government, because neo-liberalism can go fuck itself.

[argeiphontes]

it's utopian to map out revolution.

Proper planning prevents piss poor performance.

[#FF0000]

Okay... So we kill anyone who has views which are detrimental to the proletariat? Why can't we just re-educate them?

"Mass murder! So messy! Why not just re-educate them?"

[#FF0000]

Yo what's with the recent crop of new posters with absolutely terrible politics and an immediate knee-jerk reaction to people correcting them on basic things by the way?

[Remus Bleys]

Proper planning prevents piss poor performance.
because we are prophets and will accurately predict everything that will occur, right?

[argeiphontes]

because we are prophets and will accurately predict everything that will occur, right?

No, of course not everything. I was being facetious, because it partly amuses and partly appalls me when people project their own utopianism and idealism onto others. (According to regular, dictionary definitions of those words.) I'll shut up about it now though.

[NGNM85]

It's a perjorative way of talking about those tendencies, yeah.

And that's why it's dumb and useless: It's pejorative.

It's usually not meant as a compliment, granted, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. In this case it also happens to be an empirical fact.

[Chance]

Libertarian communist, without a doubt.