Can left-wing authoritarianism exist?

[Spatula City]

The way I understand it, a crucial component of being left-wing means you are strictly egalitarian.

Since power structures such as those found in an authoritarian government are pretty much the opposite of egalitarian... is it even possible for left-wing authoritarianism to exist?

(I know about the dictatorship of the proletariat, but my understanding of that was that where the intention of the revolutionary army is genuinely to install a communist or socialist government, it exists only to moderate and stabilize society after a revolution, and that when things have settled it will peaceably dissolve.)

[Blake's Baby]

Depends on how you define 'left wing' and how you define 'authoritarian' really.

I'd say a workers' militia fighting in a civil war to overthrow capitalism and the state is quite 'authoritarian' - no-one asks to be shot in the face.

I'd say and 'installing a communist or socialist government' (not sure what your distinction is there) by use of 'the revolutionary army' (not sure what that is either) sounds fairly authoritarian. I'm not much of a one for 'governments', being rather of the opinion that they're one of the things we're trying to get rid of. And I'm not much of a one for military coups either, as I really can't see how such a thing could be 'left wing'.

I think that the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat - which I see as being exercised by the workers' councils, through the workers' militias as necessary - will also be 'authoritarian', in that it will do things that some people don't want it to. Dispossessing the bourgeoisie will, according to some people, be done very peacefully, but I don't see that as being very likely. I think it will be done violently. There is no such thing as 'libertarian violence' (if 'libertarian' is the opposite of 'authoritarian') as there's no way to gain someone's agreement to use force against them.

But, yes, the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat lasts as long as the revolution lasts, which is as long as capitalism resists and therefore still exists. The revolutionary dictatorship is there to win the world civil war and to re-organise society. Once there's no more property, once the whole population has become integrated into producing for need not profit, then there are no more classes - so no 'working class', and no revolutionary dictatorship of the working class. The state ceases to be anything other than the whole population organising itself.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

I don't know that there is such a dichotomy between "egalitarianism" and "authoritarianism." I don't see authority as the same thing as power.

Authority is responsibility. Authority is labor put into a project and ensuring that it sees successful completion.

Power, on the other hand, is ownership. That is, it's entitlement to the benefits of a successful project. I may commission a lawyer to direct a legal effort on my behalf, and he has authority over how that effort is undertaken. He does benefit from his work, but only from my employment of him, and I wouldn't employ him if I didn't have ownership over fruits of his endeavor.

Excuse the capitalistic illustration, and forgive the fact that it's incomplete. It is meant to articulate how I'm differentiating between authority and power.

Authoritarianism is necessary in expropriating the oppressors of the working people. "Egalitarianism" is irrelevant insofar as the bourgeoisie is affected. However, whomever we may have chosen as the specific committees or task forces responsible for carrying out the expropriation, the proletariat must be those who benefit from the projects carried out by their delegates.

Make no mistake: when I say that authority and power are not synonymous, I am not saying that the two are mutually exclusive. After all, the proletariat have the responsibility to carry out the revolution for themselves. Egalitarianism, here, would mean that every working class person enjoys equal ownership of the revolution.

[ChangeAndChance]

Is it even possible for left-wing authoritarianism to exist?

Because Stalin had no authority over the Russian populace at all. They could say whatever they wanted and a long grueling death in a gulag was out of the question.

The whole "we need a state to stabilize society after the revolution" thing? Yeah, turns out we need it longer than we expected 'cause counterrevolutionaries are everywhere (and they always will be). But don't worry, do what we say and everything will be fine. We have your interests at heart.

Seriously? All I'm thinking of when I read this is:

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

-George Orwell

[RedMaterialist]

(I know about the dictatorship of the proletariat, but my understanding of that was that where the intention of the revolutionary army is genuinely to install a communist or socialist government, it exists only to moderate and stabilize society after a revolution, and that when things have settled it will peaceably dissolve.)

I think you are wrong about the DOP (not that I am right, of course.) The DOP exists, like all states, to suppress a particular class of people. The working class will suppress the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois.

This may take several decades, and during that time the dictatorship is not meant to be egalitarian or fair or reasonable or moderate or stabilizing. It is meant to crush capitalism. As Engels said, however, if the capitalists have any sense they will go peacefully, otherwise it will be extremely bloody.

Once the last exploiting class, that of the capitalists, has been destroyed then the state as a suppressing mechanism will wither away and die.

[RedMaterialist]

The state ceases to be anything other than the whole population organising itself.

I would go further and say that the state ceases to exist at all.

[Loony Le Fist]

The way I understand it, a crucial component of being left-wing means you are strictly egalitarian.

Since power structures such as those found in an authoritarian government are pretty much the opposite of egalitarian... is it even possible for left-wing authoritarianism to exist?

No. There is no place for authoritarianism on the left. There is no place for unjustified hierarchies or authorities on the left, either.

...and that's just my opinion, man. :grin:

[RedMaterialist]

No. There is no place for authoritarianism on the left. There is no place for unjustified hierarchies or authorities on the left, either.

...and that's just my opinion, man. :grin:

How do you propose getting rid of capitalism?

[Loony Le Fist]

How do you propose getting rid of capitalism?

The justifiable authority of the proles. :grin:

Perhaps I'm mincing words, but self-defense against oppression is not authoritarianism.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

If one is willing to differentiate between justifiable authority and authoritarianism, I think it'd be a good idea to define "authoritarianism" and what the threshold is before authority is no longer justifiable.

[Tim Cornelis]

Sure, it's possible to pursue leftist policies while cracking down on dissent. Syria, Soviet Union, Venezuela somewhat.

I don't think shooting someone in the face is necessarily authoritarianism if we go by the most common use of authoritarianism, which for some reason is the least commonly used in revolutionary leftist circles. Using the definitions of authority and authoritarian, not every act of authority or violence (shooting someone) is authoritarian (which is more like social relations or structures based on obedience to authority). Liberal democracies impose authority but are not authoritarian.

"Authoritarianism is a form of government[1][2][3] characterized by absolute or blind[4] obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

[Bala Perdida]

Sure, there can totally be left wing authoritarianism. Left wing is a wide spectrum, just because it's leftist doesn't mean it's good. Social democrats are leftists, 'progressive' liberals see themselves as left wing. I don't get why this people on this forum seem to think leftist=communist. Most leftists want nothing to do with communists.

[Art Vandelay]

I'll cast myself in with the camp of the 'authoritarians' every time. Those who tend to oppose 'authoritarian communism,' tend to be (9/10) blatant liberals and ostensible socialists, with no conception of the terms they toss around.

[RedWorker]

I don't think an actual socialist movement with a chance to succeed can be authoritarian. Socialdemocracy can be.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RedWorker,

Would you care to name any successful social democratic revolutions for us?

[RedWorker]

Social democracy can be authoritarian, whereas no authoritarian "socialist" movement can succeed (nor has it).

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RedWorker,

That wasn't my question. Can you give us an example of successful non-authoritarian socialism?

[Slavic]

To RedWorker,

That wasn't my question. Can you give us an example of successful non-authoritarian socialism?

Why are you even doing this? Its a stupid argument.

I could go on and say, what examples are there of a successful socialist society? Then go on and gloat about how you can't answer the question.

La di da, stupid "Gotcha" arguments.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Slavic,

So you understand my objection to this line of thinking?

[Remus Bleys]

To hell with equality, liberty, and brotherhood. Thats certainly left wing, and left in the sense of the Jacobins, ie radical and progressive bourgeoisie (in the context of the French Revolution). Since fascism, though, capitalism has obviously had no need for the notion of equality, liberty, human dignity, etc; such is reactionary even when compared to modern day capitalist ideology.

Communism will require a totalitarian state and will be an extremely centralized mode of production. The idea that communism is a "free society based on content" is an absurd petty-bourgeois anarchist utopianism. Such an ideology cannot even begin to appreciate what is truly meant by communism is the true and real human community.

[RedWorker]

... even though there's not even a state in communism?

[Remus Bleys]

centralization =/= state dipshit

[RedWorker]

The point stands. You said that communism "requires a totalitarian state" and there's no state in communism, dipshit. See how easy it is to call people names? It doesn't make you cooler, trust me.

[Remus Bleys]

Communism does require a state, and this transistional form to communism is not itself communism. If you read marx then you would know this. Its even weirder that you don't know this and yet describe yourself as an Engelsist, as Engels's side of the "division of labor" between marx and engels was moreso on the function of the state.

The relevant quote is "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

So what the fuck does communism not having a state have to do with anything? I mean really you aren't being cute or clever here, but rather demonstrating yourself to, as always, have no fucking clue about what you are talking about.

lol if i was concerned about looking cool i wouldnt be on revleft (and im just stopping by to message someone)

[Tim Cornelis]

For some reason, Bordigism eats up people's personalities.

[Remus Bleys]

For some reason, Bordigism eats up people's personalities.

Arent you the same asshat who says that this is a political board, and that from this website, you learn someone's politics, but not necessarily the rest of their personality? Seriously you even agree with me over RedWorker but still have the need to insult me based on... bordiga? I mean, do you even know about other "orthodox" bordigists besides the two that you have interacted with on this forum?

great reply mate

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

You can have a communist state without having the communist phase of history, if you mean a state guided by the principles of communism or otherwise attempting to head toward that phase.

[RedWorker]

Ignoring Ramus Bleys' attention seeking, I never said there should not be a transitional state.

"State guided by the principles of communism or otherwise attempting to head toward that phase"? That reeks of idealism, voluntarism, and utopianism. Communism is no "state of affairs" to be established, it is the expression of a real movement. There can be no "state guided by the principles of communism", there can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Tim Cornelis]

Arent you the same asshat who says that this is a political board, and that from this website, you learn someone's politics, but not necessarily the rest of their personality? Seriously you even agree with me over RedWorker but still have the need to insult me based on... bordiga? I mean, do you even know about other "orthodox" bordigists besides the two that you have interacted with on this forum?

great reply mate

No I'm not that asshat, at least I don't remember saying that -- and if I did then still, I'm remarking about what I see online. I 'insult' you in that I tried to comedically remark that Bordigists have this tendency toward dogmatic expression via hardtalk, which makes them come across as insufferable douches with a black and white worldview, making any discussion with them useless. And I remember how you used to not talk like a douche, so the further immersion into Bordigism appears to correlate with it. I thought it was clever-ish to make that connection.

Whether I disagree or not is not relevant whether or not you come across as insufferable. And this post is a perfect example of you coming across as insufferable. So for the sake of some resemblance of quality of posts on revleft, keep away as you kinda implied you would.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RedWorker,

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, because you agree with it right at the end of your post. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a state, and a state that expresses such partisanship in favor of the proletariat expresses communist partisanship.

I recognize the difference between the "communist" state I described and the communist phase of human civilization. You'd do well to stop assuming the worst in the people here.

[Remus Bleys]

Ignoring Ramus Bleys' attention seeking, I never said there should not be a transitional state.

"State guided by the principles of communism or otherwise attempting to head toward that phase"? That reeks of idealism, voluntarism, and utopianism. Communism is no "state of affairs" to be established, it is the expression of a real movement. There can be no "state guided by the principles of communism", there can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
"Replying to my bullshit is attention seeking!!" If a transitional state exists, then why object to my post on the basis that Communism has no state? I was quite clearly talking about a transitional state from capitalism to communism, so why object on the basis that communism has no state if you admit this state is a necessary precursor to Communism? Is because you're an idiot, and you're backtracking.

The principles of Communism is derived from the interests of the proletariat, which is the abolition of the worker class. This is like babymarxism, Manifesto level shit. Though I will agree that poster's wording makes... no sense

[RedWorker]

@Toxin: The point is that you believe that the transitional state has to do with "following communist principles" when it in fact has nothing to do with that. There is no "following communist principles", there is the expression of the class struggle. This is coincident with your belief that we should put "a few people who follow communism at the top", like Stalin, and there we have a transitional state.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RedWorker,

Wouldn't a communist principle mean acting in accordance with class consciousness and proletarian partisanship?

And what are you talking about, "a few who follow communism at the top?" How could you say I believe something like that? You're assigning to me your view of "Stalinists" regardless whether I have said anything to that effect whatsoever, and it's petty.

[RedWorker]

I don't "assign" anything to you, it was you who self-described as a "Marxist-Leninist" (Stalinist). But things you do say clearly point to that effect. You expect the state to just act in accordance with the interests of the proletariat. The proletarian state is the expression of the proletariat, not of some bureaucratic class which is to "follow the interests of the proletariat", which is in fact not possible despite their intentions.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RedWorker,

So, in other words, yes, you do assign it to me because I've never said anything to that effect and you're just being petty and sectarian.

[RedWorker]

Being a Stalinist has nothing to do with you following Stalin personally (which is why Tito is said to follow a variant of Stalinism). It has to do with having a voluntarist, utopian and idealist understanding of various things, the revisionist notion of "socialism in one country", etc. If you don't agree with this then don't claim to be a Stalinist. And please stop asking me to treat you like royalty, all I do is post my own view of things.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RedWorker,

Your response to my continued requests for you to give genuine thought to what you're saying was extremely immature.

The rest was nonsense I can barely parse. It could've helped had you bothered to explain how you came to conclude that socialism in one country is "voluntarist" but probably not by much. And s.i.o.c. has nothing to do with "putting people at the top" or whatever arbitrary string of words you were flinging at me earlier.

[Spatula City]

Sure, it's possible to pursue leftist policies while cracking down on dissent. Syria, Soviet Union, Venezuela somewhat.

I don't think shooting someone in the face is necessarily authoritarianism if we go by the most common use of authoritarianism, which for some reason is the least commonly used in revolutionary leftist circles. Using the definitions of authority and authoritarian, not every act of authority or violence (shooting someone) is authoritarian (which is more like social relations or structures based on obedience to authority). Liberal democracies impose authority but are not authoritarian.

"Authoritarianism is a form of government[1][2][3] characterized by absolute or blind[4] obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.[5]"


Sounds good to me.

I definitely see authoritarian as placing obedience to the state above personal development, freedom of expression or quality of life, and behaviors would be controlled or even micromanaged via a carrot-and-stick type system, where a power structure would deal in positive and negative reinforcements in order to promote conformity. This strikes me as being inherently anti-egalitarian and therefore inherently anti-leftist.

However a left-wing egalitarian society would see citizens voluntarily interacting with the state because they care about society-- not merely because of blind patriotism or an emotional connection to other people, but because they understand that rationally, it is in everyone's best interests to perform these duties, and no one duty is any more or less important than the others.

Essentially, the leftist society emphasizes intrinsic motivation based on the rational benefits of co-operation, whereas the right-wing society emphasizes extrinsic motivation based on punishment and reward.


I think you are wrong about the DOP (not that I am right, of course.) The DOP exists, like all states, to suppress a particular class of people. The working class will suppress the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois.

I'm not arguing with that. The DOP isn't the end result so much as a means of attaining it, and therefore isn't really part of my argument. I only referred to it in an off-hand way as I was anticipating its mention, but as far as I can tell, it isn't even an essential part of the transition.


Sure, there can totally be left wing authoritarianism. Left wing is a wide spectrum, just because it's leftist doesn't mean it's good. Social democrats are leftists, 'progressive' liberals see themselves as left wing. I don't get why this people on this forum seem to think leftist=communist. Most leftists want nothing to do with communists.

I wasn't talking about social democracy or progressive liberals... the former strikes me as a nascent form likely to lose sight of itself on it's lethargic slog to the promised land (hasn't this already happened), and the other is capitalism and its adherents wouldn't have it any other way.

I will also say that the egalitarian quality of both is dubious-- they tend to get health care and sometimes education right, but when it comes to welfare and other social programs they only tend to reinforce the socioeconomic status of those who participate in them, and in most cases do not seem particularly interested in actually helping people so much as pacifying or simply carrying them through their lives.