Why communism begets authoritarianism

[perception]

Why attempts at communism degenerate into autoritarianism

Communism, in its 20th century incarnate, was a political and economic movement. It was an attempt by vangaards of the revolution to seize control, either by their own means or on a wave of massive popular support, and restructure the state and economy based on the communist model. But they quickly discovered that this was insufficient. The people, the country, the culture upon which they were attempting to construct their communist society was capitalist in nature. It was permeated to its core with capitalism, or in some cases even some form of feudalism, and the people themselves were capitalists. The revolution which had succeeded was a political one, and the victories associated with it restricted to the political realm. Most of the reovlutionaries of the 20th century failed to foresee the difficulties of the cultural and societal upheaval that was necessary to achieve real victory. According to Marx, this wuold be achieved during a dictatorship of the proletariat; its historical materialization has been more like a dictatorship on behalf of the proletariat. Mao's Cultural Revolution, and the programs of the Cuban Revolution in the 60's and 70's were aimed at the goal of revolutionizing society. But this entails revolutionizing every aspect of the citizens' lives; placing therefore every aspect of their lives in the hands of the revolutionary government. This is a most decidedly one-way street. The idea that the state and its organs can transform it's citizens along any lines is a fallacy. To imagine that the state can transform its citizenry on the most basic and fundamental levels necessary to condition them for a communist society is downright preposterous.

so how do we avoid this trap?

Communism entails such a drastic shift in human consciousness, such an ahistorical transformation of society, that it can not be imposed or ushered in by anyone, regardless of the benevolence of their intentions. The change must take place at the atomic level. Every citizen must be transformed, "awakened" to the new consciousness; the stains of capitalism must be erased from his memory, and from the collective memory of the people. This cannot be coerced. This must be an act of humanity and love, not of fear and compulsion.

If this is not impossible to accomplish while existing in a capitalistic society, it is nothing short of mind-numbingly difficult. It would be a wonderful thing if we could convince the people of a country or of the world to undergo this transformation, and collapse the old order from within; but that would be like trying to squeeze water from a rock. There needs to be a transitional phase, the only question that remains is what form it will take. A society in which man can be free enough to cast off his old chains while keeping the memory of them fresh in his mind. This is the challenge we face.

[peaccenicked]

The trouble to coming to the idea of communism from an anti authoritarian viewpoint is that it fails to see the wood for the trees. Marx did not put a time scale on things, neither did Lenin. There are tasks to be performed.
Organise the working class as a majority in favour of socialism. There has never been a coercive desire to force workers to want socialism. That is why anarchists speak so much BS about vanguardism. They can only see hierarchy and not different levels of commitment that is even exists as an elitist type variable in organised anarchist groups. They are unbelievably blind.

The next task after organisation is smashing the capitalist State machine, this has to be successful in the capitalist countries that are most dominant and capable of intervening in other countries revolutions.

Now what do we then..Look to the past or build something based on the conditions of lasting victory.

or do we just lay down in front of the remaining capitalists and say we are now stateless.
I have not heard anything so mockingly stupid.

[El Che]

But peaccenicked, do the working class need to be organized? Can't they organize themselves? I'm not against hierarchy per se. I think leadership is a natural social constant. But shouldn't this leadership spring from the working class its self once it becomes politicized. A horizontal, democratic worker hierarchy. Surely that should be the motor of the revolution. How else can it be a dictatorship of the class? How else can we prevent the betrayals suffered in the pass? All individuals of socialist awareness should seek to politicize the working class so that effective change of material reality can being but power must(?) be placed in the hands of the working class, for delegation at their critera.

[peaccenicked]

El che, I think the basic question is one of trust. Self organisation is best, it means you need to trust those with better or even worse self organisation.
The idea is to organise the majority of the working class in favour of socialism towards the tasks of taking themselves out of capitalist control.

Traitors can come from any class.

The traditional method of organisation of personnel is one of rotation, that comes from the pre-fuedal era.

The problem of corruption has to be dealt with more alertly as we have to contend with the historical problem of the 'cult of the personality' which by extension can become the 'cult of the party' . This has been addressed by and large by the idea of 'socialism from below'.

Socialism was never intended to come from anywhere else. However, give me the choice betweeen professionalism and amatuerism. I would choose professionalism
everytime, most militant shop stewards and activitists would agree, while knowing full well that the 'price of freedom is eternal vigilance'.

I think that revolutionaries per se are in my experience too self important, it is events that politicise workers, we can only bring the issues into focus and hopefully more sharply than they already present themselves.

One of the problems with the Russian revolution was that the workers were more ready for revolution than the bolsheviks. Lenin who was a minority of one over the issue of taking power turned this around somewhat.

[redstar2000]

I think the basic question is one of trust.

So does George W. Bush.

Indeed, "trust in authority" is a constant element in all forms of class society.

Since we seek a classless society, on what grounds need we appeal to "trust in authority"?


However, give me the choice between professionalism and amateurism. I would choose professionalism every time...

Lenin agreed and said so.

But consider: unlike brain surgery or flying an airplane, the tasks of making rational social decisions are well within the grasp of anyone of normal intelligence who has access to the necessary information.

The gathering of that necessary information may well be the province of expertise -- but the decisions themselves are not...especially when the collective intelligence of the working class is consulted.

The Leninist paradigm asserts the contrary: that the working class must be ruled "for its own good" by a self-designated group of "professional revolutionaries" who have achieved "expertise" at "making social decisions in the best interests of the proletariat".

Such a claim might have appeared plausible in 1900 and certainly seemed "justified" after 1917...until the balloon popped in the 1980s and 1990s.

Now, it is utterly preposterous...and a retrospective look at the history of Leninist parties in the "west" suggests that people should have seen through such claims very much quicker than they did.

For in no case was the Leninist claim to "expertise" actually demonstrated in practice. Indeed, if you've actually read the histories of Leninist parties in the "west", they read almost like slapstick comedy -- a gaggle of pompous buffoons pelting each other with polemical pies. In real struggles against the capitalist class, they were, more often than not, completely useless or even counter-productive.

As "professional revolutionaries", the Leninists made really terrific...clowns!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

Since we seek a classless society, on what grounds need we appeal to "trust in authority"?

There is a little matter of how to deal with gangsters and the remaining entrepreneurs and their agents. How does the majority rule, it has to assert its own authority.
Who ever insists on anything less is anti democratic. Just because political authority has been historically(on the most part) held by a minority does not mean that authority cannot be weilded by the majority. Indeed a revolution can be successful if the majority do not weild power.

Authority is part of everyday life, if you want travel directions and are lost you have got to refer to a map or someone who knows the area.
To dismiss authority point blank is nothing less than mindless.



The Leninist paradigm asserts the contrary: that the working class must be ruled "for its own good" by a self-designated group of "professional revolutionaries" who have achieved "expertise" at "making social decisions in the best interests of the proletariat
Where does Lenin assert this? Is there a difference between legal and illegal conditions?
Are anarchists not trying to impose their own "expertise" on anti-leninism onto themasses? And are they by that token merely frauds, guilty of what Freud calls projection?

Are not the self designated anarchists patronising to the working class by insisting that merely wish to educate to them and listen to them and not lead them towards a classless society?

I have not been conned by their hypocrisy and their lying anti democratic theory that negates majority rule in favour of an overnight spontaneoues stateless society.

[Nas]

One advantage of Authoritarianism is that you can see and stop your enemy in your own country easily
unless your enemy is your own people

[peaccenicked]

'Authoritarianism' is a bit like 'totalitarianism' a bit of a misonomer because the terms ispo facto deny the existence of the resistance, what we have experienced as humanity is various degrees of brutality in sustaining mainstream ideology. Yet all regimes eventually fall.
Suprising that.
The revolutionary use of authority is to suppress capitalism. One cannot do that without an element of force. They spent millions on suppressing revolutions.

[redstar2000]

How does the majority rule, it has to assert its own authority.

Quite so. But how is that done and what are its limits?

No Marxists and very few anarchists dispute the need to forcibly suppress the remnants of the old order...a task that will be rather minimal in any event.

What else is that "authority of the majority" to be used for? Or used against?


Authority is part of everyday life...

Indeed, that is certainly true...in class society. Could matters not be expected to be very different in classless society?


...if you want travel directions and are lost you have got to refer to a map or someone who knows the area.

You are conflating the "authority" of accurate information with the political concept of authority.

A well-drawn map will tell you where you are and how to get where you want to go. It will not, however, command you to go anywhere.


Where does Lenin assert this?

Although What is to be Done? is considered the "authoritative" text on the Leninist party and its role, I personally think the slightly later text One Step Forward; Two Steps Back is much more explicit.

In fact, I highly recommend it for those who want to understand what Lenin really meant by "Leninism".


Are anarchists not trying to impose their own "expertise" on anti-Leninism onto the masses?

Is that a rhetorical question? Anarchists are opposed to Leninism and try to convince others that their critiques are valid. How is that "imposing" anything on anyone?

Am I "imposing" atheism on the godsuckers on this board by repeatedly attacking their views?


Are not the self designated anarchists patronising to the working class by insisting that [they] merely wish to educate them and listen to them and not lead them towards a classless society?

Why "self-designated"? Do you think they are not "real" anarchists?

Why "patronizing"? I suppose it might be considered patronizing if someone said, in effect, "I know something important to you and if you'll listen, I'll tell you what it is".

But it's hardly in the same league with "follow me & I'll set you free" -- the promise of the Leninist "great leader"...which has never been fulfilled.


I have not been conned by their hypocrisy and their lying anti-democratic theory that negates majority rule in favour of an overnight spontaneous stateless society.

Considering the Leninist track-record, don't you think it takes quite a lot of sheer gall for a Leninist to embrace the principle of "majority rule"?

Here is your ideological mentor, Leon Trotsky, speaking to the issue at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921)...


They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!...The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship...regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class...The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy.

Did you mention the word hypocrisy?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[perception]

The point of the original post was that to insert capitalist-conditioned man into communist society requires a transformation that, if forced, would require a Stalin-esque police state. Communist society can only exist if it is populated by communists. Something both Lenin and Marx seem to acknowledge. How we get from here to there is what I'd like to know, since a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is such an abomination.

[redstar2000]

The point of the original post was that to insert capitalist-conditioned man into communist society requires a transformation that, if forced, would require a Stalin-esque police state.

I don't see this as a "real world" problem because "capitalist-conditioned men" cannot make a proletarian revolution in the first place.

That is, proletarian revolution takes place when the "conditioning" has already faltered and been revealed by events to be false. The people who lay the foundations of communist society have already, to a greater or lesser extent, rejected capitalist "conditioning"...or never had it in the first place.

Of course, there will be many people (not just ex-capitalists) who will still "think in the old ways". To them, communism will be something to be afraid of. But I expect most of those people to be "won over" by the actual experience of communist society...by the visible and evident improvements in people's lives, including their own.

I expect that the numbers who will really want to subvert or overthrow the new order as a matter of conviction will be quite small...and easily dealt with on a local level in a calm but firm way.

It's not the "big deal" that the Leninists make it out to be.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[GUTB]

The major problem has not been the the elimination of the nation's capitalist elements -- once the mass movement has struck, it lays low all before it. The major problem has been the trend of counter-revolutionary forces to emerge from the ashes once the masses have cooled down from the white-hot state of active revolution. These trends have occured due to external pressures of a world-wide reactionary response from capitalism that will generate chaos, thus paving the way for national counter-revolution.

The revolutionary leadership must constantly move forward towards world revolution. It must never stop. Conditions that promote counter-revolutionary trends can never be allowed to appear. The revolutionary leadership must be sufficnetly revolutionary to fight the world's last war, the only war that matters.

[peaccenicked]

No Marxists and very few anarchists dispute the need to forcibly suppress the remnants of the old order...a task that will be rather minimal in any event.
Forcibly repress.....yes............really and how would you do that. This very cornerstone of statism attributed to Marxism. Without that there would be no need for a state.

There would be no need for a transitional period.


Self designated anarchists who admit to this can not be real surely?


I dont have a magic wand or a crystal ball but the quantity and quality of resistence is a variable dependent on the exact balance of class forces at the time.
Revolution is a singular process, the working class as a majority assert its authority over the old order but where and when it breaks out is largely unpredictable under present circumstances or if outbreaks will be defeated.

Trotsky is no more my mentor than Lenin, I have some problems with Marx .
I have problems with the confusion that emanates from anarchist quarters.

I am not tying to impose my views on anyone but you seem to think that anyone who does not share your criticism of Leninism is a leninist .

Now you seem to agree that there is a transitional period ie there is a need to suppress the old order. So why do you judge this period to be minimal. Could this just be wishful thinking. I would certainly wish it.


The dictatorship of the proletariat as a notion is best seen in opposition to the idea of the dictatorship of the bourgeiosie.

The problem is the form that proletarian dictatorship takes.

To point to undemocraric forms of that dictatorship and say that is all we have experienced and say thats all there every be is to repeat (IN EFFECT)the same old capitalist argument that Leninism=Stalinism=Socialism.
The equation is not historically justified no matter what the "Black Book on Communism'' says.

The point you seem to make is that vanguardism is inherently undemocratic, and in particular Lenin's form of it. That it calls for mental slavery. I think that can be dragged out of it if one is seriously intent on making the case.
How do you do that for 'One Step backwars,two step forwards'?
I must admit I dont see Lenin's capitalist conditioning or criminal intent in that pamphlet.


Quite so. But how is that done and what are its limits?


How do a group of people normally set their limits and methods.
They discuss it amongst themselves.
How much of the dos and donts that can be worked out beforehand I dont know.

My advice to one and all would be to find out as much as you can about the situation is as it stands by waying up all the alternatives, advance your own if one sees it as useful.
See how far we can reach a consensus, have a vote if one cant be reached then carry on with majority decisions.
That is one inerpretation of leninism. I guess yours is entirely different.

I am not for great men, I think a developed political culture will create much more rotation in the division of labour but here in the following passage (the leninist)che grasps something of the nature of revolutionary democracy. What he says about the individual and the mass is particularly interesting.

''Dialectical Unity Between Fidel and the Mass

This mechanism is obviously not sufficient to ensure a sequence of sensible measures; what is missing is a more structured relationship with the mass. We must improve this connection in the years to come, but for now, in the case of the initiatives arising on the top levels of government, we are using the almost intuitive method of keeping our ears open to the general reactions in the face of the problems that are posed.

Fidel is a past master at this; his particular mode of integration with the people can only be appreciated by seeing him in action. In the big public meetings, one can observe something like the dialogue of two tuning forks whose vibrations summon forth new vibrations each in the other. Fidel and the mass begin to vibrate in a dialogue of growing intensity which reaches its culminating point in an abrupt ending crowned by our victorious battle cry.

What is hard to understand for anyone who has not lived the revolutionary experience is that close dialectical unity which exists between the individual and the mass, in which both are interrelated, and the mass, as a whole composed of individuals, is in turn interrelated with the leaders.

Under capitalism, certain phenomena of this nature can be observed with the appearance on the scene of politicians capable of mobilizing the public, but if it is not an authentic social movement, in which case it is not completely accurate to speak of capitalism, the movement will have the same life span as its promoter or until the rigors of capitalist society put an end to popular illusions. Under capitalism, man is guided by a cold ordinance which is usually beyond his comprehension. The alienated human individual is bound to society as a whole by an invisible umbilical cord: the law of value. It acts upon all facets of his life, shaping his road and his destiny."

[pandora]

Communism does not necessarily require prolonged authoritarianism.
Almost every revolution sells equal rights and justice to the people, but the people become dissatified when demands are not met.

If there is a good system of representation, these concerns can be met, with local counsels that influence regional counsels which have a voice in the capital.
Regional control with thought to the good of the nation is a good place to start.
Again and again in regional politics we witness government workers and social service people and teachers taking salary cuts for the good of the those they serve.
It is ridiculous they must be so self sacrificing when business men would not do so, but business must be taught to do the same.

National control of resources is just common sense; it seems the main need for authoritarianism is in nationalizing industry. Being a social democrat, i have no problems with mom and pop stores and cottage industries as long as they are small enough, and think they create good products for trade. On the contrary

I think all nations should adopt a policy not only of nationalized resources which are handled sustainably,
But that no country should allow resources to leave their borders as unfinished goods.
This would stop over production immediately, and increase fair prices for products, while meanwhile over riding mass consumerism of cheap products in turn towards hand made or well made (tooled) products with some of the maker in them.
I refer to Marx's alienation of labor, and invoke the spirit of the trades.

I live in a region where cottage industry sustained the area and brought international notice to it's products. Large industry can not meet the quality issues of small independent farmers and producers. Even Fidel left farms with under 100 acres initially untouched. I would 50 in a rainforest high rain area and 100 in an arid climate. All rivers and watersheds must be nationalized and protected.
With local control authoritarianism is not needed, once people get over the initial loses of property, and those who wish to leave have left.

If you allow people to leave who disagree, with a small portion of their holdings, say 30% the rest being nationalized, it is harder for them to gain international support to reseize assets.
Ultimately I am vehemently opposed to KGB, CIA, FBI, CDR type invasions on people's privacy unless you find that they are trying to overthrow the government, and then they should be exiled, assets seized. Otherwise corruption overtakes all compassion.
Ultimately you either believe that people are fundamentally good if given the chance or fundamentally bad, I tend with the philosophers of the enlightenment such as Kant and Rousseau to believe they are fundamentally good, if given a chance. If forced their hearts will turn against you, while their mouths mouth the words of consent.

[redstar2000]

The major problem has been the trend of counter-revolutionary forces to emerge from the ashes once the masses have cooled down from the white-hot state of active revolution.

Why is it, do you suppose, that the masses "cool down"?

Bourgeois sociologists and psychologists suggest that ordinary people are "inherently incapable" of sustained political activity. Only a few can become "life-long" "professionals".

I offer a different explanation. In my view, what "usually" happens (or is allowed to happen) is that the "professionals" squeeze out the amateurs (all the rest of us) from any substantive decision-making roles. Once we realize that our views "no longer count", we retreat back into social passivity...lest we attract the unwelcome attention of the political police. We may continue to "hope" that our new rulers will treat us better than our old ones did...but there's no question in our minds that we are ruled and no longer rulers ourselves.

Friendly visitors to the Soviet Union in the mid-1920s were puzzled. Although Russian newspapers blazed with fiery polemics between Stalin, Trotsky, et.al., the Soviet working class seemed to be passive and indifferent to this "titanic struggle".

It was not really such a puzzle; the working class knew that their opinions no longer mattered. It was just a squabble between bosses that the prudent worker kept clear of.

It's my view that our deliberate refusal to establish a centralized "workers' state" will keep the "professionals" from taking over everything by depriving them of a "political center of gravity".

Thus ordinary working people, while perhaps no longer "white hot", will retain a considerable amount of power and initiative in their own hands. Ambitious "professionals" are much easier to keep under control on a local or regional level than they are once they get their hooks into a state apparatus and a police bureaucracy.

To permanently keep the "professionals" in their place, I favor what is known as demarchy.

Democracy Without Elections: Demarchy and Communism November 2, 2003 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1067737904&archive=1067850372&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

Further Notes on Demarchy January 7, 2004 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1073449137&archive=1075295090&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

It's my view that our deliberate refusal to establish a centralized "workers' state" will keep the "professionals" from taking over everything by depriving them of a "political center of gravity".


I read we should not let a new ruling class arise which consists of a minority of elitists.
Centralisation is the method of focusing their power, so centralisation should be dismissed.

However surely demarchy can be a method of choosing delegates to a central
body. That would keep the elitists or ''professionals'from taking control or having hegonomic power.

I would regard elitism as unproffessional.


The dialectics of decentralisation (http://www.flonnet.com/fl1713/17130700.htm)

[cubist]

i had this convosation with a catholic, and the response was put a weakman in charge and authoritarianism will occur and eventually totlaitarianism, i don't know why it happened, i don't think communism ruined itself i think the men in charge did it wasn't destined to fail they made it fail, but i no little about it.