Alternative Terms for Authoritarian Socialism

[Fawkes]

I've realized that many authoritarian socialists do not like that label and prefer a different title, but what is a good alternative for the term "authoritarian socialist"?

[Vargha Poralli]

Define Authoriatrian socialism .

[Eleutherios]

Perhaps something like "state socialists"?

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:16 am
Define Authoriatrian socialism .
I guess you could define it as the belief in the need of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Idola Mentis]

Any socialist who isn't an anarchist?

[Vargha Poralli]

I guess you could define it as the belief in the need of a dictatorship of the proletariat.


Any socialist who isn't an anarchist?

Then this should be moved to Chit Chat we can keep our sectarian fights there and leave the learning forum clean.

[Fawkes]

No, it shouldn't be moved. I don't want this to become a sectarian flame war. In fact, I was asking this question so that I could respect "authoritarian socialists" requests to be referred to using a different term.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Fawkes+February 14, 2007 03:18 pm--> (Fawkes @ February 14, 2007 03:18 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 10:16 am
Define Authoriatrian socialism .
I guess you could define it as the belief in the need of a dictatorship of the proletariat. [/b]
Then "Marxist" is a good a term as any.

[chimx]

I know anarchists that believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:50 pm
I know anarchists that believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat.
:wacko:

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:50 am
I know anarchists that believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Okay, I'll rephrase what I said. I guess I would define an authoritarian socialist as anyone who believes there should be a centralized workers' state following the revolution.

[KC]

Okay, I'll rephrase what I said. I guess I would define an authoritarian socialist as anyone who believes there should be a centralized workers' state following the revolution.

Do you mean the means of production centralized in the hands of the proletariat, or the form of the dictatorship itself is centralized?

[Fawkes]

The latter.

[KC]

Some would call it Marxism, some would call it Marxism-Leninism or just Leninism, some would call it Stalinism. You're not going to get a straight answer.

[RGacky3]

I've wondered about this, the best term I think is Vanguardist Socialism, because not ALL of that type believe in State Socialist (Trotskyists), not all are Marxists, not all are Lenninists, but I think the deviding line is those that believe in a Vanguard or a Centralized Government organization (Vanguardist Socialists) and those who do not (Anarchists).

Marxist-Lenninism is a very narrow term that is just the thoughts of 2 people, many Vanguard Socialsits don't follow the doctrine of Marxists Lenninism.

[Whitten]

You'll be hard pressed to find a non-leninist who claims to be a "vanguardist".

Plus most non-leninist marxists arnt vanguardist or Libertarian.

[Forward Union]

Authoritarian Socialism is the name for the political/economics beliefs of those in the 1st international (International Workers Association) after the split, and the ones that follow that tradition. Whereas Libertarian socialists are those that organised in the International Working mans Association, and followed Bakunin.

Authoritarian socialist strands include; Maoism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism.

Libertarian Socialist strands include; Syndicalism, Anarchist-Communism, Autonomism, Council communism.

The difference between the two, is probably the biggest split within the left, and always has been, the interpretation of the role of the state.

If Authoritarian communists don't like being called what they are, then why not? I don't see the need to change the name, partly because even if it was changed, the lennies would still be called authoritarian, nothing would change.

[apathy maybe]

"authoritarian socialist" - scum? :P

The word 'socialist' is used by many people to mean exactly that, someone who "believes there should be a centralized workers' state following the revolution". It is frustrating sometimes.

Leninist can be used for those who actually are Leninists, and I can't think of any other type (well the various off shoots, such as Trots, Maoists and so on).

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 14, 2007 06:33 pm
Authoritarian Socialism is the name for the political/economics beliefs of those in the 1st international (International Workers Association) after the split, and the ones that follow that tradition. Whereas Libertarian socialists are those that organised in the International Working mans Association, and followed Bakunin.

Authoritarian socialist strands include; Maoism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism.

Libertarian Socialist strands include; Syndicalism, Anarchist-Communism, Autonomism, Council communism.

The difference between the two, is probably the biggest split within the left, and always has been, the interpretation of the role of the state.

If Authoritarian communists don't like being called what they are, then why not? I don't see the need to change the name, partly because even if it was changed, the lennies would still be called authoritarian, nothing would change.
Well said.

Ridiculous thread, seeing as I don't give a flying fuck what I'm called so long as people understand that I agree with an advanced section of the working class stimulating the rest to action and the need for a dictatorship of the oppressed to destroy the oppressors. Call it what you want, it won't be any less correct.

[Fawkes]

Ridiculous thread, seeing as I don't give a flying fuck what I'm called
Well other people that I've talked to do, which is why I was asking.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Trash anyone?

[Fawkes]

Why would this go to the trash? It's a legitimate question.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:35 am
Why would this go to the trash? It's a legitimate question.
No it seems more like a flame bait to me well taken. Better go to chitchat to continue intresting flame war.

[Clarksist]

If you mean people who support the Russian Revolution, Maoist China, or any of the other "soviet" model nations, I think that Leninist or (in some cases) Stalinist will work fine.

It really isn't that important. Calling them authoritarian is true to what they talk about, so I find it a fitting title as well.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 15, 2007 04:54 am
WTF?

Someone who recognizes the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat (which literally means "rule of the working class"), is called...........

A communist.
Well, depending on what you mean by the dictatorship of the proletariat, even I would like to see such a dictatorship, so that's clearly not the defining difference between Authoritarian and Libertarian communists.

I think the reason a few Authoritarians don't like the term, is because they visualise themselves as "liberators" and the term 'authoritarian' contradicts this romantic image. But if you follow a tradition that signs off land to imperialists and slaughters the working class militia's before the German imperialists get there, and execute syndicalist diplomats there to make peace between the red army and the makhnovists, for some ideological agenda, and put capitalist advisors in charge of the economy, taking away decision making power from the soviets, then I'll call you what you are.

[BreadBros]

I know anarchists that believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat.


WTF?

Someone who recognizes the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat (which literally means "rule of the working class"), is called...........

A communist.

As CdL points out, the DoP simply means the rule of the working class when speaking of Marx. His example is the Paris Commune which I believe nearly all modern Marxists and Anarchists support.

Of course the term changed meaning after Lenin to mean the rule of the working class through a state apparatus. And thus of course the ever-present split(s) over that question and that issue.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by g.ram+February 14, 2007 11:20 pm--> (g.ram @ February 14, 2007 11:20 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 04:35 am
Why would this go to the trash? It's a legitimate question.
No it seems more like a flame bait to me well taken. Better go to chitchat to continue intresting flame war. [/b]
What do you mean "continue", it isn't a flame war, though you just seem to want it to become one.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:15 pm
Of course the term changed meaning after Lenin to mean the rule of the working class through a state apparatus. And thus of course the ever-present split(s) over that question and that issue.
Anarchists opposed the concept long before Lenin.

Marx was a statist. Plain and simple.

[chimx]

Look up Russia's strong history of Anarcho-Bolshevism. The links between anarchism and Bolshevism were quite significant in 1917. It wasn't until later that they had a falling out.

Marx was a statist in that he liked the Paris Commune, but anarchists like the Paris Commune.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 15, 2007 04:54 am
WTF?

Someone who recognizes the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat (which literally means "rule of the working class"), is called...........

A communist.
No. Anarchists that are communists are anarcho-communists.

There are also anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-collectivists, post-left anarchy advocates, individualists, etc.

There are also anarcho-communists that like much of what Marx brings to the table, but reject some things that he said. Some anarchists can see what he meant by a dictatorship of the proletariat, and agree with some tenets of it (myself included). It is an extremely vague term that can be applied in multiple ways.

[Clarksist]

Marx was a statist. Plain and simple.

Marx was viewing worker emancipation through a scientific lens. He was not looking for an answer by the state! He merely saw the state as an important tool for reconstructing society, protecting the revolution, and generating resource and stability post-revolution.

Does that work for modern times? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, he wasn't a statist in the be-all end-all sense... or in your words the "plain and simple" sense.

[Rawthentic]

True. To give the "state" a negative connotation is a perversion of his writings. The workers need to take state power in order to reconstruct society and lead the way to a classless society.

Now, let me be clear, I separate from self-described "Leninists" and other authoritarians in that I say that the proletariat needs to take power in its own name, a vanguard Party need not do that.

For the sake of clearing up semantics, when I say "vanguard", I mean your typical elitist petit-bourgeois party like the RCP. A real vanguard in the Marxist sense is the most class-conscious section of the workers.

[RedLenin]

Of course the term changed meaning after Lenin to mean the rule of the working class through a state apparatus.
This is what Marx meant as well. Marx upheld the idea that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat involves a proletarian state, meaning a violent apparatus, controled by the proletariat, which exists for the suppression of the bourgeoisie. Marx also explained that this state would be structured to wither away, and would begin withering away from the first day of it's existence. The proletarian state is necessary only to violently defend the revolution against the massive violence of the reactionaries. This requires a centralized apparatus of military force, democratically controled by the working class.


I separate from self-described "Leninists" and other authoritarians in that I say that the proletariat needs to take power in its own name, a vanguard Party need not do that.
The point of a vanguard party is not to seize power for itself and establish a one-party dictatorship. The vanguard party is a centralized party of the most dedicated and class conscious revolutionaries of the working class which takes a leadership role. It leads the class throughout the revolutionary process and leads it in the taking of power. I believe that the old "dictatorship of the class vs. dictatorship of the party" dichotomy is a false one. I think that the party should excersize its "dictatorship" within the confines of the class dictatorship. As the vanguard is composed of the most revolutionary element of the class, it makes sense that we would want such individuals in high level positions. However, they should be elected to these positions and be subject to instant recall. I believe that the vanguard party should take power through the democratic processes of the proletarian state. We should not oppose leadership, we should oppose unaccountable leadership and leadership that runs contrary to the class interests of the proletariat. If those party members in high positions of government cease to represent the class, they should be recalled and replaced. The party should excercize its dictatorship in harmony with the dictatorship of the class.


But if you follow a tradition that signs off land to imperialists and slaughters the working class militia's before the German imperialists get there, and execute syndicalist diplomats there to make peace between the red army and the makhnovists, for some ideological agenda, and put capitalist advisors in charge of the economy, taking away decision making power from the soviets, then I'll call you what you are.
I seriously doubt that any Leninist wants to recreate the problems that occured during the Russian Revolution, problems born out of the material situation. These problems you listed cannot simply be blamed on Lenin or Bolshevism, as that would be a gross simplification, not to mention untrue. There is nothing in the theoretical contributions of Lenin or Trotsky that supports the idea of taking power away from workers. The problems that occured during the Russian revolution were problems that occured due to particular and unique material factors. Even Lenin claimed that the state in Russia was a "worker's state with beuracratic deformities".

As far as "authoritarian communism", I think it is a pointless term. You might as well just say Stalinism. All other marxists support democratic control by the working class.