Is Communism Authoritarian?

[IrisBright]

This is a thread from the Kasama Project intending to discuss real problems that face the revolutionary left, as well as perceptions and truths about communist revolution. This is not a 'communism v anarchism' debate. I would like to see some surprising, deep and non-dogmatic answers to the questions being raised in this thread.

***


Is Communist Revolution Authoritarian? (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/is-communist-revolution-authoritarian-is-that-bad/)

Posted by Mike E (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1129785784) on September 25, 2008

by Iris

I've run into anarchists and such on revleft (http://revleft.com/) (and at protests) who dismiss me, all communists, or anything to do with Mao as ‘authoritarian.’



So let me just ask: is Maoism ‘authoritarian’? I mean, I thought believing in agency for all people was, you know, democratic. I feel like I don’t even know what to say to this.



Two of the anarchists I stayed with in Denver called themselves ‘Anti-authoritarian People of Color’. One of them got into a pretty bitter fight about the strength of the Left with me, saying that ‘people of color organizing IS a threat to the state!” and ending it there.



There is this weird disconnect with what is ‘threatening’ to the state with all the young anarchists I meet.


In this Revleft thread about SDS (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-communist-purges-t89138/index.html), some poster keeps saying there is a smear campaign against Rachel Haut by the FRSO-FB. I don’t know much about FRSO-FB, but I think they uphold Mao. The poster continually refers to them as ‘ultra-authoritarian’. That seems pretty extreme. I mean, maybe some Stalinist, Joseph Ball types are pretty openly authoritarian–they have this cultural take that us pansies in the imperialist centers need to man up and quit whining about the particulars of ‘democracy’ and ‘agency’.



But generally, I don’t think of communists as authoritarian (I remember when I used to). I thought Mao acknowledged contradictions between leader and led? That we need to break down the ’slavish’ qualities of the very poor–or that they need to do it themselves.


Another question: it has been said that the RCP expresses democratic centralism poorly–too ‘centrally’. Does this mean they are authoritarian? What is the balance between military discipline and free expression of ideas? Anarchists seem argue that having central power at all–even in a military sense–can never lead to real communism or any society of freely associating human beings. I have wondered this myself, and think of it this way: you must seize the state apparatus and beat back the forces of reaction; their military and power are incredibly strong. This is extremely difficult. Since it takes an uprising in society to achieve the former, I can only assume that forward thinking, revolutionary people have to rise up again and again, and force the agency of the people against the current order, when it becomes entrenched or develops bourgeois characteristics.



Struggle lasts forever!


I don’t want to start an ‘anarchism v communism' debate, unless you think we should.
Authoritarian (dictionary definition):

1) favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2) of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3) a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

[spice756]

Only pure anarchism is democracy.Under capitalism the capitalists rule and the mass.This is why gays and lesbians ,abortion ,people who want to smoke pot cannot or 10% or 15% vote xx but 70% vote yy and yy get in power.

The 5% or 10% do not have democracy.Under socialism the state rules or the mass using the state has a tool but agin the minoraty get f-ck.

Under communism a worker council in town, village,work place ,area the same thing.The 40 or 80 rule over the 5 or 4.Well at least undr communism if you don't like the deal not like socialism you can move to a other town, village,work place .But even still if you can't move to place you like it is not democracy.

Only pure anarchism no laws or courts is democracy.Has a group law or collectives law is not democracy.May it be a group of 20 or 100 does not matter.The group of 40 or 100 rule over 4 in a council and is not democracy

Only individualism and no laws,government,court,hierarchy is pure democracy.

[bcbm]

This is not a 'communism v anarchism' debate. I would like to see some surprising, deep and non-dogmatic answers to the questions being raised in this thread.

Which questions exactly, and how to expect to get these answers? The only real questions I see here refer to Maoism and whether or not it is authoritarian, with some vague assertions here and there (almost embarrassingly vague in some cases... the author admits they know nothing about an organization but feel inclined to comment on some statements against them?). I think there might be a real discussion to be had somewhere around this topic (if I even understand what the topic is correctly) but I don't think this is the starting point. Refine your thoughts, get a little more concrete and then let's have a go. This is just a bunch of assertions, weird snippets of conversations that do not advance a point, let alone a question and some shit about various organizations.


But generally, I don’t think of communists as authoritarian

But you use revleft as an example here? I've been around here a bit longer and I can't see how reading here could give you a much different impression. There are no shortage of people here looking to bathe in the blood of the bourgeoisie and go off on some massive power tripping. Really, look around. Its pretty disturbing, because I'd really like to agree with your sentiment.

[Devrim]

I think the whole thing about authoritarian/libertarianism is a bit of a red herring, which has no real meaning today.

My main problem with Maoists is that Maoism is an anti-working class current that supports nationalist gangsters through out the world.

Devrim

[BraneMatter]

"Only pure anarchism no laws or courts is democracy.Has a group law or collectives law is not democracy"


I believe your definitions are incorrect. What you describe is not democracy, either pure or representative.


Democracy, according to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 5th ed., 1945, is as follows:


"Government by the people; government in which the supreme power is retained by the people and exercised either directly (absolute, or pure democracy), or indirectly (representative democracy) through a system of representation."


Thus, under any form of democracy, the majority rules and makes the laws, either directly or through representatives.


What you call "pure" democracy is an absence of the above form described in the dictionary, and fits the definition of anarchy, not democracy (either pure or representative):


Anarchy: "The state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of political disorder."


So you cannot, according to the established and accepted dictionary definition, refer to anarchy as "pure democracy" or the only form of democracy. Anarchy is not ANY form of democracy, it is entirely a different thing.


Further, in your example, if the minority percentage of the people who want to smoke pot have NOT been deprived of their "democratic" rights in any way, because the law making power rests, in a democracy, with the majority. Now you CAN claim that such a law is unjust, for such and such a reason, and either refuse to obey it and/or work to change the law, but you cannot claim that the law is "undemocratic" if the majority put the law in place either directly or through their representatives. A "Bill of Rights" would be an example of a constitutional mechanism in a democracy that is designed to protect certain basic human rights that even the majority, or the government, cannot take away or violate, even by majority vote.


ALL government is authoritatian (force) to a greater or lesser extent, and authority can be exercised in either a lawful or unlawful manner.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is, in the transition to communism, the lawful mechanism (an exercise of power by the socialist/communist government) to address a grievance and injustice, and is derived from the Marxist philosophical view of history, class, and exploitation. It is the lawful (and hence "authoritarian") mechanism of establishing socialism and moving towards the final communist ideal. It is the limiting, and then finally breaking, of the power of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, and since the capitalist class will not surrender without a struggle, it is definitely the violent clash of two forces where one takes authority over the other (as in dialiectics).


So, the way I interpret Marx is that socialism/communism is authoritative (transitional "dictatorship of the proletariat") UNITL it reaches its final, ideal communist form, and class no longer exists. (Obviously, sometimes I am using "communism" loosely to refer to the range from socialism to the final communist ideal, and hence, theoretically, the closer one comes to that ideal, the less authoritarian it becomes.)

[BraneMatter]

A followup:

As long as you have government, i.e., the state, in ANY form, you have authority (law). This is what government is. So in a very real way, democracy is the dictatorship of the majority, limited only by such constitutional protections of "rights" as are defined and established by said constitution/laws.

Sometimes I think that we get ourselves into arguments because we are all definning things according to our own perceptions and preferences, rather than the technical and established definitions. Thus, we are talking apples and oranges and have trouble communicating our true beliefs and intents.

I am certainly guilty as the next fellow of using terms loosely, and I have my own peculiar perceptions. I certainly do not claim to be an expert Marxist theorist. Since I have lived most of my life in the United States, I am more existentially familiar with the capitalist system.

As Mao pointed out, though, it is through practice that socialism is established and moves towards communism. Practice to knowledge, then from knowledge to rational theory, and from rational theory back to practice. Thus, everything advances through constant scientific testing.

[peaccenicked]

A revolution is authoritarian it oppresses capitalist exploiters. If it does not it is not a revolution. A revolution is democratic, it gives voice to the majority and promotes cooperation between the workers and the oppressed. If it does not it is not a revolution. The historical problem is left elitism and if we do not fight that the revolution will be lost.

[IrisBright]

Hey superstar

This was actually part of a quick email i wrote in frustration after the protests against the DNC in Denver. And I wasn't dismissing revleft discussions as against communism or anything like that, i was asking some loose questions about Maoism (i don't know much about it yet, actually!) and expressing some frustration with anarchists that I have met at many protests--really fuckin spirited people concerned about social justice, but sometimes with an aimlessness and refusal to back what they say up that frustrates me.

i wasn't worrying about being apologetic for the questions themselves and wanted to see what people said. it was thrown up on kasama to invite more direct questions, i think.

i was asking why i get dismissed as authoritarian point blank. And i think the truth is that whether a person you meet is a communist or anarchist doesn't have bearing on whether they are going to be well spoken, organized or knowledgeable. So it relates to the Chris Day article i posted.

an anarchist on kasama wrote:

"In my experience, as a lifelong anarchist (who finds Kasama’s efforts intriguing), anti-authoritarian conceptions of communism and authoritarianism spring from various places.

a.) Experiences with groups like the RCP (i.e. hours-long faction fights over things like whose slogans get used [which may seem like invigorating, important debate to a few, is often percieved as controlling behavior] at meetings, badgering behavior treated as struggle, secrecy, et al.) engender much ill will and lead many to the opinion that Maoism is authoritarian and cultish. In that sense, defining what’s good in the day-to-day practice of Maoism and distinguishing oneself from the bad might help a great deal.


b.) Whether it’s true or not, there is a strong belief that communist revolutions, particularly in China and Cuba, involved repression of speech, the arts, etc. among artists, intellectuals left-activists and others. If one dealt with the RCP on this question, such never happened at all. However, among the Chinese-American community, for instance, such repression is true. Most people don’t take the time to discern who’s right. Couple this with general public misunderstanding of phrases like ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ and people tend to walk away with negative opinions. More efforts to explain language would help. Also, clearly explaining parts of history would go a long way to clearing up misconceptions, or at least provide context or justification if those understandings are correct.


c.) Even when there isn’t an outwardly repressive flavor to the climate, the distinctions Chuck Morse hints at related to freedom and coercion aren’t as evident as they could be. Acceptable coercion within a communist revolution isn’t obvious to many people, nor are they going to spend much time studying it. Here’s another opportunity to articulate vision as well.
I agree there is a disconnect among young (and some old) anarchists around strategies for threatening the state. I will say most of said anarchists, fairly or not, perceive communists of all stripes to be rich in ideas but moribund in terms of practice. Both sides regularly concieve each other largely wrongly, I believe, and need each other more than they realize."



I thought this was interesting (from Chris Day posting on Kasama)

"The point of all this is NOT to argue that communists AREN´T authoritarian, but rather to problematize the whole either-or framing of the question. Communists (but also anarchists) are usually authoritarian AND anti-authoritarian. The question that we should ask as I see it should be where have communists made authoritarian errors, that is to say where have we engaged in authoritarian practices that were NOT necessary, that stifled liberatory processes and so on, and what can we do to avoid repeating those errors without losing sight of the contradictory nature of the revolutionary process and the consequent necessity of certain “authoritarian” measures. Similarly we should struggle with anarchists to understand both their own blindness to the authoritarianism of some of their practices AND the necessity of other “authoritarian” measures in the life and death struggle that is the effort to bring a new world into existence."

[Guerrilla22]

We all are essentielly striving for the same ends (presumably) we simply disagree on how to get there.

[BraneMatter]

From a Maoist point of view, I believe the following answers the questions raised clearly:

"In our country bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology, anti-Marxist ideology, will continue to exist for a long time. Basically, the socialist system has been established in our country. We have won the basic victory in transforming the ownership of the means of production, but we have not yet won complete victory on the political and ideological fronts. In the ideological field, the question of who will win the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has not been really settled yet. We will have to waage a protracted struggle against boourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology. It is wrong not to understand this and to give up the ideological struggle. All erroneous ideas, all poisonous weeds, all ghosts and monsters, must be subjected to criticism; in no circumstance should they be allowed to spread unchecked." -- Mao tse-Tung, March 12, 1957 Speech.

From the above it is obvious that bourgeois ideology and the reactionary forces must be suppressed in order to defend the revolution.

Marx also makes it clear that the capitalist class will not give up power without a struggle. And, in another place, Mao says,

"The proletariat seeks to transform the world according to its own outlook, and so does the bourgeoisie."

From the examples of Russia and China, we see that the anti-communist forces, both from within and without, will fight to the bitter end to destroy the revolution. There have been successful socialist revolutions, but they are immediately attacked from within and without by the capitalists.

As long as the capitalists exist, they will have to be fought and suppressed. Therefore, reaching the final goal in any particular nation, or on the international stage, will likely take a long time (but history sometimes advances by a totally unforseen turn of events, circumstances, and/or transformation of consciousness).

(Indeed, we live in a world that Marx could not have forseen, the post-industrial, technological world. And, barring some grand catastrophe, change is now happening exponentially. The internet has interconnected the world at lightning speed. In Marx's day, it took weeks, or even months, for information to make its way across an ocean or continent.)

The answer to the anarchists is not to proclaim that communism is not authoritarian, because it is, but to proclaim that the suppression of the capitalist class is a necessaary stage in socialism towards achieving the final communist ideal of a classless society where the state is no longer needed.

[spice756]

believe your definitions are incorrect. What you describe is not democracy, either pure or representative

Ya but does the representative speak for all or only the majority? If it is the majority the minority does not get representative .

If the law is for the majority than the the minority does not get representative .The minority does not like the law .Well the majority likes the law but the minority does not.

No matter how small or big the state is ,town council ,village council ,street or block council there will be the majority ruling over the minority .

Well no laws ,court ,hierarchy , government ,police ,authority ,class is pure democracy and freedom.Well people can do any thing with out some one saying you can do ths but not this is pure democracy and freedom.

[spice756]

Anarchy: "The state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of political disorder."

I was not using any book or dictionary of what is pure democracy and freedom.This is my words not the book or dictionary that may say pure democracy and freedom means different.




So you cannot, according to the established and accepted dictionary definition, refer to anarchy as "pure democracy" or the only form of democracy. Anarchy is not ANY form of democracy, it is entirely a different thing.


I was not looking up labels or in the dictionary .Call it xyy for all I care or call it anarchy or pure democracy and freedom.The Same thing .

Yes the dictionary or book is going to say different because capitalists writes books and the dictionary .






Further, in your example, if the minority percentage of the people who want to smoke pot have NOT been deprived of their "democratic" rights in any way, because the law making power rests, in a democracy, with the majority. Now you CAN claim that such a law is unjust, for such and such a reason,

So under what system who is a majority 50% ,60% ,70% ,80% , 90% , 92% ,95%. ,97% ??




and either refuse to obey it and/or work to change the law, but you cannot claim that the law is "undemocratic" if the majority put the law in place either directly or through their representatives.


It is undemocratic for the minority .



A "Bill of Rights" would be an example of a constitutional mechanism in a democracy that is designed to protect certain basic human rights that even the majority, or the government, cannot take away or violate, even by majority vote.


What is democracy ? It nothing , people make up.The capitalists writes books saying what is democracy or what is not democracy .

[BraneMatter]

I agree with what you say, except what I have bolded:

"Well no laws ,court ,hierarchy , government ,police ,authority ,class is pure democracy and freedom.Well people can do any thing with out some one saying you can do ths but not this is pure democracy and freedom."

It is unrestricted freedom that you describe (a type of anarchism?), but not "pure democracy" or any other form of democracy. Democracy IS NOT unrestricted freedom. Democracies have constitutions and laws, determined by majority vote, either directly or through representation. In democracy, the majority makes the laws, and the minority does not, although they retain always the basic constitutional and human rights (or should).

So it is only the way in which we define things where we differ. As far as your points go, using YOUR definitions, I understand what you are trying to say.

[BraneMatter]

"It is undemocratic for the minority."

Well, again it is a matter of definitions. We are talking apples and oranges, i.e. definning terms differently. I would say that it is restrictive of freedom to do a specific thing (that which is declared "illegal" by the majority), but NOT undemocratic, because "democratic" means, by definition, that proposition which the majority votes for.

A good example of what, I think, you are trying to get at, is the abortion isssue, where a large majority oppose the current abortion laws. If, for example, your majority is only 51% to 49%, then obviously that particular law will be VERY contentious.

Again,

"Well no laws ,court ,hierarchy , government ,police ,authority ,class is pure democracy and freedom."

Most societies have laws against murder and stealing, etc., and this is meant to restrict the freedom of people to commit those acts. What you describe above is an ideal goal, and requires the transformation of social and economic relations, as well as a transformation in consciousness.

So I don't think we have any real disagreement here, we just define things differently. I think, however, we should use standard accepted definitions where possible, otherwise there is confusion. If one departs from the standard definition, then one should point out how one is redefinning the term, so as to avoid misunderstandings.

Certainly, when it comes to anarchy, there are numerous shades of that philosophy, and a standard dictionary may not cover them all very well. In that case, one has to be familiar with the literature on the subject to look for more guidance.

[spice756]

I guess I should have said pure unrestricted freedom .

Has the meaning of the word democracy now is have constitutions and laws, determined by majority vote, either directly or through representation. In democracy, the majority makes the laws, and the minority does not.

Understand now.

[BraneMatter]

The big problem, of course, is abuse of power and the law. Often, laws do not reflect the will of the majority, but the will of special interests.

In a representative democracy, the citizens are often not aware of all the laws being passed, and may not understand how the laws favor the rich over the poor, etc. , along with other injustices. Even the elected representative often do not read the laws they pass, as was the case with the 5000 plus pages of the Patriot Act.

There are a whole lot of laws in the United States that I disagree with, and think are unfair and unjust. I think the saying is largely true, "We have the best government money can buy."

And then, of course, there is the issue of capitalism itself. Injustice is a genetic feature of capitalism, and so those of us on the real left work to change that.

Now there is a word that is used VERY loosely: left. What makes one a "leftist"?

Is a Democrat a leftist? I would say no, although they may hold some leftist positions. "Progressives" are even more to the left, but are not necessarily anti-capitalist. They might be, as Marx called them, "conservative or bourgeois socialists."

To me, a "leftist" is a Marxist, socialist, or communist, even though I might loosely sometimes apply the term to progressives or even some Democrats. There are "leftist" shades to some anarchism, as I understand it with my limited knowledge of it.

Human nature being what it is, when you abolish (i.e. have a vacuum of) all law, government, courts, police, etc., then usually power will be seized by the strong ,and you end up with rule by barbarian gangs (those who get their hands on weapons and organize), as in a Mad Max type scenario. Under such conditions, there will be a reign of terror, and there will be victims who loose their freedoms. And so you have the "law of the jungle." Both the movie Mad Max and the famous novel Lord of the Flies explore these questions, and the nature of man, law, and government.

Even among primitive clans, there is usually a leader who establishes the customs and rules of the clan. Often, in addition to the clan leader or chief, shamans or religious priests of some variety wield a great deal of power over the clan. Fear plays a large role here.

All government is indeed force, as George Washington pointed out. ("Government is not reason, it is not eloquent. It is force." ) It always gets me, therefore, when Americans object to Mao's saying that all political power comes out of the barrel of a gun So Mao was just paraphrasing Washington!

[BraneMatter]

On state power and the authoritarian nature of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," from Mao's "little red book":

"Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right now; we cannot do it yet. Why? Because iimperialism still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus -- mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts -- in order to consolidate national defence and protect the peoples interests." -- On the People's Democratic Dictatorship, 1949

"Our state is a people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the worker-peasant alliance. What is this dictatorship for? Its first function is to suppress the reactionary classes and elements and those exploiters in our country who resist the socialist revolution, to suppress those who try to wreck our socialist construction, or in other words, to resolve the internal contradictions between ourselves and the enemy. For instance, to arrest, try and sentence certain counter-revolutionaries, and to deprive landlords and bureaucrat-capitalists of their right to vote and their freedom of speech for a specified period of time -- all this comes within the scope of our dictatorship. To maintain public order and safeguard the interests of the people, it is likewise necessary to exercise dictatorship over embezzlers, swindlers, arsonists, murderers, criminal gangs and other scoundrels who seriously dissrupt public order. The second function of this dictatorship is to protect our country from subversion and possible aggressionby external enemies. In that event, it is the task of this dictatorship to resolve the external contradiction between ourselves and the enemy. The aim of this dictatorship is to protect all our people so that they can devote themselves to peaceful labour and build China into a socialist country with a modern industry, agriculture, science and culture. -- On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, 1957.

[spice756]

Even among primitive clans, there is usually a leader who establishes the customs and rules of the clan. Often, in addition to the clan leader or chief, shamans or religious priests of some variety wield a great deal of power over the clan. Fear plays a large role here.

All government is indeed force, as George Washington pointed out. ("Government is not reason, it is not eloquent. It is force." ) It always gets me, therefore, when Americans object to Mao's saying that all political power comes out of the barrel of a gun So Mao was just paraphrasing Washington!



So what is the best way for people who can have freedom and do what ever they like with out it being like Mad Max ?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Denying people the right to vote because of their previous activities is one of the most backwards suggestions I've ever read. The bourgeoisie fail in a real democracy because they constitute a very small number of the population whose concerns are often authoritarian - state protection of industries, monetary infiltration, corporate protectionism. If a state must exist even felons should have a right to vote; that would sure keep in check any absurdities.