Results 1 to 20 of 38
Can left-wing authoritarianism exist?
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.)
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.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
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.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
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
"If you're feeling low, stuck in some bardo
I, even I know the solution
Love, music, wine and revolution."
-The Magnetic Fields
“The most violent element in society is ignorance. ”
― Emma Goldman
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.
I would go further and say that the state ceases to exist at all.
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.
I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.
--rms
While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrict its users.
--rms
AKA loonyleftist
How do you propose getting rid of capitalism?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.
The justifiable authority of the proles.
Perhaps I'm mincing words, but self-defense against oppression is not authoritarianism.
I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.
--rms
While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrict its users.
--rms
AKA loonyleftist
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.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
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
pew pew pew
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.
"Maybe some day... I'll find a way... without you.."
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.
I don't think an actual socialist movement with a chance to succeed can be authoritarian. Socialdemocracy can be.
To RedWorker,
Would you care to name any successful social democratic revolutions for us?
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
Social democracy can be authoritarian, whereas no authoritarian "socialist" movement can succeed (nor has it).
To RedWorker,
That wasn't my question. Can you give us an example of successful non-authoritarian socialism?
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
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.
Fashionable avatar in solidarity with Five Year Plan.
To Slavic,
So you understand my objection to this line of thinking?
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
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.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
