The real problem was never about communism, it was about authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism is the enemy of everyone.
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10257 readers
131 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Can you have communism without authoritarianism though? How would distribution of resources be enforced without control?
Yes.
Democratically.
That answer assumes democracy can't be authoritarian, which isn't true.
Authoritarianism and democracy are directly incompatible.
How so? If the majority votes in authoritarian laws that are violently enforced on minority populations, is that not authoritarian?
No, because a simple majority could also reverse them, it wouldn't be authoritarian, it'd be fascistic.
I know Wikipedia isn't the ultimate arbiter of truth, but this is how it's article on Fascism begins, and I think it would be fairly common for people to consider fascism a form of authoritarianism:
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
FWIW I'm not meaning to attack democracy here, I find it to be far preferable to the other systems we have at our disposal. But it is a tool that can be used for good or bad.
Well, it's more like a large portion of the people voting would have to be fascistic, not that the system itself would be fascistic
It'd be a weird contradiction to have such an anarchist system end up fascistic, I don't think it's a concern in the real world.
Can you have communism without authoritarianism though?
well, we'd have a more settled answer if historically communists of all stripes weren't immediately persecuted wherever they win power (whether democratically or through revolution), but Revolutionary Catalonia strongly suggests the answer is yes. its most anarchist regions successfully managed themselves pretty well for more than 2 years during a vicious civil war before being crushed, and those are the literal worst circumstances possible to try and build an egalitarian, stateless, classless society in. i would imagine doing this is substantially easier without a well-armed state trying to murder you.
(also ironically, the anarchists in Catalonia sometimes had to fight the Marxist-Leninists who were ostensibly united with them against the Francoists, because the two sides had such radically different visions of society)
That's not entirely true. It's possible to have a benevolent authoritarian government and an oppressive democratic one.
It's not possible to have a benevolent authoritarian government.
It's happened on incredibly rare occasion. The problem is they don't stay benevolent; eventually the benevolent dictator dies or is deposed, and their replacement is never so kind
If they were so benevolent, they would give up the power that could be abused later. They just wanted to seem benevolent.
Authoritarianism always eats itself from the inside with corruption. Always.
Yes it is. I'm sorry your too narrow-minded to understand that.
It simply is not, it has never happened, anyone who is benevolent would give up power.
Ultimate power corrupts, ultimately.
Everyone but the state, and unfortunately the capitalist states have much more power to push their narrative. Thus "communism" became the enemy to latch onto, and now it's synonymous with Stalinism in the eyes of many.
Same thing happened with "anarchy" and it being synonymous with "chaos" in the eyes of many. But indeed, anarchy is order.
Edit: A quote from the linked article, absolute nonsense lmao.
On the Right stand the committed anti-totalitarians
Didn't expect to see this in beehaw. I'm really confused with lemmy's ongoing drama. D:
Communism is on the same level as Nazism. Evil and rotten to the core.
I swear the instances better actually start moderating or are all the lemmy mods fucking communists...
Well, authoritarianism isn’t the enemy of the authorities. It usually works out quite well for them, at least for a while. It’s definitely detrimental to society as a whole though, where communism is generally neutral (though more easily abused than capitalism).
We already live in a nightmare capitalist autocracy and people still fearmonger about the USSR.
That’s because it’s demonstrably worse than capitalist autocracy. Communism itself isn’t a problem, but it has yet to function properly at a state level; China came the closest, but that was still based on stratification and a ruling elite. And now it has the worst of capitalism as well.