You're viewing part of a thread.
Well, it might be so. But I am just suspicious about tankies showing flaws of democracy since they use it to "show" the supposed supremacy of "communist", authoritarian states as China.
You are conflating communism with authoritarianism as is commonly done on purpose or by accident to invalidate it. Anarchists are also often Communists and they oppose democracy for its oppressive properties as compared to consensus building and free association, that's a critique of democracy from an even more libertarian perspective.
Socialists and Communists also believe in the democratization of the economy, so that a capitalist owner class doesn't get to dictate how our labor and resources are allocated.
If you truly believe in freedom, you might be interested in anarcho-communism or socialism. Liberal democracy isn't as free as you think.
You mean the idea of communism or actually existing "communist" countries, like China, USRR or North Korea?
Those states, according to theory, are meant to be a transition TO communism, but of course many things can go wrong in that process, and we're kinda right back at the situation portrayed in the meme.
Despite my spat with the ML leftists in this thread, I see why the idea of a communist Vanguard state is appealing. I also see how a state which transforms into socialism or communism must be "authoritarian" in that it has to take away factories and land from those that keep it as capital, so that it can be shared. These states also had to contend with constant sabotage and aggression from the Liberal Democracies of the West who feared worker revolution coming to their own land.
Anarchists are a more idealistic bunch and generally strive to build parallel power structures and organizations of people and so try to construct a new order upwards. In practice it's hard to imagine that method being able to replace nation states, especially with similar external sabotage on top of the existing internal challenges of running an equal society. Dictatorships and blind supporters of authoritarian leaders are hard to best in terms of efficiency.
Both approaches seek to accomplish communism, anarchists want to have their dessert right away, Marxist-Leninists believe the wolf will take care of them just as soon as he's done eating his enemies.
There has never been a communist state, not as a cop-out, but because there is no state in communism by definition. These states claim that they're transitional towards communism.
Thank you for a quite objective response.
I also see how a state which transforms into socialism or communism must be “authoritarian” in that it has to take away factories and land from those that keep it as capital, so that it can be shared.
I think this will never work, or with a very small probability. Power simply corrupts and attracts a nasty kind of people. Personally, I believe that upwards, organic, evolutionary changes are more probable to bring us closer to the ideas of communism, as industrial evolution moved most of the world from feudalism into capitalism in a natural way.
I think that's a fair take and perhaps indicates you'd lean anarchist-left. Direct action, mutual aid, and forming parallel power structures are the exact political and social activities that are core to that philosophy. Not exclusively so, but anarchists emphasize that kind of thing over activities like voting or, I guess, awaiting revolution.
I have mixed feelings myself, that kind of natural transformation won't just be left alone to evolve, it'll be actively resisted by powerful political and global forces, the United States and its allies would not allow it, for example. So in that sense a powerful political organization manifesting as a new revolutionary state does seem more likely to work to me, similar to how feudalism and monarchy resisted liberalism and had to be resisted through war.
Funny enough a big reason there's animosity between leftists, especially between anarchists and Marxist-Leninists, is because anarchist experiments were sabotaged and anarchists were fought by "Communists" during the Spanish civil war even as they together fought against Fascists. You'd think a "communist vanguard state" with the goal of establishing communism would be supportive of autonomous anarchist collectives, but those leftists weren't under the thumb of the Soviet Union. I think this pretty clearly demonstrated that the USSR wasn't interested in anything but Empire.
I think that’s a fair take and perhaps indicates you’d lean anarchist-left.
I perceive myself as a social democrat, maybe with elements of anarchism, such as decentralization and down-to-up elements of organization.
I have mixed feelings myself, that kind of natural transformation won’t just be left alone to evolve, it’ll be actively resisted by powerful political and global forces, the United States and its allies would not allow it, for example.
This problem is actually a hard one -- otherwise no one wouldn't need to argue about it, and there is no simple choice. If someone thinks that there is an obvious simple solution, then he/her may be just very ignorant. Maybe I will sound controversial here, but in contrast to Marxist-Leninist, I do not blame United States for damping revolution. Revolution will not come simply because we are not in 19th century capitalism anymore. Capitalists adapted, provided more humane conditions to workers to not be swept by workers' revolution, and Antonio Gramsci saw it something like 100 years ago, but Marxist-Leninists still live in 19th century and do not see that low-income class would rather choose far-right options like Trump or AfD. The United States indeed massively interfered with damping of "socialists" republics in South America, but I think we do not need another "red" imperialism country like USSR or Russia's vassal. Humanity needs real communism, not "red" authoritarianism.
I think this pretty clearly demonstrated that the USSR wasn’t interested in anything but Empire.
I think so, and with time this was becoming more and more obvious. Western leftists were surprisingly long (like 1956) under the charm of USSR, maybe with an exception of people like Emma Goldman.
anarcho-communism
Mfw the anarcho-syndicalists throw me in a labor camp
Lol this maymay cracked me up good internet joke i hope u get many points
Wait did you not know about the anarcho-communists doing labor camps?
My point is that authoritarian is a useless word. Anarchists accuse left wingers of being authoritarian and then do the exact same thing with a different name. Just accept that some parts of revolution are gonna suck and gonna have excesses.
I don't think you're going to find it easy to convince a Marxist to become an Anarchist by linking Anarchist theory.
Not theory, refutation of the bullshit that anarchism necessitates forced labor. I don't care what that poster thinks, I care that readers aren't misled.
That is theory, what are you talking about?
Their point wasn't that Anarchism necessitates forced labor, but that historically Anarcho-Communists have employed Labor Camps, such as in Revolutionary Catalonia.
Examples are mentioned in With the Peasants of Aragon.
They are making the point that Anarchists are more than willing to be authoritarian when it benefits them and is immediately practical, despite cloaking themselves in an "anti-authority" robe, historically.
Rich for Marxists to throw out "anarchism has never worked when tried" lol. (Also isn't true, see link).
But granted, maybe there's a more charitable interpretation of their comments.
I didn't throw that out, and neither did OurToothbrush.
Authoritarian is just a buzzword armchair generals throw around. All states rely on authority, including anarchist attempts like in Catalonia and Ukraine.