Is Authoritarian Communism Really communism?
I'm sure this has been asked before, so sorry if it was.
But from my very surface level understanding of this, communism is about workers collectively owning the means of production. If a dictator is controlling the means, do the workers really own them? To me it just seems like centralised capitalism.
communism is about works collectively owning the means of production.
to be clear: you're kind of mixing terms up a bit here and this needs to untangled, because otherwise it will cause problems in answering what you're asking. the correct word for "worker ownership of the means of production" is technically just socialism. communism, at this point in leftist history, consistently refers to a more specific thing: an ideological system that seeks to create a stateless, classless, moneyless society in addition to achieving common ownership of the means of production.[^1]
this might sound very pedantic--and, to be clear, it is likely the vast majority of socialists are also communists--but conflating these terms can be genuinely problematic when asking a question like this for the simple reason that they are understood to be two different things in practice. you can have socialism but not communism, in short. (indeed, "socialism but not communism" is the rule among states that have arguably been socialist. even if you play fast and loose with the defining characteristics of communism and think there have been existing socialist states, i've never met a person who believes those socialist states achieved anything resembling communism.)
in terms of the actual question you're asking: most people would probably agree that no, the properties of socialism and communism make "authoritarianism" or a "dictatorial" figure antithetical to either--at least without that desire for "authoritarianism" being shared across the entire working class somehow. this is the reason many leftists consider most or all existing (and former) states that called themselves socialist--your Soviet Unions, your Chinas, etc.--to not be socialist or to have degraded back into capitalism.
leftists adhering to variants of socialism typically characterized as "authoritarian" and "dictatorial" would obviously disagree with this, however. to generalize a bit: they tend to believe that it is an acceptable tradeoff for a vanguard (the most revolutionary and ideologically advanced section of the working class) to steward and speak for the rest of the working class through the revolution, to the establishment of socialism, and toward the creation of a communist state. separately, they tend to consider the political structures of these countries as facilitating worker ownership of the economy, even if it is not direct. many of them had central planning of the economy, and most of them had highly delegated (for example village bodies which elect city bodies which elect country bodies, etc.) or sectoral (for example X, Y, and Z interest groups must obligatorily be represented in decision-making) political systems that meant workers were represented at every level of government and decision-making.
unfortunately, whether this is "really socialism" or "really communism" is not a falsifiable belief--and while there are better arguments for the view that "authoritarianism" is incompatible with either in my mind, it's not as if there are no arguments for the contrary view. so you're never going to get a definitive agreement on this.
[^1]: yes, i know these have been used synonymously at many points by many communists, and that even the distinction between socialism and communism has varied historically. but most people in my experience in leftist spaces do not use socialism and communism to mean the same thing at this point, nor do i.
many of them had central planning of the economy, and most of them had highly delegated (for example village bodies which elect city bodies which elect country bodies, etc.) or sectoral (for example X, Y, and Z interest groups must obligatorily be represented in decision-making) political systems that meant workers were represented at every level of government and decision-making.
These 'highly delegated' systems where 'workers were represented' was -and, more important, still is- part of these countries' official narratives. The reality is completely different. We saw and see this in all countries with so-called communist and socialist structures: Every 'delegate' who holds/expresses different views than the central Party is forced to resign as a delegate (and often faces harsh consequences, ranging from forced dissappearance, imprisonment, and even death penalty). The 'votings' of these delegates are highly.staged and have nothing to do with free elections.
Such systems produce the worst results of ultra-liberal capitalism where workers and the people have no say.
(I posted an article an hour or so ago here, but it got deleted without any reason provided. Which is bad, because it is a good example for what I just described.)
[Edit typo.]
This is a very difficult question which probably needs a thesis to explain but here is my simplistic take.
"we have not seen anarchism at a [large scale]" this is extremely debatable, historcally speaking large communities have existed in pseudo anarchistic systsms off and on across the world. The general counter is to claim that hierarchal governance, especially the state, are variously metastable governance systems which outcompete anarchistic communities. But this is only historically supported inasmuch as they did "win out", but that is not actually evidence that it's the only metastable form of large scale governance.
I may be off base, but adding to that, isn't the winning out just colonialism coming in with violence in most cases?
I understand your point.
For e.g. rural village in the past might have no contact with the outside and run like an anarchist community.
However, when we talk about modern nation state, I believe we have not seen successful implementation of anarchism yet.
One problem is that even if it works internally, what would happen when a colonial power tries to conquer it? Like how the US is now trying to claim Greenland, the Panama Canal, or even the nation of Canada?
A centralised power has more resources to mobilise and therefore potentially able to hold off foreign assault (see Vietnam, China).
Please note I am not implying that authoritarian communism is ideal. I am just pointing out the difficulties of not having a central authority.
As an addendum to 4 - state level power is also required to protect aspiring communist societies (socialists) from antagonistic forces with state level resources. If your state is not strong enough, you will be undermined into destruction by external forces, colonial powers that will use this "failure" as both propaganda and a method of appropriating your resources to further colonial projects.
Also, as someone who lives in and was raised in the heart of empire, the amount of propaganda that we have ingested is unfathomable.
It is good practice when you find yourself asking about any topic that may be deemed antithetical to a settler colonial project to thoroughly examine the sources of the information you're basing your opinion on, and perhaps consider that while you may be a very intelligent and thoughtful individual, expertly crafted and ubiquitous propaganda can shape your opinion as well.
Yes. This is a very important point. The failure of the Paris Commune was very influential. Quoting Marx:
While the Versailles government, as soon as it had recovered some spirit and strength, used the most violent means against the Commune; while it put down the free expression of opinion all over France, even to the forbidding of meetings of delegates from the large towns; while it subjected Versailles and the rest of France to an espionage far surpassing that of the Second Empire; while it burned by its gendarme inquisitors all papers printed at Paris, and sifted all correspondence from and to Paris; while in the National Assembly the most timid attempts to put in a word for Paris were howled down in a manner unknown even to the Chambre introuvable of 1816; with the savage warfare of Versailles outside, and its attempts at corruption and conspiracy inside Paris – would the Commune not have shamefully betrayed its trust by affecting to keep all the decencies and appearances of liberalism as in a time of profound peace? Had the government of the Commune been akin to that of M. Thiers, there would have been no more occasion to suppress Party of Order papers at Paris that there was to suppress Communal papers at Versailles.
So, when Lenin started his revolution, he made sure that the proletariat would not make the same mistake:
But two mistakes destroyed the fruits of the splendid victory. The proletariat stopped half-way: instead of setting about “expropriating the expropriators”, it allowed itself to be led astray by dreams of establishing a higher justice in the country united by a common national task; such institutions as the banks, for example, were not taken over, and Proudhonist theories about a “just exchange”, etc., still prevailed among the socialists. The second mistake was excessive magnanimity on the part of the proletariat: instead of destroying its enemies it sought to exert moral influence on them; it underestimated the significance of direct military operations in civil war, and instead of launching a resolute offensive against Versailles that would have crowned its victory in Paris, it tarried and gave the Versailles government time to gather the dark forces and prepare for the blood-soaked week of May.
While we might look back and say "why centralise power?" At the time of the revolution, the cost of failure is very high and the proletariat understands that their enemies will use every means to try to undermine them.
Ones a government structure and the other is an economic structure.