• Bnova [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  45
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You should check out Vincent Bevins’ book The Jakarta Method. He covers the genocide of leftists in Indonesia but throughout it talks to people who’ve been victims of the Jakarta Method, people who were ostensibly where you are, they were communists who were against the use of force. And do you know what happened to them and their friends? They had to flee for their lives while their friends got murdered because as it turns out Capitalists will absolutely use authority to squash and kill anything that even remotely threatens their power. They’ve since changed their mind.

                • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  29
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  300 years after the revolution people who talk about ‘communism’ will be using your definition. For now when people say ‘communism’ they’re talking about the ML(M) project of achieving that goal. This is a conversation that’s been going on for 150 years now. Not only have people argued out what you’re talking about, they’ve been able to see in real life what happens when you try to put principle to practice. You can’t have communism without class war. And if you don’t suppress the ruling class they will inevitably erode and destroy whatever victories you take from them. You have to use ‘authority’.

                • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Who gives a shot what you believe in, when your actions and ideology supports the dictatorship of the bourgeoise? It doesn’t matter what esoteric strain you are, it matters what you do and it matters what the end of those actions are

            • mazdak [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              42
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I know this will sound patronising, but have you read Engels ‘Socialism: Scientific and Utopian’ and Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’. If not, these would basically answer your implicit question as to why we can’t just wish a perfect society into existence.

              “Authoritarian”, like so many other liberal concepts, is an idea that - while not completely without reality - is designed to obfuscate how power really operates. For example, non-authoritarian states have freedom of the press. But that press is owned by and will only give the point of view of the Bourgeoisie. The point of Communism is to put power into the hands of the proletariat rather than the parasitic Bourgeois.

        • the post of tom joad
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          tankie is just a prejorative the neolibs throw at anyone left of the fine oligarchic capitalism we currently enjoy. I’m fine with it

        • JamesConeZone [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          50
          ·
          1 year ago

          So, someone who supports totalitarian rule to achieve communism? Like… A revolution vs voting? I’m asking in good faith btw, I am legit trying to understand

          • Nagarjuna [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, there’s pretty clearly a difference between the Cuban approach of letting capitalists leave vs the Russian approach of imprisoning them.

            There’s also a difference between the Bolivian approach of arming and training the peasantry and the GDR approach of maintaining an armed military police into peace time.

            There is a meaningful difference between methods of protecting working class power, and pretending there isn’t serves more heavy handed approaches.

            For those of us who are abolitionists, this is a central question.

            • JamesConeZone [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I don’t understand your response. How is what you’ve described authoritarian, especially in order to achieve communism as op stated? Those were all communist governments.

              I could be mistaken, but this sounds people in different revolutions at different times defend themselves differently against the threats of the bourgeoisie. I don’t see how that is authoritarian, especially if the people are the ones involved, heard, and implementing decisions

              • charlie [they/them, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                16
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?” ― Frederick Engels

                • Nagarjuna [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Moreover, the natural development of economic antagonisms, the waking consciousness of an important fraction of the proletariat, the constantly increasing number of unemployed, the blind resistance of the ruling classes, in short contemporary evolution as a whole, is conducting us inevitably towards the outbreak of a great revolution, which will overthrow everything by its violence, and the fore-running signs of which are already visible. This revolution will happen, with us or without us; and the existence of a revolutionary party, conscious of the end to be attained, will serve to give a useful direction to the violence, and to moderate its excesses by the influence of a lofty ideal.

                  –Ericco Malatesta, Anarchy and Violence

                • JamesConeZone [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The beginning of that quote is worth adding for context for folks unfamiliar with Engel’s argument here:

                  Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?

                  And his conclusion:

                  Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

                  The short entire essay is worth reading for other folks reading.

              • Nagarjuna [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                I was comparing more or less heavy handed ways of doing it. I’m advocating for as light a touch as possible. I’m trying to say that authority is a meaningful concept and that we should engage with it because it’s actually very important.

                It’s like how some US cities put you on a payment plan for debts, while others put you in jail. They’re both situations of capitalist class rule, but it’s fair to call the latter authoritarian.

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Those approaches came as a result of the material conditions. The capitalists in Russia had a literal army. The USSR was invaded by the us and the UK as well as the white army.

    • CthulhuOnIce
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      what does “actual communist” mean because you sound mad snobby