this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
145 points (84.0% liked)
Memes
52155 readers
929 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All states are authoritarian, in that all represent primarily one class in society that is dominant, and weild state power to subjugate those who would resist the system. In Capitalism, that class in power is the bourgeoisie, in Socialism, that class is the Proletariat. Revolution is necessary to bring about Socialism, ergo use of authority is also necessary, and core to Marxism, just as it was authoritarian for the French to overthrow the Monarchy, no matter how justified morally said use of authority was.
I recommend reading Friedrich Engels' On Authority if you want a Marxist perspective from the Luigi of the M&E duo.
It is not a binary distinction. It is also not something all ideologies seek to use as a tool. Rather, some seek to minimize it. I think you are telling me Marxism is an ideology that seeks to fully utilize authoritarianism, almost as though it WERE a binary distinction, and there is no point in going half way.
Overall I take your response in support of authoritarianism to mean you would have found that a less objectionable definition.
Use of authority is driven as reaction, not action, typically. The United States putting down the Confederate rebellion was a good use of authority, but was driven because of the Confederate rebellion. The extent authority is applied depends on the circumstances a country finds itself in, in Socialist countries we often see invasion and active subterfuge from Capitalist countries seeking to undermine the system, and Capitalists are oppressed. This is painted as "authoritarian" by Capitalist dominated media.
You don't reduce the use of authority by saying "no, don't do that," you do so by abolishing the conditions that give rise to its necessity. It is much better for the working class to weild its authority than the Capitalist class.
I don't support something as vague as "authoritarianism." I support the working class being in control of the state and using it in its own interests, depending on the circumstances it finds itself in, minimizing excess wherever possible.
I support the proletariat using authoritarian measures, for any time we don't our enemies laugh at us.
—Someone, idk
Read that interview a few weeks ago, actually! And he's correct, trying to go easy on an enemy that will thoroughly destroy you with the most brutal of measures possible is a luxury Socialists cannot afford to take if we want to build a world without such brutality to begin with.
It's been said before, but you can be "authoritarian" like the Soviets and give people healthcare, housing, food, etc. or you can be ~~a good christian~~ against "authoritarianism" and give people a military dictatorship.
Yep, conversations around "authoritarianism" usually wind back down to just disapproving going against the status quo, regardless of how popular the measures in place are within their countries. The CPC has an over 90% approval rate, and people call it "authoritarian" functionally because businesses are heavily restricted by the state.
Jesus, it was your word. If you didn't want to be pinned down to it, why apply it to yourself in the first place. Feel free to pick a better one, I'll wait.
My comment was more about how "authoritarian" discourse is meaningless, and more about perspective than anything else. From my point of view, the US Empire's use of authority is far worse and more destructive than, say, Cuba's, yet Capitalist media paints the US Empire as a bastion of freedom and Cuba as an Orwellian nightmare.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that. Humans don't come in two flavours.
I think unfettered capitalism and the systems of power that you propose are both hostile, inhuman systems. I think that meaningful voluntary social systems have to be able exist within that context, and cannot replace it. I don't believe that eight billion humans can form a single community; our capacity to be social breaks down, and we collectively become something else that we don't really have a lot of power or comprehension over. I suspect that attempting to work on that superhuman scale can only bring greater conflict and chaos. I think that the enlightened human has to disengage from it, stop identifying with it, and instead find human-scale social constructs that we are capable of existing socially within, that are voluntary and free of coercion, and that seeks to address the social deficiencies of the ambient environment, whether that's an empty wasteland, or a metropolis.
I think you're turning your disillusionment towards the Capitalist framework into nihilism about analysis of structures. Marxists frequently posit structures like the Soviet system, which feature both local, tight-knit councils and larger councils made up of representatives of these councils, resulting in a comprehensively democratic system. Without these higher rungs, large-scale planning can't exist effectively, which means a fall in the level of production and a decrease in the ability of humanity to satisfy its needs.