In addition to using goddamn Marvel movies to illustrate their point, the central point of thinking that authoritarianism is good when done by the “right people” is just same sort of justification for the oppressive authoritarianism that many communists purport to fight against. “It’s good if we do it”.
Haha using a Marvel movie is definitely a bit tacky, but as you said, it was more to illustrate their point rather than actual proving anything. Take it as an easy-to-understand supplement rather than actual historical proof, especially since they provide the latter later in the article.
Also, what do you mean when you say “do authoritarianism”? What is an authoritarian action to you? You say this word and detach it from any sort of meaning other than bad and oppressive, and then come to the conclusion that since you already think everything bad and oppressive for a specific people in one situation and moment in time is, well, bad and oppressive, then it always is. This is wrong.
The authoritarianism clearly described in the article is one used by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. It is the disciplined, planned oppression of the oppressive minority ruling class by the oppressed proletariat in order to secure their future. Frankly, I tend to agree with Paolo Friere’s take that this isn’t even oppression, but instead self-defense against the violence that created oppressed people in the first place (although it’s been a while since I read Pedagogy of the Oppressed so I may have this wrong).
Are you against the proletariat’s “oppression” of the bourgeoisie in order to secure their future? If so, you’re against real revolution.
In addition to using goddamn Marvel movies to illustrate their point, the central point of thinking that authoritarianism is good when done by the “right people” is just same sort of justification for the oppressive authoritarianism that many communists purport to fight against. “It’s good if we do it”.
Haha using a Marvel movie is definitely a bit tacky, but as you said, it was more to illustrate their point rather than actual proving anything. Take it as an easy-to-understand supplement rather than actual historical proof, especially since they provide the latter later in the article.
Also, what do you mean when you say “do authoritarianism”? What is an authoritarian action to you? You say this word and detach it from any sort of meaning other than bad and oppressive, and then come to the conclusion that since you already think everything bad and oppressive for a specific people in one situation and moment in time is, well, bad and oppressive, then it always is. This is wrong.
The authoritarianism clearly described in the article is one used by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. It is the disciplined, planned oppression of the oppressive minority ruling class by the oppressed proletariat in order to secure their future. Frankly, I tend to agree with Paolo Friere’s take that this isn’t even oppression, but instead self-defense against the violence that created oppressed people in the first place (although it’s been a while since I read Pedagogy of the Oppressed so I may have this wrong).
Are you against the proletariat’s “oppression” of the bourgeoisie in order to secure their future? If so, you’re against real revolution.