• Communist@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The real problem was never about communism, it was about authoritarianism.

    Authoritarianism is the enemy of everyone.

    • rothaine@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you have communism without authoritarianism though? How would distribution of resources be enforced without control?

        • Pagliacci
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That answer assumes democracy can’t be authoritarian, which isn’t true.

            • Pagliacci
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              How so? If the majority votes in authoritarian laws that are violently enforced on minority populations, is that not authoritarian?

              • Communist@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, because a simple majority could also reverse them, it wouldn’t be authoritarian, it’d be fascistic.

                • Pagliacci
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I know Wikipedia isn’t the ultimate arbiter of truth, but this is how it’s article on Fascism begins, and I think it would be fairly common for people to consider fascism a form of authoritarianism:

                  Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

                  FWIW I’m not meaning to attack democracy here, I find it to be far preferable to the other systems we have at our disposal. But it is a tool that can be used for good or bad.

          • Communist@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            After the revolution their resources would already be controlled democratically, there would be no bourgeoisie.

            And what would you do, make a new bourgeoisie while pretending not to have one?

              • Communist@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                In an anarchist framework, we understand that a revolution cannot be solely achieved through voting or referendums. Anarchism seeks to dismantle hierarchical structures and establish a society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.

                To address your concerns, anarchists recognize that the bourgeoisie will resist revolutionary change. That’s why anarchism advocates for a decentralized society where power is dispersed among communities, making it harder for counter-revolutionary forces to consolidate. Anarchists believe in direct action, self-defense, and community organizing to confront and neutralize counter-revolutionary threats.

                Moreover, anarchism goes beyond removing individual bourgeoisie. It aims to eliminate the structural mechanisms that perpetuate capitalism. Anarchists advocate for the abolition of capital-generating private property, wage labor, and the state, which are fundamental pillars of capitalism. By dismantling these institutions and replacing them with non-hierarchical alternatives, anarchism seeks to create a society where capital accumulation and exploitation are impossible.

                While voting alone cannot prevent the emergence of new capitalist classes, anarchism emphasizes grassroots organizing, communal decision-making, and direct participation in shaping social and economic structures. Through these means, anarchists strive to create a society that is fundamentally egalitarian, cooperative, and resistant to the reemergence of capitalism.

                Ultimately, anarchism seeks to foster a society where power is decentralized, individual autonomy is valued, and economic relations are based on solidarity rather than exploitation.

          • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The bourgeoisie are by definition a minority. In a non-corrupt democratic system with a well-informed populace, their power is negligible.

      • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Can you have communism without authoritarianism though?

        well, we’d have a more settled answer if historically communists of all stripes weren’t immediately persecuted wherever they win power (whether democratically or through revolution), but Revolutionary Catalonia strongly suggests the answer is yes. its most anarchist regions successfully managed themselves pretty well for more than 2 years during a vicious civil war before being crushed, and those are the literal worst circumstances possible to try and build an egalitarian, stateless, classless society in. i would imagine doing this is substantially easier without a well-armed state trying to murder you.

        (also ironically, the anarchists in Catalonia sometimes had to fight the Marxist-Leninists who were ostensibly united with them against the Francoists, because the two sides had such radically different visions of society)

    • guyman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not entirely true. It’s possible to have a benevolent authoritarian government and an oppressive democratic one.

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s happened on incredibly rare occasion. The problem is they don’t stay benevolent; eventually the benevolent dictator dies or is deposed, and their replacement is never so kind

          • Communist@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            If they were so benevolent, they would give up the power that could be abused later. They just wanted to seem benevolent.

          • Communist@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It simply is not, it has never happened, anyone who is benevolent would give up power.

            Ultimate power corrupts, ultimately.

    • Celediel@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Everyone but the state, and unfortunately the capitalist states have much more power to push their narrative. Thus “communism” became the enemy to latch onto, and now it’s synonymous with Stalinism in the eyes of many.

      Same thing happened with “anarchy” and it being synonymous with “chaos” in the eyes of many. But indeed, anarchy is order.

      Edit: A quote from the linked article, absolute nonsense lmao.

      On the Right stand the committed anti-totalitarians

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, authoritarianism isn’t the enemy of the authorities. It usually works out quite well for them, at least for a while. It’s definitely detrimental to society as a whole though, where communism is generally neutral (though more easily abused than capitalism).

      • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s because it’s demonstrably worse than capitalist autocracy. Communism itself isn’t a problem, but it has yet to function properly at a state level; China came the closest, but that was still based on stratification and a ruling elite. And now it has the worst of capitalism as well.

  • nephs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Didn’t expect to see this in beehaw. I’m really confused with lemmy’s ongoing drama. D:

  • Rick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I swear the instances better actually start moderating or are all the lemmy mods fucking communists…