this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
134 points (96.5% liked)
Anarchism
3719 readers
1 users here now
Are you an Anarchist? The answer might surprise you!
Rules:
- Be respectful
- Don't be a nazi
- Argue about the point and not the person
- This is not the place to debate the merits of anarchism itself. While discussion is encouraged, getting in your “epic dunks on the anarkiddies” is not. As a result of the instance’s poor moderation policies and hostility toward anarchists by default, lemmygrad users are encouraged not to post here, though not explicitly disallowed if they aren’t just looking to start a fight.
See also:
- /c/debateanarchism
- /c/antiwork
- @lemmy.dbzer0.com
- @slrpnk.net
- Anarchy101
- Anarchism@lemmy.ca
- XMPP chat
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can call them vanguardists, Bolsheviks, authoritarians, tankies, or just edgy teenagers.
out of these words I prefer vanguardists. bolsheviks feels weird because that term is used a lot by nazis, authoritarians doesn't seem entirely accurate to me as marxists understand the authority of a revolutionary state as a necessary means to enable the transition to communism. I disagree with that, but don't think it is the same as authoritarianism.
How is it not authoritarianism? Basically every dictator in modern history has made some version of the exact same argument. We also have like 100 years of ML in practice now, so we know pretty well that there is not path beyond their "necessary dictatorship" phase.
I think that's a really good point!
Is it? You were completely right before, both in your assessment of the ML understanding of the necessity of a revolutionary state and in concluding that equating it with autoritarianism is not fair.
Authoritarianism is understood by most people in a similar fashion to "wishing a benevolent dictator would rise and clean up". Although some MLs might share that notion, an authoritatian revolutionary state doesn't need to be led by a dictator, as you pointed out yourself.
An "ism"s believes are defined by its scripture, famously Lenin devised what he called "democratic centralism" as decision making process. Ofc both in M and L it is concluded that authority is necessary but its still explicitly different from a dictator.
With a different understanding of authoritarianism one could call the attribution to MLs somewhat correct albeit still defamatory (since people understand it differently). However socsa made his definition explicit by talking about dictators.
So AFAIC his point "every dictator deemed his actions necessary" is not applicable to the conversation at hand especially when it is about how to correctly referr to MLs when it is at best a subset of authoritarianism.
As far as his second point goes: Having doubts that ML will get past the dictatorship phase is legitimate, however employing history as an argument isn't truthful. First and foremost: failed attempts of history are used by people to attest systemic failure to anarchism too, its just not a good argument. The 100 years too aren't honest as no ML government has ever gotten that old (btw how long did it take for lib-dem systems to establish the truths they hold "self-evident"?)
Then ofc there is a discussion to be had about how long an MLs countries dictatorship phase would need to be given attempts of foreign led coups and invasions and necessity to participate in global markets while protecting it from corruption by capital.
All in all I find their attribution of the word "authoritarianism" for ML more fueled by contempt, less by reason.
Nicht ganz unwichtig!
I see these arguments more rooted in contempt, less in reason.
Generally being doubtful of MLs ability to pass the dictatorship phase is valid though (if it refers to the rule of the party not one person)