Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn’t a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that
Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron?
Most real life implementations of communism used an authoritarian one party system. You can say these aren’t true examples of communism, but that just ends up sounding like cope unfortunately.
Fair point. Though so far, there hasn’t really been any system at all that didn’t lead to genocide and/or class based opression. From monarchs to feudal Lords to capitalist oligarchies and communist dictators, terrible people always rise to the top.
As how Marx outlined Communism as the evolution of Capitalism once it reaches a scale of production that everyone can have their needs met, resulting in a classless, stateless, moneyless society, then yes authoritarian communist is an oxymoron.
there’s a trend towards that, which can be combatted & has been by communist parties. Stalin had a pretty incoherent plan to combat rightist tendencies within the communist party, assuming the problem stemmed from external meddling. Mao actually shared your view in that bureaucracy rots socialism, and that it needs to be decreased as the people are helped towards being self reliant, ready to self manage the economy & have suitable industry to run the country with. that’s why the cultural revolution happened, to fight bureaucracy
And yet in spite of the few positive things contributions Mao made, and some of the things he got right, he still positioned himself culturally to take up the position 'benign and distant emperor. Much as the contemporary regime prefers to pin all the horrors of the Cultural Revolution on the Gang of Four, many of Mao’s ideas themselves were harmful (such as wholesale and universal destruction of old culture).
Marxism-Leninism and its party structure has shown itself, in practice and historically, as being unable to resist this impulse to corruption and autocracy. It was Bolshevik counterrevolution that destroyed the power of the Worker’s and Soldier’s Soviets in Russia, Soviet counterrevolution that invaded Ukraine during its revolution, and then again Leninist party counterrevolution that prevented any of the (few) positive aspects of the cultural revolution from blossoming into anything useful.
Vanguard parties are counter productive, and counter revolutionary. The French revolution gives us the same lesson, as the Jacobin counter-revolutionary terror (with the oh-so-popular guillotine mostly used on the poor) created the space for reactionary backlash.
The centralization of power is, therefore, a counter-revolutionary impulse. Humans being are not suited for the rule and management of others. Only a revolution that truly returns power to the people has any chance of lasting. That’s why even the flawed and imperfect Kurdish revolutionaries of Rojava are sustaining the social and cultural infrastructure for revolution, while Marxists, Maoists and other authoritarian communists world-wide consistently either degrade into bandits and terrorists, or form corrupt and reactionary power-structures.
The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.
just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible ‘majority’ (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus’ monopoly of violence.
if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.
Both. Fascist apologist like to cherry pick palatable characteristics of figures like Stalin, or Hitler, or Andrew Jackson in order to destigmatize thier idolatry of these figures. These “certain aspects” are the tip of the wedge they use to destroy rationality and peace.
A reasonable person who would like to discuss the benefits of communism would point to the value of labor, advantages of unions, and the dignity of the worker, not the evil, paranoid, and violent person of Stalin.
Always, the stink of fascism follows the idolization of so called “great men.” Excuses after excuses.
The Holocaust most definitely happened and was perpetuated by the Nazis. Please don’t accuse me of denial.
Communism, or to be most specific, Marxism, was most definitely aligned against Hitler.
Stalin, was not. He would have watched Hitler kill all of Europe had the Nazis not attacked Russia. Same as the united states if Japan had not attacked them.
I’m not obsessed with Stalin. I’m also not a Holocaust denier. You really seem keen on saying inflammatory things about me without any preceding context.
I will observe that I think Stalin was an awful person who tarnished the reputation of socialism for a century. I don’t have anything against socialist, being one myself.
I have a beef with apologist for failed communist states like the soviet onion. I feel they deeply misrepresent socialism.
It’s a semantic argument, then. To me a fascist is a Donald Trump. To me, Facisim is a broad set of characteristics which can be attributed to people outside of the context of Nazi Germany. For example, I might call an ancient emperor a fascist.
Facisim to you is a political movement linked only to the Nazis and thier allies.
That’s not unfair. It’s a different definition of the word.
Your historical notes are technically correct, and Stalin did even attempt to reach a pact with France to limit the potential expansion of Nazi Germany. However, once those initiatives failed, Stalin had no issue about pacting with Hitler instead to invade third countries together, which highlights how Stalin’s first priority was improving his geopolitical position, rather than an ideological opposition to nazism.
No why should I ? A non aggression pact is not the same than occupying another country. The Jews which were deported to other parts of the Union were in deed saved from the Nazis.
I am of the strong opinion that fascism doesn’t care if you call yourself a communist, a capitalist, or a Democrat. If someone promotes a state which strips the power of local and individual labor for it’s own use; cultivates violence as a means of domestic control; supports expansionism; and finally the consolidation of power under a personality; I oppose it, and call it what it is.
My comments are split now, so I’ll let you read my other one. I would just like to emphasize that I consider myself a socialist, and that it’s not really that vague of a criteria for the purposes of an Internet argument. It’s just broad. I believe all current world superpowers current share elements of fascism which I despise and oppose.
Did you finish your book halfway through? Hitler and Stalin formed an alliance shortly after the Spanish civil war. Even though Hitler referred to Slavic people as untermench Stalin still signed treaties because they were at the end of the day both Fascist Authoritarian dictators and dont give a single fuck about committing crimes against humanity.
Nazism as an ideology set out to eradicate those seen as impure, and two of the most prominent of those targeted groups were communists and Slavic people. Hitler literally wanted to kill everyone who identified as a socialist. To think that the USSR was unaware or tolerant of this fact is a truly awful take.
Wow a commie who doesnt know history, not surprising. Firstly I never said USSR didnt know what Germany was doing, I said they didnt care. This is backed up by history. Yes Hitler hated the soviets and they probably disliked him to but they tolerated him and his crimes against humanity enough to form an alliance and work together. A little timeline of events to refresh your memory: 1939 USSR signs a non aggression pact with Germany. This pact includes plans to divide eastern europe between USSR and Germany, a clause that prevents the USSR from allying or aiding enemies of Germany. Shortly after Germany and the USSR double team Poland and split it up between them. After Stalin used the attack to capture a few eastern european countries he asked to join the Axis powers treaty. Stalin was warned multiple times that Germany was preparing to backstab him but rejected the warnings as he thought they were so allies. After it was confirm that Hitler had betrayed him he spent several days sulking in his holiday house refusing to communicate with his generals.
There is no way you can reasonably say that USSR disapproved of Hitlers action and Ideology. The only thing he would have had an issue with is that Hitler hated slavic people. He was even willing to put that aside because they both had authoritarianism in common.
The fundamental problem of tankies is that they forget the whole point of socialism is making people’s lives better, not getting revenge on the hated capitalists. If you create an oppressive hellscape in the process of destroying capitalism then you’ve failed.
Hard-core authoritarian communist. The kinda peeps who support Stalin and shit
Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn’t a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that
Yes. Yes, it is. I sometimes call them “pseudocommunists” for this reason.
Most real life implementations of communism used an authoritarian one party system. You can say these aren’t true examples of communism, but that just ends up sounding like cope unfortunately.
None of those states ever gave economic or political power to the working classes.
Fair point. Though so far, there hasn’t really been any system at all that didn’t lead to genocide and/or class based opression. From monarchs to feudal Lords to capitalist oligarchies and communist dictators, terrible people always rise to the top.
As how Marx outlined Communism as the evolution of Capitalism once it reaches a scale of production that everyone can have their needs met, resulting in a classless, stateless, moneyless society, then yes authoritarian communist is an oxymoron.
Communism must be enforced somehow, it just ends up being authoritarian because of that
The same can be said for capitalism though.
Capitalism must be enforced somehow, it ends up being an oligarchy or authoritarian because of that.
Not sure I disagree, necessarily, but that’s the answer to your question.
it’s also not an either or situation
well socialism has the proletariat as the ruling class, this is true in Marxism & anarchism even if anarchists word it differently
The party leaders are not proletarian, but rather become part of a class of privileged bureaucrats.
there’s a trend towards that, which can be combatted & has been by communist parties. Stalin had a pretty incoherent plan to combat rightist tendencies within the communist party, assuming the problem stemmed from external meddling. Mao actually shared your view in that bureaucracy rots socialism, and that it needs to be decreased as the people are helped towards being self reliant, ready to self manage the economy & have suitable industry to run the country with. that’s why the cultural revolution happened, to fight bureaucracy
And yet in spite of the few positive things contributions Mao made, and some of the things he got right, he still positioned himself culturally to take up the position 'benign and distant emperor. Much as the contemporary regime prefers to pin all the horrors of the Cultural Revolution on the Gang of Four, many of Mao’s ideas themselves were harmful (such as wholesale and universal destruction of old culture).
Marxism-Leninism and its party structure has shown itself, in practice and historically, as being unable to resist this impulse to corruption and autocracy. It was Bolshevik counterrevolution that destroyed the power of the Worker’s and Soldier’s Soviets in Russia, Soviet counterrevolution that invaded Ukraine during its revolution, and then again Leninist party counterrevolution that prevented any of the (few) positive aspects of the cultural revolution from blossoming into anything useful.
Vanguard parties are counter productive, and counter revolutionary. The French revolution gives us the same lesson, as the Jacobin counter-revolutionary terror (with the oh-so-popular guillotine mostly used on the poor) created the space for reactionary backlash.
The centralization of power is, therefore, a counter-revolutionary impulse. Humans being are not suited for the rule and management of others. Only a revolution that truly returns power to the people has any chance of lasting. That’s why even the flawed and imperfect Kurdish revolutionaries of Rojava are sustaining the social and cultural infrastructure for revolution, while Marxists, Maoists and other authoritarian communists world-wide consistently either degrade into bandits and terrorists, or form corrupt and reactionary power-structures.
This is such a based comment. Good analysis and very well said.
The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.
just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible ‘majority’ (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus’ monopoly of violence.
if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.
Certain aspects of Stalin? Or in general?
Both. Fascist apologist like to cherry pick palatable characteristics of figures like Stalin, or Hitler, or Andrew Jackson in order to destigmatize thier idolatry of these figures. These “certain aspects” are the tip of the wedge they use to destroy rationality and peace.
A reasonable person who would like to discuss the benefits of communism would point to the value of labor, advantages of unions, and the dignity of the worker, not the evil, paranoid, and violent person of Stalin.
Always, the stink of fascism follows the idolization of so called “great men.” Excuses after excuses.
deleted by creator
The Holocaust most definitely happened and was perpetuated by the Nazis. Please don’t accuse me of denial.
Communism, or to be most specific, Marxism, was most definitely aligned against Hitler.
Stalin, was not. He would have watched Hitler kill all of Europe had the Nazis not attacked Russia. Same as the united states if Japan had not attacked them.
deleted by creator
I’m not obsessed with Stalin. I’m also not a Holocaust denier. You really seem keen on saying inflammatory things about me without any preceding context.
I will observe that I think Stalin was an awful person who tarnished the reputation of socialism for a century. I don’t have anything against socialist, being one myself.
I have a beef with apologist for failed communist states like the soviet onion. I feel they deeply misrepresent socialism.
deleted by creator
It’s a semantic argument, then. To me a fascist is a Donald Trump. To me, Facisim is a broad set of characteristics which can be attributed to people outside of the context of Nazi Germany. For example, I might call an ancient emperor a fascist.
Facisim to you is a political movement linked only to the Nazis and thier allies.
That’s not unfair. It’s a different definition of the word.
Your historical notes are technically correct, and Stalin did even attempt to reach a pact with France to limit the potential expansion of Nazi Germany. However, once those initiatives failed, Stalin had no issue about pacting with Hitler instead to invade third countries together, which highlights how Stalin’s first priority was improving his geopolitical position, rather than an ideological opposition to nazism.
deleted by creator
BASED
Do you deny the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and the illegal attack on Poland by the Soviet union under its leader Josef Stalin?
deleted by creator
No why should I ? A non aggression pact is not the same than occupying another country. The Jews which were deported to other parts of the Union were in deed saved from the Nazis.
I am of the strong opinion that fascism doesn’t care if you call yourself a communist, a capitalist, or a Democrat. If someone promotes a state which strips the power of local and individual labor for it’s own use; cultivates violence as a means of domestic control; supports expansionism; and finally the consolidation of power under a personality; I oppose it, and call it what it is.
deleted by creator
My comments are split now, so I’ll let you read my other one. I would just like to emphasize that I consider myself a socialist, and that it’s not really that vague of a criteria for the purposes of an Internet argument. It’s just broad. I believe all current world superpowers current share elements of fascism which I despise and oppose.
deleted by creator
What’s your excuse for the holodomor?
You’re a spineless coward, just admit you’re fine with genocide and totalitarianism so long as they have a red flag.
And then they killed millions of people to enforce Stalin’s autocracy. How, exactly, is that better than Hitler?
Removed by mod
All tankies ever have is name-calling.
Because they were attacked. Otherwise they would have happily sat out of ww2.
Removed by mod
Did you finish your book halfway through? Hitler and Stalin formed an alliance shortly after the Spanish civil war. Even though Hitler referred to Slavic people as untermench Stalin still signed treaties because they were at the end of the day both Fascist Authoritarian dictators and dont give a single fuck about committing crimes against humanity.
Removed by mod
Nazism as an ideology set out to eradicate those seen as impure, and two of the most prominent of those targeted groups were communists and Slavic people. Hitler literally wanted to kill everyone who identified as a socialist. To think that the USSR was unaware or tolerant of this fact is a truly awful take.
Wow a commie who doesnt know history, not surprising. Firstly I never said USSR didnt know what Germany was doing, I said they didnt care. This is backed up by history. Yes Hitler hated the soviets and they probably disliked him to but they tolerated him and his crimes against humanity enough to form an alliance and work together. A little timeline of events to refresh your memory: 1939 USSR signs a non aggression pact with Germany. This pact includes plans to divide eastern europe between USSR and Germany, a clause that prevents the USSR from allying or aiding enemies of Germany. Shortly after Germany and the USSR double team Poland and split it up between them. After Stalin used the attack to capture a few eastern european countries he asked to join the Axis powers treaty. Stalin was warned multiple times that Germany was preparing to backstab him but rejected the warnings as he thought they were so allies. After it was confirm that Hitler had betrayed him he spent several days sulking in his holiday house refusing to communicate with his generals.
There is no way you can reasonably say that USSR disapproved of Hitlers action and Ideology. The only thing he would have had an issue with is that Hitler hated slavic people. He was even willing to put that aside because they both had authoritarianism in common.
I appreciate you arguing even though it’s with a brick wall.
Lol. To the contrary! I think communist lady has proven to be in interesting person to argue with. 😅😅😅😅
deleted by creator
You’re the brick wall, so yeah. Read the meme lady. Easy block.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
The fundamental problem of tankies is that they forget the whole point of socialism is making people’s lives better, not getting revenge on the hated capitalists. If you create an oppressive hellscape in the process of destroying capitalism then you’ve failed.
“I care deeply about the color of the boot”
“The Russian and Chinese boots just taste better, I tell you.”
“what if our classless stateless society had the right class controlling the state?”
state means centralization of power, and in a classless society what class and who would represent it in this centralization of power?