Why are so many people on here so ok with authority...

Like it or not after a revolution you need a party to take complete control.
To silence counter revolutionary opposition and infiltrators
To remove democracy because democracy is going to slow down communism severely
To educate the masses who will definitely not fully or deeply understand communism
To lead the organization process
Maybe that should be done by a government with expiration date that cant be postponed, thus the only choice is to try to effectively and fast create communist organization within the place and then go full communist
There is no way a revolution happens and suddenly everything falls into place, Lenin had the right idea, that is why it is important to see the issues that appeared during his time and why it took him so long

"Authority" us vague af

"Authority" is vague af

You would not need the party if it could be replaced by dual-power organization that was self-sufficient(CNT`s syndicates for example).

What you are talking about is the problem of the "place of power." Read this

We can't get rid of power, or authority completely, we can just make things less oppressive

"One day ILL be wearing the boot"

Mentality while pretending to be for equality.

To Marxists the state is the mechanism of class struggle through which one class suppresses the interests of another. Until all bourgeois class interests have been eliminated whatever form your organization takes will be considered a dictatorship of the proletariat and ultimately a workers state.

Can you explain your argument a little more here. Is directly democratic allocation of resources, with community enforcement in some way hierarchical? Do you think that wouldn't work?

Because you cant have a centrally planned economy where the government owns the means of production without a strong authority.

DUH.

Power corrupts, fuckboys. Nomenklatura become the new bourgeouis.

correct, and yet so many ML's and even lenin himself fell into this trap to some extent. His revolution did change things, I wouldn't pretend otherwise, he ended feudalism in Russia and replaced it with state capitalism. That said, the leninists, marxists and ML's of Russia didn't escape idealism, lest we forget how history soon became their god and all the domination that occurred in its name. A revolution implies there is an essence of the old world that can be fully destroyed, but I think that's an incorrect reading of how power works. Indeed, historically, the places of power have always been there, in one form or another. What has changed is the way power flows through them and is related to other places of power.

What we need is insurrection, constant insurrection. For example
dual power, although this can take other forms.

Issue rises with the planning of your proposed structure(particularly long-term planning) and delegation of power and responsibilities in the said community. For any model of production to work an minimal organization with even lose or democratically organized hierarchy is ultimately needed since people still need to be somehow provide the bare minimal labor necessary for production to function and for this they need guidance and planning mention previously.

So basically all socialist societies need Kim Jong type figure to decide what to do?

kill yourself

Are you saying people need to be required to work, or that they need guidance when allocating resource? I feel guidance can be offered by independent third parties, such as universities, or media. I don't think requiring people to work is necessary, people need purpose, and they will make this for themselves by fulfilling a need of the community.

Which authority?

If I had blue hair right now there would be an angry mob of manchildren after you for your cyber violence.

I don't know that I accept Russia was "state capitalist" entirely, though. Can you prove this, or at least explain why you think this is a valid statement? Most of the time I see people claim this but never really back it up, they say it as more of an opinion than anything.

I can't vote porky out.

sure thing bucko

Russia was state capitalist but the USSR was communist.

If you go in to a prestigious building from the soviet era, you will notice everything is made very heavy. Not made well or made from valuable materials just heavy. Because they valued goods in their weight rather than money.
And you signified your success with how heavy your possessions were.

I know it sounds crazy but it was a crazy time.

Because the USSR had to trade the state did need to generate some currency though. To buy in luxury goods for the top communist officials.

For one, private property and markets still existed. Two, workers did not have control over the state, which coordinated most production.

Fortunately for you 'bucko' is my pronoun.

What is the main difference from a party of the people like the bolsheviks and a cnt? They are literally both a union of workers.

Also what do you mean by dual power?

No but you would need bosses whom would ultimately centralize power around themselves.

This reminds me of the old Russian joke about the fat whore for a regiment of soldiers.

Structure of the organization. Bolsheviks centralized their leadership, where as CNT was horizontal(ie. collectivist) in its nature.

As for the dual power I refer to something similar the division of authority between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies after the collapse of the tsarist government in February 1917.

...

Authoritarian socialism is good.

You need to repress the bourgeoisie, fascists, imperialists and racists.

Plus sticking capitalists in gulags is fun.

Russia was not state capitalism, it was petty bourgeois capitalism. I saved my reply the last time this came up so I'll just post it again:

"If you look at Lenin's writings, particularly this speech: marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm

You can see the context in which Lenin used the term state capitalism. This is in early 1918.

>What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation.

The first thing to note is that there is no discussion of state capitalism as a mode of production – Lenin was adamant, against left criticism, that what was being built was socialism. Second, as Trotsky argued,

marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1925/11/towards.htm

There is no contradiction here. The construction of socialism requires the accounting and control mechanisms that had already been carried out in more, comparatively, highly developed capitalist nations like Germany. To build socialism was, in large part, to build an integrated economy. Lenin was aggressively recruiting from former Czarist experts for this purpose:

>The only socialism we can imagine is one based on all the lessons learned through large-scale capitalist culture. Socialism without postal and telegraph services, without machines is the emptiest of phrases. But it is impossible to sweep aside the bourgeois atmosphere and bourgeois habits all at once; it needs the kind of organisation on which all modern science and technology are based.

This was state capitalism. It should be no controversy to state that socialism is only possible through capitalism. The problem the Bolsheviks faced was they had capitalism, but it was a decrepit, war-torn, petty bourgeois capitalism. They could not dispense with what bourgeois expertise existed when they had nothing to replace it. There was a dearth of contemporary information technology and as such poor accounting and control. The only thing holding the USSR together was the party and Trotsky's military discipline."

So TL;DR state capitalism to Lenin was effectively information technology, accounting and control.

Lenin wasn't "building" capitalism – they were already working within the capitalist mode of production. It was already built. Unfortunately, it was a shitty capitalism compared to Imperial Germany. Workers' control requires advanced infrastructure, information technology, accounting and control mechanisms and protocols: Russia had none of that. There were many parts of the country which were practically inaccessible during certain times of the year. They had no rail "network" to speak of, telegraphs were rare, they had practically no air force, etc. etc. How are people to coordinate, exchange accurate information, and plan things when the country is a mess? It wasn't a small country either. It was impossible. Workers' control was desirable but largely pointless if we consider it only to be direct democracy. But it's not, there has to be the means. Russia, and thus the early Soviet Union, did not have them. Add on to this the fact the proletariat were a minority of the population and it basically would have been a minority dictatorship anyway, even with full workers' control, only they would have lost the ability organize things centrally, which is the only way Russia held itself together beforehand: and the Bolsheviks inherited this weakness.

What if the state decides one of those labels applies to you?

So how come socialists are always really bad at doing their accounts and taxes and stuff?

Making peace with the reality of authority is the first step towards becoming an adult

Then I guess I'd be in a spot of bother.

But the state wouldn't just arbitrarily decide these things. It would be a waste of resources to target genuine communists when they could help one another root out the traitors.

...

You don't get it. The people who would assume control under authoritarian socialism are capitalists by another name. They'll do nothing for the plight of the poor and deliberately purge all the genuine socialists and communists if you give them the chance. History is replete with examples of why you should be wary of authority.

And that would fuck things more, Lenin knew democracy would literally stop anything to a standstill because you need everyone to agree.
My suggestion with a government with expiration date that can't be extended to help organization along would be a few years, if you add democracy it ll become a decade and more, far too many self interests, you need one to lead the organization of the place and introduci communism to all.

And since the government won't be forever there is no reason to try to do something shady

Someone who doesnt like you could just start spreading rumors that you are a le nazi.

It seems from the HWNDU videos that telling people you are not a Nazi proves that you are in fact a Nazi.
Which is a bit of a catch 22 situation im sure you will agree.

I oppose all human authority. There is not existing government, military or police force that shouldn't be totally dismantled and its members prosecuted for their crimes.
A power vacuum is equally bad though, because it will inevitably get filled by someone with a bit of cunning and charisma. The solution is to build an AI to act as the authority and to make sure it doesn't suffer from the same flaws that make humans such terrible rulers.

Of course this won't really be feasible for another 50 or more years.

What about insects or bird authority?

Because most lefties don't actually want to be Free. They simply want a more equitable, sustainable, or rational organization of resources and society, and seem remarkably fine with using totalitarian methods to achieve it.

Authority is the only way we'll ever get to socialism. I'm sure there will be some mistakes along the way, but so be it. At least 10% of the population will need to be liquidated anyway, they're too entrenched in capitalism.

The party controls the state, and there will be strict limits on and punishments for anyone trying to privately profit from exploitation.

Sure, but rumours are easily dismissed.

Removing the profit motive and money will do fucking wonders.

Everything I have seen demonstrates the opposite.

Like if I started a rumor saying you were racist, and then you defended yourself by telling everyone you arent racist and bringing up how many black friends you have etc etc In many peoples eyes that would only serve to prove that you are in fact racist.

You replied to the wrong thread?

You need proof to call someone a racist. Only idiots take rumours seriously.

Statists are the biggest opportunists

Most of the world is comprised of idiots. And people tend to lose half their Autism Level when there's a witch hunt going on.

Heres an example of that:
theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

Mocking the Glorious Leader of Best Korea?????

Fuck authority.

My man

Respect.

I'll gulag you last

Th…thanks.

Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.

I literally could not care less about 'authority'. My problem is the imminent death of humanity at the hand of climate change and the potentially horrid consequences of private automation. If we have to create a Stalinist dictatorship to save the world, so be it. Hell, I'd vote for the likes of Mussolini if he would somehow resolve these problems.

I think moderation is a big part of it. Its authority, but an authority with the best interest of the populace at heart.

...

Because authority has the best aesthetics m9.

Fuck off marx you moralist ragamuffin

I don't care who wears the boot so long as it kicks those I dislike.

this tbqh

reminds me of that old albanian joke about the farm who found a fairy that would grant his wish, only with the caveat that anything he wishes for will happen two-fold to his neighbor. To which he promptly wishes "take out one of my eyes"

This meme is so stupid. Marx said that we NEED a strong state in order to make an adequate transition to full communism and the abolition of all authority and the state.

I love anarchists, but they are basically communists without knowing it.

now that's a meme that needs to die. I have no illusions about that state, I don't see it going anywhere soon, and I don't see any good coming from looking at the situation in a Manichean as anarchists do.

Go an explain your position to the people in Cuba and Bolivia that can actually eat for the first time in their lives.

Tell them about how socialism is wrong because it has a state and you are a full anarchist and tell them about your plans

...

autonomy not authority ok

praise bookchin

I think both tankies and anarchists hate me because I want a state that upholds human rights (food, shelter, free thought/expression/association) and rule of law, and uses violence only to counter other violence (and doesn't go a millimetre beyond that).

Surely an anarchist isn't actually arguing for limits on freedom of speech now is he?

what

Oh and then there's this

Instead of just rejecting the assertion of any demands for *exclusive* social, political, and cultural rights (as they are obviously antithetical to both freedom and equality), the author goes on to look for other less-explored forms of oppression (that presumably would come with their own demands for exclusive rights). I came to anarchism for greater individual freedom, not intellectual property 2.0.

You are not going to achieve communism if you allow democracy and people to slow down the process cuz they cant decide on things.

The start needs to be extreme

But I didn't say democracy in my post! I'm okay with suspending democracy (in favour of something else that hopefully still has some feedback mechanism) during the transitional period; I'm just not okay with suspending the other rights I mentioned.

Because a state is necessary and anarchism is a meme