Do you guys agree for the most part that communism and marxism are authoritative?

Do you guys agree for the most part that communism and marxism are authoritative?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
marxists.org/
marxists.org/xlang/index.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Marxists are usually authoritarian. Communism is not.

Why are marxist authoritarian? What makes them Authoritarian?

Depends on the form that revolutions take. The end goal is ultimately a move away from the ultimately-imaginary-but-socially-important necessity of the social relation that is capital in addition the alienation and resource misallocation which comes it.

Many communists disagree on what revolutions might be like - on the extreme ends, some anarchists are even against anti-imperialist (protective) measures on the basis that revolutions are better off being 'free' while some Marxist-Leninists would like strong hierarchies in revolutions. There's many more in between, from traditional Leninists through left-communists to 'libertarian' Marxists and Marxist social democrats.

The most common variety of anarchism is anarchist communism, which should tell you that something in your understanding is deeply off straight away.

As for Marxists, there is such a thing as libertarian Marxism, which primarily includes left communists such as Bordiga and Pannekoek (latter is a council communist, basically anarcho-communism with Marxist analysis). There's also Situationism and Autonomism and DeLeonism and arguably even classical Marxism within libertarian Marxism.

If anything, authoritarianism within Marxism is the exception and not the norm - it's just that the one time (self-described) Marxists have taken power and spread it throughout the world, it has been in the authoritarian deviation of Leninism.

The most common form of Marxists today are Marxist-Leninists. MLs call for a vanguard party to seize power and guide the workers to a dictatorship of the proletariet. Essentially, an enlightened dictator. In practice, it generally led to an authoritarian succdem state.

most mainstream ideologies are "authoritative" just look at your own fucking graph where democrats are authoritative

But if the end goal of Marxism was to have a complete socialist Utpoia wouldnt that be liberal?

...

Marx was definitely a libertarian socialist though. It's his followers that took 'dictatorship of the proletariat' way too literally.

Wait so are you saying that the end goal of Marxism wasn't a socialist Utopia?

Not even remotely. Liberals are even more anticommunist than socdems. Socialism is democratic control of the means of production (factories, farms, etc) by the workers.

...

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

I'm debating a retard who is trying to say because the end goal of Marxism is a complete socialist utopia that makes it not authoritative

u wot m8

s t o p

If wage labour and capital aren't removed, then it's social democracy. Proletarians running the show only creates new quasi-bourgeois social relations and undermines revolution if left for too long; instead, the show needs to end and a new one must start.

There is no end goal of Marxism. It is a critique of capitalism. Whatever the result would be once capitalism collapses was beyond Marx himself. He did, however, consider it to be communism and mentioned different stages. The lower stage being abolishing money and use labour time as a direct currency, where you produce commodities for use-value only.The higher stage being a post-scarcity society. It had nothing to do with authoritarianism. Unless if you consider violent revolution to be inherently authoritarian for some reason.

This kid is trying to tell me Communism is all liberty af.

Whats the ideology with a complete utopia? Is that Communism?

Get out of your armchair and work in a fucking sweatshop for a month to feed your kids. Leftcoms are a fucking cancer.

read marx if you want to be more than a socdem who likes red flags, I recommend

Leftcoms might be assholes but they're very much necessary to remind us of what communism actually means. Hint: it's not socialized capitalism.

You know just because it has "marxist" in the name doesn't make it marxist, right?

How long are you here? I have a tip for you, there is veery nice website, marxists.org/ . It's full of FREE BOOKS! Nice, isn't it? And here comes the best part, if you are not native english speaker, you can change your language at marxists.org/xlang/index.htm and read lot's of translated books to your native language! Wonderful, isn't it?

It kind of is, read Engels.

I've been here about a week

Communism is freedom from the constraints of being alienated from your labor and the false dichotomy of liberal democracy.

Marx didn't say socialism would remove all problems from society. It's just a better way to organize society.

I mean it in the sense that this guy is asking about and will understand.

Uhhhh

Then I recommend to start with "state and revolution" by Lenin. It should be translated to every language listed there, so there is no need to wait! It's interesting read even if you dislike former USSR!

Why are liberals considered more anti-communist than socdems? Isn't liberalism just a social position?

Utopia in itself is flawed definition because it means a perfect society. Communism is NOT supposed to create a communist society. This is an important difference. Communism isn't a movement which seeks out the create a society, but to do the opposite, to destroy our current capitalist society. A communist society would spring out of the destruction of capitalism. Most people would define it to be a stateless and moneyless society, where the workers own their own means of production (farms and factories) used to produce the means of subsistence (items required to live a comfortable life, not hedonism). Which builds upon the idea that neither money or state is required in a society which resides in both post-scarcity and only produces for use-value.

They are equally anti-communist and liberal.

But that doesn't quite make sense, liberalism is just a social position, not an economic position.

liberalism is full on "le free market and private property rights are the best tools God gave us".
Socdems are kind of "meh, yes, but we need to tax the shit out of workers in order to bring equality to society"

What is a socialist liberal called just out of curiosity?

I'm not quite sure what you think by "liberal", but I guess they are called simply "socialists"?

to gulag with you


no such thing, there is libertarian socialism and social liberalism and those are MILES apart

This guy is a retard. Please note, I am trying to debate someone who has no idea what communism is, and I have got very little idea.

Aren't the social idea's of marxism very liberal?

No. Liberals are pro-capitalism.

An oxymoron.

book, read, please.

Maybe, but here we are entering the minefield of semantics.

I recommend it because most languages on marxists.org have translated only manifesto by Marx, which is not quite good book. and state and revolution by lenin. If you have to pick one of these two books to give someone to read, which one would YOU pick?


I'm not retarded, only slightly autistic. comrade knows what he is talking about.

I have the capacity to tell you - with reasonable accuracy - the best course of action for you given your aims and see past your XY problems.

Hint: your solution is not pic related.

Are you an american?

Calling communism authoritative is a very old anarchist meme.

:(

Nah Aussie. "Le burger education" quote?

what the fuck


Who is she

Of course I want to end wage labor and profit and all that shit, but's it's not gonna happen overnight and certainly not without leftist organizations poised to strike.

newfaggot

Sweet but socially managed capitalism still isn't socialism.

Well thank you very much lads. I have learnt a lot. And I saved these links

Post more Nico cosplay please

well if the people fight against them, they beat them with the peoples stick.

You see its better because now they all own the stick thats used to kill themselves.

You're free to explain that shit to somebody spooked by the whole >socialism is when the gubment does stuff.

Government has nothing to do with it. Changing management doesn't alter the mode of production in and of itself.

I don't understand how many self-proclaimed socialists here consider these statements controversial. This place is full of crypto-Taylorists.

Wait why did she delete her Alunya cosplay from instagram?

She didn't do an Alunya cosplay

It was a black seifuku with red tie scarf and cat ears

Leftcoms are libertarian Marxists. It's just that Marxism has been dominated by ML and MLM since 1917.

Are u joking leftcoms are the most authoritarian at least that is the natural conclusion if their policies would be implemented, red terror - orchestrated by a leftcom.

Literally not an argument. Just because you think cooperativist capitalism is preferable to to liberal capitalism does not make it socialism. Actually read Marx. Or even the goddamn bread man.

I can't wait to see the kind of mental gymnastics required to argue that communisation is the most "authoritarian".

Actually I have another question, (It was probably answered, I just didn't notice) was Karl Marx a Libertarian Socialist?

Leftcoms would say that a libertarian/authoritarian division is a sign of idiocy, especially since ultraleftism encompasses both Bordiga and Pannekoek

...

for real who is she tho

Engels was a proto-SJW and deserves to be disregarded.

Just when I thought "SJW" had lost any sort of relevant meaning and couldn't get any worse of a buzzword…

Don't worry user, one day Leftcoms and Ancoms will rise above the murk and create our Communization Utopias, hand in hand, away from the Keynesian/Leninist Leftwing of Capital.

Literally get the fuck off my board you faggot.

No.
They arent inherently libertarian or authoritarian.
Only the fairly libertarian models are worth supporting, of course.

How do we get there?

Unjustified authority will always exist under a class system.
/Thread

We are largely already there. Not in every respect, but in the important ones, we already live in a post-scarcity society

We have more homeless people than we do empty houses. We waste massive proportions of our food. We give away medicines to the third world.

alcohol is getting to my brain.

We have more empty houses than we do homeless people. sheesh

Wait so was Marx considered to be a libertarian socialist? If not why?

its possible. he did define communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society. And the dictatorship of the proletariat wasn't inherently a fascist thing either. Marxist-Leninism was an "advancement" of Marxists thought

Oh. Ignoring the other dots, which would you say is a more accurate depiction of where you think Marxism would stand? There are many different compasses showing it in many different places

maybe a little further up, but its really subjective. I think a lot of the confusion arises from the fact that Marx wasn't very specific, which left a lot of room for interpretation

Though I do think he'd be a little further up on the Authoritarian scale. He did argue with more traditional anarchists, such as Bakunin, alot. However, I'd wait until a Leftcom comes around and answers this more solidly than I can. Those guys tend to have a much better understanding of Marx than I do.

But you definitely wouldn't put it in the top box?

according to this I'm Trotsky.

Traditional Marxism? I don't think so. Later iterations, such as Marxist-Leninism or Stalinism? Most certainly

I think traditional Marxism might stratify the area right around the center of the Authoritarian-Anarchist axis.

There is nothing about communism and marxism that are inherently authoritarian, but all violent revolution will always have an authoritarian element. Too much bad blood gets built up in the process, there are bound to be some excesses after.

Hell there hasn't even been any violence yet and there are numerous liberal pundits who I unironically want to see murdered.


Maybe in the periphery most Marxists in the first world are absolutely not MLs.


Marx said revolutionary terror was justified iirc.

I'm Washington :-)


Ok thanks heaps


Sorry, but there is no way that a communist regime will take over in the west in the next 100 years

A lot can happen in 100 years, and capitalism isn't getting any better.

Capitalism loves crisis.

Unlike communism, even if capitalist regimes get dismantled, smaller capitalist regimes will pop up and replace it while telling about how the past capitalist regimes were wrong.

Marxism=/=Marxism-Leninism (aka stalinim)