What is the answer to the Civil Liberties Question when it comes to the early stages of the socialist revolution...

What is the answer to the Civil Liberties Question when it comes to the early stages of the socialist revolution? What I'm most concerned about, especially if it's a Marxist-led revolution, is the possible suspension of civil liberties during such a chaotic time (e.g. Russian Civil War).

Marxists can say that suppressing the bourgeoisie and the capitalist oppressors is inherently authoritarian all they like, but the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be led by the popular masses in a direct democratic fashion, isn't it? They shouldn't have to give up free discussion, camaraderie and solidarity when they face opposition from all sides, at least when it comes to governance.

they will put it in your pooper and send you to the gulag

It's necessary evil tbh fam

We can't let those counter-reactionaries get away with it.

Well are you allowed to openly agitate for communism under capitalism?
The answer is no.

i agree

You are aware that this involves actually doing shit, don't you?

Why does it make you worried only if it's 'marxist led' ? Why do you think anarchists are exempt from your concerns?

They are probably a sectarian anarchist babby or perhaps a bookchinite socdem.

you are aware that the armchair meme is only a meme that only redditors take seriously?

I said "especially", not "only"

I'm not anti-Marxist, I actually like Marxism; it's just that we disagree on the topic of the state


this is not even true in a majority of cases

Here's my proposed solution for sectarianism between state socialists and anarchists. Let the statists run the military (monopoly on violence for external use) and let the anarchists run everything internally. The state (just the military) will wither away once there's no capitalism left to defend against/conquer. As the ML front spreads and converts outside lands into inside lands (going under the control of the anarchists), the internal land area quickly outpaces the borderlands (order n vs. n^2) so that if the MLs try to fight off the anarchists they'll be fighting on two fronts and outnumbered.

Meanwhile the anarkiddies get to try out our various programs internally so we can evaluate which ones work the best and propagate those versions.

Tankie coup 1…2…3.

Seriously, anarchists are weak soyboys and will get their pencil necks broken by hard tankies.

Hard with a State, harder without one. It's a tough nut to crack.

The only two possible ways tto avoid that I can see are either:

Make sure the revolutionary body that will birth the government is as democratic and libertarian as possible, and just as importantly, it's resilient to a takeover or power concentration. The Bolshevik party used to be extremely democratic, they wouldn't even fart without debating and voting, but it was still hierarchical; it still operated, shall we say, in a pre-communist mindset, and Stalin took advantage of that to erode that intra-party democracy. Perhaps this was inevitable because of the very nature of the revolutionary body as a party; after all, under Stalin, the Bolshevik party did what all parties seek to do: hold onto power at any costs. Of course, the unmitigated faggotry of the other parties helped make the one-party State inevitable, but still. Regardless, maybe the revolutionary body must be something other than a party to avoid the Bolshevik pitfalls.

Or conduct a revolution in the usual way, via a revolutionary mass or vanguard party, making sure the leader is absolutely incorruptible. Lenin fit the mold, yet he still created the skeleton of an authoritarian State, but he did so out of genuine belief they were the only options they had to keep the only socialist State standing, and frankly, I think he was right. Russia was in a really bad state. Now, if the leader is incorruptible, he should dismantle these authoritarian structures when no longer needed, but as we know, Lenin's health failed him and we never go to see if he would follow through – I personally think he would, but of course, it's impossible to know. And even if he did live on, you know how these things go, the authoritarian things tend to be too damn persistent. Regardless, needless to say, this option is extremely far-fetched and conditional, and can't be relied on at all.

So Im familiar with the vanguard and all that but could the power be split between two leaders maybe?

That's untrue and even if it was you shouldn't hold yourself to the standards of your oppressors.

It's not hard with a state and harder without, it's literally impossible with a state. The nature of a state is inherently authoritarian and hierarchical and it cannot whither away. The character and nature of its leaders is irrelevant, since either they're opportunists who just want the muh privileges state power gives them and as such will never want to give it up, or they'll be true believers who believe they must rule the people for their own good and only they know the right way things should be done. You're always going to get Stalins and never Kropotkins because Stalins are they ones who want to rule while Kropotkins are the ones who won't. Even if you find the rare capable, benevolent dictator they'll eventually die and will leave behind an oppressive, revolutionary-incapable system behind, just as history shows.

Okay, I was writing an answer, it got too long and now I have to head to bed. I'll finish it tomorrow, along with a reply to

As far as I know, co-rulership – official, legal co-rulership, that is – was very rare. Rome provides the most examples by far and, come to think of it, had a fairly good track record.

Few people know that the Roman Republic, save for the occasional dictator, had shared rule, usually 2 for 1 year terms, with military power alternating between the 2 every month. Of course, one might in practice have more power than the other, but for the most part, it worked well since the republic lasted a fair 500 years.

The thing is, I can't judge if this relative stability of the system was because a) checks and balances successfully prevented concentration of power (the Senate mostly, also various powers were delegated to other positions), b) Rome had a strong "civil society", if such a term applies then, that would keep the system going on regardless of ruler mismanagement (a parallel it shares with the USA) or c) because of pure republican spirit e.g. Cincinnatus. We talk about materialism and spooks and all but this republican spirit can't be underestimated, seeing as somehow it took 500 years for one of the dictators to finally coup the system. Consulship continued to exist in the Empire but was mostly a bureaucratic and symbolic role.

Of course, this Roman stability wasn't stable at all by modern standards. Risk of invasions and political intrigue were commonplace, and famously, Rome was at an almost continuous state of external war. But curiously, actual civil wars were relegated to the fifth, last century of the Republic, during which they were constant. I don't know enough of roman history to tell you the details, but I'm guessing that people must have by now studied this sudden shift to look for valuable political lessons.

So yeah, I guess co-rulership is viable, but whether it can be applied universally or Rome was a special case is up for debate.

I'll further discuss this tomorrow.

Why is this an issue at all? Everyone gets state-sponsored bread box. They get as much water as can be drank by a 180 pound man doing moderate labor. 300 currencies to buy racecar, rocketship and condom. It is very simple. Other liberties are up for debate at National Communist Convention. Convention is postponed.

Read State and Revolution, touches on this much better than I or anyone else here can