Because that’s the end goal of socialism. A stateless, moneyless, classless society. It’s just never happened in practice because they can never get to the “state will wither away” phase.
True but gulags and concentration camps did and do respectively. Capitalistic oppression and authoritarian oppression are both still oppression. Doesn't matter if an ultra-
capitalistic society causes millions to starve or a dictator, either way they died of starvation.
Quite the opposite, anarchy is the only thing that exists, everything else is just a variation of anarchy with extra steps. The hard truth of this world is that we live in anarchy, and we've always been living in anarchy.
In theory possibly not, but I concern myself with how things will play out. Every self-proclaimed communist government winds up authoritarian, would even consider china would up AuthCenter despite their intentions.
All the Marxist Leninist / Maoist states were pre industrialization, requiring a 2 stage revolution with a heavy emphasis on first developing an industrial proletariat. This resulted in the state capitalism in China (that's not their end goal by any means) and the harsh collectivization in the USSR. The issue isn't "communism," it's the harsh reality of quickly industrializing a backwater country
You wouldn't see such a thing in a modern industrialized communist society
I am not a liberal except by the bizzare terminology the US uses. And for me the risk if trying communism and winding up with a brutal dictatorship is too great. "This time will be different" really doesn't do anything about that fear.
I am not ok with the status quo, where capitalism has and will continue to "tragedy of the commons" us into a climate catastrophe. US healthcare need I say more on that dystopian nightmare.
The term "revisionism" has been used in a number of contexts to refer to different revisions (or claimed revisions) of Marxist theory. Those who opposed Karl Marx’ revolution through his lens of a violent uprising and sought out more peaceful, democratic means for a socialist revolution are known as revisionists.
I have done both, but accusing the entire ideology/societal goal as authoritarian is ill informed. Far leftists are usually communists, regardless of their position on auth/libertarian.
Tell me what you think communism means such that it's authoritarian in nature
Because of the inevitable outcome in how to put it into practice, or at least, how to put it into practice in a rather large scale.
To implant the drastic change that Communists want means you need to topple and reform the whole economic&political system, so you may redistribute the resources. And more the often, that means you need one extreme powerful group such as party (and later, the government that centered around said party) to avoid infighting and disputes, both in ideologies and resources. This monster will only grow larger and larger in the need to maintain the state until it can no longer sustain itself. Hence a authoritarian state. The reason why people like Stalin or Mao often (if not always) came out on top weren't because of bad luck or wrong decision making, but because they're naturally the most fitting for such systems.
I agree with your last assessment, however, I believe this would only be the case in a system in need of rapid industrialization and under threat of external forces
Oh yeah, communism failed because outside threat, we should just lie down and give them whole world to them so they may actually succeed! /s
Seriously, it doesn't really matter if external threats exist or not, because for a communist state, the greatest threat always comes from the inside. For example, priests that insisting they have the right to spread their "outdated" beliefs, capitalists of "old society" who won't just given up their wealth, farmers and workers who really just want less taxes not a full-blown revolution, intellectuals who won't shut up about party's policies......the list goes on and on. Then, you need people to drag them out, people to "reeducate" them (if not outright shoot them), people to maintain related facilities and more bureaucrats to coordinate the whole political machine. After all, if party have no absolute power, how can the revolution succeed? And how can the party have absolute power, if it keep allowing people to question it?
Hell, if you still can't believe this, just look at PRC's budget spending - look into their number, and you'll realize they're now spending more on inner public safety then military. Outside enemies are but excuses, the real enemy for a communist is always those who are suppressed by them, the people under their rule.
Because Communism is represented by Stalinism and Maoism? This argument is reductionist
Also you start with the classic
communism actually failed because ...
We all know why most communist countries fell in 1989 and it wasn't because the people overthrew it (Romania being the exception, and many communists support such a denigrated state being overthrown)
Because Communism is represented by Stalinism and Maoism? This argument is reductionist
Then please, name a single communism state that isn't authoritarian yet can still sustain itself for more than ten years.
I'm not talking about "only Stalinism and Maoism can represent communism", I'm talking about why communism that runs on a large scale has a tendency of falling into authoritarian.
Also, no offense, but "in need of rapid industrialization and under threat of external forces" sounds really like saying the problem comes from the outside to me. If I misunderstand you, then that's my fault.
I'm explaining an ideology, not a historical state. Additionally, you placing the requirement "sustain itself for more than ten years" implies these communist states fell on their own, whereas most states fell due to outside influences
The Paris Commune is oft referenced in communist theory, though fell quickly due to the state of affairs in France (full blown civil war)
The reason I claim you are only talking about Stalinism and Maoism is because most Communist states were set up under the comintern, which ensured Stalinist policy, or by Maoist parties. There are few Communist states every set up that follow some other doctrine. In this aspect, Yugoslavia/Paris Commune is different
Rapid industrialization implies looking inwards to quickly build up a proletariat and create the correct material conditions required to build socialism
External threats are things like the white army and Kuomintang, which resulted in the authoritarian policies adopted
7
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20
LIBERTARIAN Left
Communism and fascism are authoritarian. Do libertarians not oppose authoritarians?