I do imagine we have different views of what authoritarian means but no I am not shy. The state is a tool of class oppression and is by necessity an authoritarian institution. It is authority wielded by one class over another. I believe that a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve the desired classless, stateless, moneyless society that is communism. In this way I am an “authoritarian” because I do not believe the state can be abolished in its entirety and immediately without the movement being summarily crushed by counterrevolution.
In my view we already live under authoritarian institutions, giving the reigns of those institutions to the working class is far better than leaving them in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
I agree with everything that you wrote, except this:
a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve [communism]
I do not believe a transitional state is necessary, in fact I believe it is counter-revolutionary, but I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect your beliefs.
I think the militant revolution approach is entirely wrong to begin with. The revolution needs to be able to defend itself of course, but I believe violence and authoritarian tendencies need to be tools of last resort, not our opening move.
I believe that societies are living things, and the conditions surrounding societies as they are growing up go on to shape what life will be like as that society reaches maturity.
If we want a classless, moneyless, stateless society, we should start the way we intend to go on. I don’t think we can impose freedom. It needs to grow naturally in an environment that nurtures it. This is why I advocate for a social revolution.
I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class.
This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I’m wrong)
I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here.
I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism.
I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I’m not an ML, but I’m not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it’s the archetypical auth-left position.
The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it.
The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality.
I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here.
The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others.
Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class.
I do imagine we have different views of what authoritarian means but no I am not shy. The state is a tool of class oppression and is by necessity an authoritarian institution. It is authority wielded by one class over another. I believe that a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve the desired classless, stateless, moneyless society that is communism. In this way I am an “authoritarian” because I do not believe the state can be abolished in its entirety and immediately without the movement being summarily crushed by counterrevolution.
In my view we already live under authoritarian institutions, giving the reigns of those institutions to the working class is far better than leaving them in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
I agree with everything that you wrote, except this:
I do not believe a transitional state is necessary, in fact I believe it is counter-revolutionary, but I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect your beliefs.
I think the militant revolution approach is entirely wrong to begin with. The revolution needs to be able to defend itself of course, but I believe violence and authoritarian tendencies need to be tools of last resort, not our opening move.
I believe that societies are living things, and the conditions surrounding societies as they are growing up go on to shape what life will be like as that society reaches maturity.
If we want a classless, moneyless, stateless society, we should start the way we intend to go on. I don’t think we can impose freedom. It needs to grow naturally in an environment that nurtures it. This is why I advocate for a social revolution.
Violence is, in fact, the last resort. Everything nonviolent has already been tried, many times, and didn’t work.
Nonviolence example: Libya: no nukes. Liberals enslaved and murdered them.
Violence example: Korea: has nukes. Korea is still free.
I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class.
This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I’m wrong)
I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here.
I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism.
I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I’m not an ML, but I’m not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it’s the archetypical auth-left position.
The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it.
The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality.
The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others.
Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class.
Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it’s just Common Sense